Your views on MARRIAGE

[Pyrrho]

...
Safe sex is good, but again, this has more to do with reckless promiscuity than it does with poly stuff; a group of any size who are clean and fluid bonded has the same risk of STDs as any couple.
...

The thing is, all it takes is one partner to cheat and you now have a risk of STDs.  Right now, I only have to trust my wife, and she only has to trust me.  But if there were a third person, we would each have two people to worry about cheating, and if there were a fourth person, we would all have three people to worry about cheating, etc.

The upshot is, one would have an increased risk of getting STDs if one had multiple spouses.

Just to be clear, I am not saying that this means that polygamy ought to be illegal, as it would be the same whether the group is married or not.  I am just pointing out the fact that, in practice, one is taking a greater risk when there is a larger group of people with whom one is having sex.

[Mr.wizard]

...
Safe sex is good, but again, this has more to do with reckless promiscuity than it does with poly stuff; a group of any size who are clean and fluid bonded has the same risk of STDs as any couple.
...

The thing is, all it takes is one partner to cheat and you now have a risk of STDs.  Right now, I only have to trust my wife, and she only has to trust me.  But if there were a third person, we would each have two people to worry about cheating, and if there were a fourth person, we would all have three people to worry about cheating, etc.

The upshot is, one would have an increased risk of getting STDs if one had multiple spouses.

Just to be clear, I am not saying that this means that polygamy ought to be illegal, as it would be the same whether the group is married or not.  I am just pointing out the fact that, in practice, one is taking a greater risk when there is a larger group of people with whom one is having sex.

Why does one cheating spouse out of ten put you at more of a risk then one cheating spouse out of one?

[pocaracas]

The thing is, all it takes is one partner to cheat and you now have a risk of STDs.  Right now, I only have to trust my wife, and she only has to trust me.  But if there were a third person, we would each have two people to worry about cheating, and if there were a fourth person, we would all have three people to worry about cheating, etc.

The upshot is, one would have an increased risk of getting STDs if one had multiple spouses.

Just to be clear, I am not saying that this means that polygamy ought to be illegal, as it would be the same whether the group is married or not.  I am just pointing out the fact that, in practice, one is taking a greater risk when there is a larger group of people with whom one is having sex.

Why does one cheating spouse out of ten put you at more of a risk then one cheating spouse out of one?

In 10 spouses, odds are higher that one of them will cheat you than with just one spouse.
If 10% of all people cheat, then, if you have 10 spouses, one of them is 100% likely to cheat, statistically speaking.
But if you only have 1 spouse, you have a 10% chance of having a cheating spouse.

[Dystopia]

I am satisfied with the fact it would legally complicate immensely how to deal with marriage and those who violate the contract's rules - It is already hard to regulate a marriage between two people, let alone between three or four - Whether people like it or not, culture affects the law and society's values determine what's legal or not. In Muslim societies it makes sense for people to get married with more than one person, because it's how it works and they like it - But you can't forget that legal systems in Muslim countries are different from the CommonLaw and the Legal/civil system.

As I said before, for Commonlaw systems it might be easier - I am used with working with the legal system highly influenced by Roman Law, and one of the predominant aspects is the overwhelming (and sometimes excessive) codification, so everything is mostly decided according to what's on the law and not by legal precedents and jurisprudence - Most things are detailed in the law and the law is influenced by the culture you live in. A society that values family very highly will have strong family laws that allow for greater bonds and keeping more patrimonial assets, a society that values bodily autonomy highly probably allows for the consumption of at least some light drugs - The list goes on. There is no compelling reason to legalize poligamy other than "it makes people who want it happy", and marriage isn't about happiness - The number of divorces disproves that actually. Gay marriage is different because we are fundamentally discriminating against someone because they have a different sexual orientation, but nothing else changes legally and if gay people have biological kids trough technology or adopt, the law is exactly the same - Institutions can be changed, but when they are changed to the degree it can mean anything and it becomes indistinguishable from other contracts, then it's not worth keeping.

[Pyrrho]

Marriage is a legal contract.  If one wants the contract, then it makes sense to get married.  If one does not want the contract, then it does not.

If anyone is unsure whether they want such a contract or not, I recommend not getting married until and unless one is reasonably certain one wants it.

Yes, but.  Beware of "Palimony."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palimony

Palimony is the division of financial assets and real property on the termination of a personal live-in relationship wherein the parties are not legally married. The term "palimony" is not a legal or historical term, but rather a colloquial portmanteau of the words pal and alimony coined by celebrity divorce attorney Marvin Mitchelson in 1977 when his client Michelle Triola Marvin filed an unsuccessful suit against the actor Lee Marvin

Yes.  Not getting married does not guarantee a trouble-free life.  However, in that particular case, Lee Marvin won and did not have to pay her, according to the rest of the Wikipedia article.  Still, it was a hassle for him, and could have easily been avoided if he had not lived with her.  He is lucky that California had abolished common law marriages long ago.  But not all states have abolished it, so one should look into that before moving in together or one might end up married anyway.  And that is likely to be very inconvenient, as one may be married without having documentation showing one is married, so that one is likely to get screwed both by some people not recognizing the common law marriage when it would be good for you, and by recognizing it when it would be bad for you.

[Catholic_Lady]

Some interesting points are being made here. Keep it up, guys!

[Pyrrho]

The thing is, all it takes is one partner to cheat and you now have a risk of STDs.  Right now, I only have to trust my wife, and she only has to trust me.  But if there were a third person, we would each have two people to worry about cheating, and if there were a fourth person, we would all have three people to worry about cheating, etc.

The upshot is, one would have an increased risk of getting STDs if one had multiple spouses.

Just to be clear, I am not saying that this means that polygamy ought to be illegal, as it would be the same whether the group is married or not.  I am just pointing out the fact that, in practice, one is taking a greater risk when there is a larger group of people with whom one is having sex.

Why does one cheating spouse out of ten put you at more of a risk then one cheating spouse out of one?

If you have more spouses, it is more likely that one of them will cheat on you than if you only have one spouse.  

If you have one spouse, if that one is trustworthy, you have no worries.  But if you marry yet another person, that person must ALSO be trustworthy, or you are at risk of STDs.  And if you marry yet another person, that person must ALSO be trustworthy, or you are at risk of STDs.

Basically, all it takes is one person to bring STDs into the relationship.  So if there are two people in it, there only need to be two trustworthy people.  If there are 10 people in it, ALL 10 must be trustworthy or ALL of you are at risk of STDs.

[Mr.wizard]

Why does one cheating spouse out of ten put you at more of a risk then one cheating spouse out of one?

If you have more spouses, it is more likely that one of them will cheat on you than if you only have one spouse.  

If you have one spouse, if that one is trustworthy, you have no worries.  But if you marry yet another person, that person must ALSO be trustworthy, or you are at risk of STDs.  And if you marry yet another person, that person must ALSO be trustworthy, or you are at risk of STDs.

Basically, all it takes is one person to bring STDs into the relationship.  So if there are two people in it, there only need to be two trustworthy people.  If there are 10 people in it, ALL 10 must be trustworthy or ALL of you are at risk of STDs.

The risk of you getting an std, if one out of ten cheats, is the same as if one out of one cheats. The other nine in the equation do not add to the risk pool if they are faithful. I see your point if 2 or more are cheating because now you would have two cheating partners as opposed to one.

[Catholic_Lady]

If you have more spouses, it is more likely that one of them will cheat on you than if you only have one spouse.  

If you have one spouse, if that one is trustworthy, you have no worries.  But if you marry yet another person, that person must ALSO be trustworthy, or you are at risk of STDs.  And if you marry yet another person, that person must ALSO be trustworthy, or you are at risk of STDs.

Basically, all it takes is one person to bring STDs into the relationship.  So if there are two people in it, there only need to be two trustworthy people.  If there are 10 people in it, ALL 10 must be trustworthy or ALL of you are at risk of STDs.

The risk of you getting an std, if one out of ten cheats, is the same as if one out of one cheats. The other nine in the equation do not add to the risk pool if they are faithful. I see your point if 2 or more are cheating because now you would have two cheating partners as opposed to one.

But it would increase the rate of STDs overall. If you got an STD and you were sexually active with 6 other people on a regular basis, there is a big chance all 7 of you will eventually get infected. If you were married to just one person, only 2 people will contract STDs as opposed to 7. Monogamy decreases the spread of STDs. Let's keep the STD rates down!

[ignoramus]

CL, are you sure you're not writing a thesis and using us to get your answers!
Now, that's just cheating! That would explain all the questions!
Especially the one about the public dunnies!