PolygamyFollow

Want me to tell you how it ended...?

I don't think it is people being unenlightened, so much as, while true polyamorous relationships do exist and work for those couples(are they called couples?) I don't think they are as well reported on as the unlawful polygamists. What the general public tends to hear about are men who have multiple families living in different cities and states and typically the families know nothing about each other.

You also have the situations where men from certain religious sects take on multiple wives. The women are brought up to believe this is fine and dandy, but how truly happy are they that they have to share their husband? When a lot of these women speak out later on, you find out they weren't so happy.

The one ongoing theme, I see here, is it is men who generally take on multiple wives. If you asked a woman, do you think it would make her happier to bring another female to help meet her needs or another man? I am sure there are some situations out there, like open relationships, where woman have multiple partners/husbands/whatnot, but I don't think it is as common.

I also agree that the legal issues that revolve around polygamy are to keep the abuse and the claim disputes should a separation occur, at bay.

Technically it is bigamy, and I totally understand what you meant by it. I was just trying to explain why people were unenlightened about polyamory/polygamy. It is not commonly discussed in our monogamous world (other than being evil and bad).

It's usually charged as bigamy.

Dirty sinful polygamists don't deserve your money.

Perhaps if multiple wives were socially acceptable, multiple husbands might too. I know that's a pretty crazy idea, but there it is.

Makes me wonder how well it would even work. As much as many women wouldn't want to share a husband, I still imagine they'd do a better job at it then the guys would at sharing a spouse.

I'm quoting you anyway!

To me, marriage isn't about tax breaks and other benefits. Legalized/licensed marriage, from the state's perspective, is about simplifying questions about child support and responsibility when/if two people produce offspring. Since the state will get dragged into any sort of legal dispute involving these things, it has a vested interest in this. The tax breaks and benefits are designed to encourage those who might produce offspring to into into the legal/licensed status so as to codify that relationship legally and make those issues easier to resolve (and decrease the likelihood they'll come up at all).

The purpose of marriage is not to provide those benefits, but to get as many people who might produce children to do so in a legally binding state of marriage. The benefits offered by the government in return for entering into that legal status are the means to achieve that end, not the end itself. Kind of an important distinction. And one that is relevant to the polygamy discussion.



Polygamy in the most common sense (one man with multiple wives) generally doesn't violate that objective. It's why that form of marriage has been relatively common throughout history. However, it does complicate things more than a simple one-man one-woman arrangement. Also, historically, it places the women and offspring in relatively greater harm if the man dies or abandons them for some reason.


In todays world? I think Polygamy should be more accepted than it is. Obviously, I'm not talking about the whole "force your followers to marry their teen daughters to you" approach, but the general idea of having multiple spouses does have some benefits. One of the major economic hurdles in todays world is that you almost do need two incomes to support a family these days. Many married couples have to face the choice of both working to make enough money and not spending as much time with their children, or sacrificing one salary so that one of them may be a stay at home mom/dad. If a man had two wives, two of them could work while one stayed home full time. In theory, it's a pretty decent idea.


The problem of complexity still arises though, which is likely why it's still opposed. Divorce gets that much messier, doubly so since one of the three people will have no biological connection to each child the marriage produces. Trying to do this with multiple husbands is even more complex, since then you can't be sure who the father is without tests. Something the state doesn't want to have to deal with (right now anyway).

Polygamy is still opposed for that legal complexity issue (and certainly some social ideals reflecting common religious beliefs), but IMO it is a far more reasonable change to our marriage laws than SSM. It's far less of a step and doesn't require basically chucking out everything that most people think marriage is about.

Oh FFS, this debate again?

Spread your random guesses to someone who hasn't been there.


Ummmm... what? I've never once mentioned child support in regards to polygamy. Either learn to read, learn to stop making shit up or maybe even both.

I can't believe you all don't know the answer...

For every person you sleep with, you have "slept" with their partners as well. Marriage is the same way. If a man has two wives, then that means the two women are also married and SSM IS BAD. Therefore, polygamy is banned.

...he said with complete ignorance to people who've actually been there.

Well that's obviously a sexist show, no pregnant men...