Do you support the legalisation of polyagmy and polyandry

[kılıç_mehmet]

Two women agreeing with me and each other to constantly get me in between a titty sandwich every night? I can see the benefits.

Seriously, if all parties involved agree to it, go to it. But no further tax benefits should be allowed to them beyond what normal married couples would get.

Well, that's the only thing you'll ever agree on, friend. Obviously the sating of your carnal desires does not constitute a real marriage.
Besides, how do you hope to actually feed and clothe them all, and feed and clothe the children that you might get from them?
Polygamy is a zero-sum game, if you do not live in a society where this type of marriage is the norm.

I don't think it should be illegal, unless of course there are consequences of which I am not aware. The thing I don't get is why women would want to be in a polygamous relationship(I understand why an egotistical male would). Marriage should be about the parties involved having equal say and involvement in the relationship, and I don't see how that is possible with a polygamous marriage.

They don't. I can tell you from personal experience that women do not wish to be involved in such a "marriage". Therefore it's usually done by forcing the old wife into accepting the new wife. Even if you don't force her, she simply accepts, as she can't really do anything else if she refuses.
Similarly, a woman who is afraid of losing her husband might consent to it without approving it.

Do governments have any right to dictate what consenting adults can do with their private lives? No.

Marriage is a public affair. I would certainly not care if a man had a wife, and a mistress on the top of that wife, and they casually get together to have fun, if they are into that sort of thing, but marriage is certainly something beyond than just having sex, isn't it? It's about being able to live together, and being able to raise a family together.
Today's standards in the modern world are in conjunction with monogamous marriage. Polygamy may exist outside of marriage, and even there, many people would disagree with such a thing.

[toro]

1-How is a single person going to include fairness into this relationship? Say, I have a wife, and she gets old, and I take up a new, younger wife. I suddenly stop showing attention to my old wife and start sleeping with my new one all week long.
Obviously, the point of such marriages are nothing but the animalistic suppression of carnal desires, and have nothing to do with commitment.

What will stop it? The same thing stopping a person that loses interest in his/her older spouse in favor of younger, more "attractive" people and divorcing them. If we make divorce illegal, they won't divorce, but separate and cheat. If we make cheating illegal we are now legislating private behavior.

2-The children that are born from different mothers will obviously be in great confusion regarding the world around them, especially in places where monogamy has been traditionally practiced.

Just as you previously claimed children of a multi-racial/multi-ethnic family would? Or of a marriage between parents of the same sex? Or of parents of differing political/philosophical/religious views?

Study after study shows that children that are treated properly and cared for (without introducing sexual contact with adults) will grow up and be well adjusted towards others. The only "flaws" they may have is having a general predisposition towards accepting the behavior and views of the family they grew up in. So, in short: no, they won't.

3-Another obvious flaw is that such marriages tend to be emotionally abusive towards the partners who are amongst the multitude. Like I said, many marriages break apart due to a side claiming that he/she is not shown enough attention by his/her partner, how is a marriage based on a single-multiple partnership going to survive other than by force?

That's a good point. I'm sure any correlation between the fact that most if not all of such marriages tend to occur in highly religious and intolerant communities that also have a tendencies to have much higher rates of physically and emotionally abusive relationships and poor rates of sexual equality in single partner marriages is just coincidence. Right?

Only in primitive societies where women are seen as belongings, this type of marriage is still prevalent, and these are generally women who have been forced into accepting a second or more wives, to share their men with.
How is this going to work on the basis of "mutual consent"? Obviously, one or multiple partners will have to suffer emotional abuse if such a "marriage" is to be continued, for I really wonder how many people are willing to share their men, or women. But they would have to cope with it if they are forced into it, yes? That is it. Polygamy rests on the shoulders of inequality and abuse. It has been so for many years.

You seem to be focusing on the correlation between the social pressures of the societies and the prevalence of such marriages while ignoring the correlation between such societies and other behaviors. As result, you are assigning a causative relationship between the two when the causative relationship is likely due to the factors you are ignoring.

IMHO, the reason the prevalence decreases in more tolerant societies is simply because it is much harder to have such stable relationships. Not because the relationships themselves are bad. In recognizing this, people tend not to want to have them, and for this reason they don't form them. This is also ignoring the great legal difficulties in a multi-partner marriage. I'm sure they were initially outlawed for the same reason as #3: people associated the relationship with the society they didn't like.

Difficulty should not be a reason to outlaw things though. Otherwise, maybe we should outlaw multiple child families. I mean, what's to stop parents from having a new baby once they get bored with their 12 year old and giving them all the attention?

Personally, if that's what people want to do, go for it and enjoy yourselves for whatever reason you want: more family income, bigger dinners, more Xmas presents, more interesting sex... Whatever.

[Tiberius]

Marriage is a public affair. I would certainly not care if a man had a wife, and a mistress on the top of that wife, and they casually get together to have fun, if they are into that sort of thing, but marriage is certainly something beyond than just having sex, isn't it? It's about being able to live together, and being able to raise a family together.

You know I disagree with you on this. Marriage is as public as the people involved want to make it. It can be an incredibly private affair. I agree that marriage is about something more than just having sex, but there are plenty of polygamous people who spend time together as a group and rarely have sex as one. Indeed, marriage is about living together, but plenty of polygamous people do that just fine. I've already debunked your claim that marriage is about raising a family together: infertile and elderly couples can marry just fine. Not to mention, even if marriage was about that, there are no disadvantages to a child raised in a family consisting of more than two "parents".

[Polaris]

I think it is hypocritical to say that one does not support the traditional Christian idea of marriage in their support of homosexuality yet support the Christian/late Ancient Jewish view of monogamous marriage.

I would treat it as I do with homosexual marriages, I neither support it nor oppose it because it is not my place to do either.

[Anomalocaris]

I think it is hypocritical to say that one does not support the traditional Christian idea of marriage in their support of homosexuality yet support the Christian/late Ancient Jewish view of monogamous marriage.

I would treat it as I do with homosexual marriages, I neither support it nor oppose it because it is not my place to do either.

Since when is monogamous marriage a christian thing? Romans who were supposedly setting "martyrs" on fire for lighting purposes were legally monogamous long before the "savior" supposedly passed out the virginal birth canal. It is funny how christianity, having contributed nothing to humanity, thuggishly attempts to justify its own existence by laying claiming everyone else's work asif they were its own unique contritbution.

[Polaris]

I think it is hypocritical to say that one does not support the traditional Christian idea of marriage in their support of homosexuality yet support the Christian/late Ancient Jewish view of monogamous marriage.

I would treat it as I do with homosexual marriages, I neither support it nor oppose it because it is not my place to do either.

Since when is monogamous marriage a christian thing? Romans who were supposedly setting "martyrs" on fire for lighting purposes were legally monogamous long before the "savior" supposedly passed out the virginal birth canal. It is funny how christianity, having contributed nothing to humanity, thuggishly attempts to justify its own existence by laying claiming everyone else's work asif they were its own unique contritbution.

Having a wife and then concubines does not count as monogamy.

[genkaus]

With all the discussion of legally recognizing same sex marriages, I feel in my opinion the legal recognition of multiple partner marriages will be the next step.

My $0.02 on the subject, I am not a fan of the polygamous marriages which are allowed by the Islamic religion. Since that often leads to the oppression of women. However I cant think of any moral objection to legally recognizing multiple partner, so long as it is between mutually consenting adults.

I'm all for legalizing polygamy in theory, but not just yet. I think that in the current religious state of the world, the potential for abuse is simply too great and a lot of practical aspects of such a union would need to be figured out before it becomes mainstream. The litigation costs alone, in cases of inheritance or divorce, would soar sky-high.

Currently, I'd suggest that every such proposed union involving more than two parties should be taken on case by case basis, with the judges determining if all the concerned parties have rationally considered and accepted all the consequences of such a unconventional marriage and therefore cannot be considered to be entering into it under duress.

[Minimalist]

As long as women can marry many men too, yes. And I agree with what Michelle said.

Oh, no....THAT'S bad... all the angry desert gods agree on that one!

[Polaris]

Well I think the only reason you really don't see women marry man numerous men is due to nature and the need for reproduction.

The reason that a man would marry men women was so he could guarantee the vitality of his offspring. A man can father many children with different sexual partners at the same time. I don't really think the same can be said for women unless they happen to be twins, triplets, etc.

It's the law of the jungle and monogamous marriage is a way for mankind to separate itself from the animal kingdom.

[genkaus]

1-How is a single person going to include fairness into this relationship? Say, I have a wife, and she gets old, and I take up a new, younger wife. I suddenly stop showing attention to my old wife and start sleeping with my new one all week long.

Then your old wife also gets to find a young new husband and sleep with him all week. This polygamous institution would be built on fair treatment - not misogyny.

Obviously, the point of such marriages are nothing but the animalistic suppression of carnal desires, and have nothing to do with commitment.

On the contrary, there can be many, many other reasons.
1. A lonely old man without any surviving family marries a beautiful young couple for love and company in his last days and the coupe gets financial security.
2. Marriage between a gay couple and a lesbian couple who want to raise their children together and not force them to live apart from either one of the biological parents.
3. A working has both a working wife and a housewife ensuring both financial and emotional stability for their home and children. This one was even on Boston Legal.

But even if all these situations were not possible and it was only about carnal desires - well, marriage is not expected to prevent that. Britney Spears certainly proves that.

2-The children that are born from different mothers will obviously be in great confusion regarding the world around them, especially in places where monogamy has been traditionally practiced.

No more confusion than is expected form children of single parents, divorced parents, adoptive parents or no parents. Do you wish to outlaw all those institutions as well?

3-Another obvious flaw is that such marriages tend to be emotionally abusive towards the partners who are amongst the multitude. Like I said, many marriages break apart due to a side claiming that he/she is not shown enough attention by his/her partner, how is a marriage based on a single-multiple partnership going to survive other than by force?

How about by mutual understanding? You know what the other side of one side claiming lack of attention is? The other side usually claims that the spouse would simply not leave them alone, constantly asking for attention when they were otherwise occupied. How about if there is another spouse in between who takes care of the attention-seeking spouse while the other one gets the much desired solitude.

Only in primitive societies where women are seen as belongings, this type of marriage is still prevalent, and these are generally women who have been forced into accepting a second or more wives, to share their men with.

Yes, and now that in modern societies, women are much better empowered and their economic and social status is not in question, your paranoia no longer applies.

How is this going to work on the basis of "mutual consent"? Obviously, one or multiple partners will have to suffer emotional abuse if such a "marriage" is to be continued, for I really wonder how many people are willing to share their men, or women. But they would have to cope with it if they are forced into it, yes? That is it. Polygamy rests on the shoulders of inequality and abuse. It has been so for many years.

You mean you aren't willing to share anything with another person you love? What if two best friends fall in love with the same person and are unwilling to see the other one hurt? That seems like a perfect reason for sharing. Your problem is that you can only see through the glasses of your primitive society and cannot imagine how a loving and nurturing relationship can survive between rational people without conflict.