I don't really have any strong feeling about it one way or the other. If thirty people want to be married together maybe they just need to structure a contract themselves. I don't think the government needs to get involved to accommodate them. But I have no problem with people getting together the way they like. I just don't think there is all that much interest and therefore not much reason to worry about it.

(July 8, 2015 at 10:19 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote: Honestly, at this point, I don't see much of a point in codifying marriage at all. It's pretty much based on a fundamentally patriarchal view of women, and, now that we're moving away from that, what's really left? Essentially a commitment for two people to stay together no matter what (or at least until they realise they aren't suited to each other).

And what is the point in formalising that, let alone having the government need to recognise that?

Of course, that said, having more than two people, one starts to get in-groups and out-groups, which really makes everything a lot more complicated than it should be.

If we want to follow this view then I think abolishing marriage would fix the issue.



What do I think? I think marriage is an institution like any other - Regulated and created by law - That strategically allows benefits but also imposes duties for consenting parties and is therefore useful in our society  (At least it seems to be, but I wonder if it would be that bad if we abolished it).

As it happens, I think anyone being able to financially benefit from being married is stupid. Really stupid and unfair. I'm not talking about sharing money, that is fine, I'm talking about benefits and tax breaks etc.

You'll need to speak to the govt about that.
I don't believe that's why the vast majority get married!

Except maybe Mariah! hehe

I would hope that's at least a secondary consideration, yeah! I'm not sure where we stand in England, I think we may not have tax breaks. Not sure. People keep wanting to bring it back for some reason.

My marriage certainly had nothing to do with that, we don't even get enough money to be taxed.

(July 8, 2015 at 9:25 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Whether the unions be between 1 men and multiple women, 1 women and multiple men, multiple men, or multiple women, should unions between more than 2 people be recognized by the government as marriage?

I'm monogamous and I don't like sharing My Prrrrecioussss with someone else, so even if the authority recognized polygamy, I would never recognize it.

My 2 cents.

If we're simply talking about what the law should state on marriage, then obviously I'm of the view that any 2 consenting adults should be able to do whatever the frick they like (within reason, I wouldn't support one man making a stew out of another). If they want to stick it in each others bums or scissor 'til the cows come home, what does it really matter?

To be perfectly honest polyamourous relationships do seem weird to me. But if 3 or more people say they love each other and want to get married together who am I to judge? The only issue I have with it, is I can see potential instances where government benefits/provisions/rights as a result from being married in such a polyamourous relationship, might not necessarily be fair for everyone else who is married, for much the same reasons to what SteelCurtain mentioned on page 1.

In terms of the government dealing with it, it would probably be a lot more of a pain in the ass to work out divorces, property rights, mortality decisions and I'm sure many other scenarios which marriage impacts, with 3 or more people in a marriage.

However if it can be worked out (I don't really know, so that's why I have somewhat of a reservation on it), and polyamourous marriages can be granted in such a way that it doesn't give them any more or any less rights than anyone else who is married, then I'm all for it.

(July 8, 2015 at 9:25 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: So the question is this:

Whether the unions be between 1 men and multiple women, 1 women and multiple men, multiple men, or multiple women, should unions between more than 2 people be recognized by the government as marriage?

Why or why not?

Thanks!

As long as adults enter in a consensual relationship, they should obtain certain privileges. The keyword are always adult and consensual. And I don't care if you call these relationships marriage or by any other name.

As many have stated, marriage is a legal contract that provides many benefits for a couple and also provide certain rights during a divorce. If someway could be found to make the property division during a divorce less messy for a polyamorous group, I could get behind it. There would have to be a lot of discussion as to how custody of children would be treated when such unions dissolved. What if the person that the child bonds most closely with isn't their biological parent? Would that parent have as much rights to the child as the biological mom and dad?

We also need to discuss what consent means. If a woman is told all her life that getting married to a man with multiple wives will save her from an eternity of torment can she really give consent to enter into such an arrangement? How is her consent different than a person who hands over their wallet to someone holding a gun to their head?