Why is it illegal to have multiple spouses?

[Belacqua]

Why is it illegal to be a bigamist/polyandrist etc?

We're in the middle of a very long, slow move from values aimed at the social good to values aimed at individual good. 

This is what I was saying yesterday about how we are all soaked in liberal bourgeois values. Such values are in favor of individual liberty, with individual fulfillment as their prime good. This is in contrast to the values that Christianity tended to uphold, which were less focussed on the individual's wants and more on certain norms which were thought to be natural and unchangeable. These norms were given by God, but they were not arbitrary -- they were said to be for the good of all. 

Among these unchanging laws was that marriage was for the good of the kids (Thomas Aquinas says this clearly). It is not for the personal fulfillment of the individual. Of course he thought that it is the natural state for most people to be married (if they weren't celibate for religious reasons) so he thought that family life would also be fulfilling for people. But that isn't its main purpose. 

If we no longer accept that marriage is an institution for the sole good of raising children, and we adopt the liberal idea that each person should seek their own happiness in any way (so long as it doesn't harm another) then it's no longer reasonable to hold to traditional two-person marriage. If it makes 6 people happier to get married together, then our modern norms say we should go for it. 

Personally, I think that if your marriage is unrelated to having children, then there's no reason to stick to the old-fashioned ways. And it might be possible to have non-traditional marriages with kids too, if they are very carefully and unselfishly planned. A good pre-nup would probably be wise, though.

[The Grand Nudger]

Either take the state out - or give access to marriage related legal structures to families living in (currently) non sanctioned arrangements. There are plenty of people with just the one partner who aren't legally married but who probably do need and should have access to property, medical, insurance, education, and inheritance mechanisms.

[FrustratedFool]

@Belacqua
Agreed. My spirit is such that I desire the old system to collapse more quickly and more fully. Bur that's probably a dangerous impulse. Mostly, I just don't like what appear to be stupid restrictions on my life.

[Belacqua]

@Belacqua
Agreed.  My spirit is such that I desire the old system to collapse more quickly and more fully.  Bur that's probably a dangerous impulse.  Mostly, I just don't like what appear to be stupid restrictions on my life.

Agreed, restrictions that no longer serve a purpose are often too slow in disappearing. I suppose it has to do largely with one generation dying off, and the next generation being more accepting. 

There have been work-arounds in the past... Like for gay couples in Japan it was normal for the older man to adopt the younger man as his son and heir. Even if they were nearly the same age. This gave them all the legal rights of inheritance, co-ownership, etc. I'm sure the record-keepers at city hall knew exactly what was going on, but nobody stopped it. 

So I hope that whatever it is that's best for you, there's a way to manage it in the near future. 

But I'll suggest another idea that maybe I've written about before, that is relevant here. I think that non-traditional relationships have a certain value in remaining non-traditional. Though something is gained in making gay marriage, for example, the norm, something is also lost. 

If you read about the Paris of André Gide, or the Tokyo of Yukio Mishima, it is clear that the men in these circles saw their homosexuality as an alternative to the bourgeois mainstream lifestyle. They would have hated the idea that hotels would offer expensive wedding packages for two men just as they do for male/female couples. Two men together, or two women, or other non-traditional combinations, were an intentional thumb in the eye to the uncreative, workaday, white-picket-fence life. (Neither Paris nor Tokyo have white picket fences, but you see what I mean.) 

The genius of the modern system is that it subsumes all alternatives within it. They all become just another page in the same catalog. Five men sharing an Italian farmhouse for sexual pleasure, as Oscar Wilde did, is no longer transgressive, but an option on a discount package tour. 

It's the same with modern US Satanism, for example. Satanism used to be a truly dangerous alternative, when its adherents believed in Satan and thought they were risking something. Now it's a bunch of cosplayers, who get a kick out of teasing conservative Christians, but buy their clothes in the same stores, vote Democrat, take out car loans, and hate Putin. Just as they're told to do. They share 99% of their values with their non-Satanic neighbors. 

So-called hippies are distinguished by the brands of corporate clothing they buy.

So while I absolutely support the right of people to live the way they wish, and commit to whomever they love, I wish we could maintain strangeness. I want sub-cultures which enable a more complete escape from normie life. 

Elliot Page, before he transitioned, did a documentary about gay life in Tokyo. He went to a tiny gay bar of a type that's very Japanese -- unmarked, only seats about four customers, only known by very limited word of mouth. He asked the 80-year-old proprietor if it wasn't hard to live as a gay man in Japan before gay liberation. And the proprietor's answer was kind of wonderful. He said, "It was very beautiful." Emphasizing each syllable: u-tsu-ku-shi-ka-tta.

[GrandizerII]

Why is it illegal to be a bigamist/polyandrist etc?

Traditionally, marriage isn't about love. It's about partnership, benefits, agreements between the two wider families marrying the couple, fulfilling religious duties, having kids.

You get married to two or more people for what? Just because you love them?

I'm thinking the opposite way. Besides legal benefits, what's even the point of marriage from a secular perspective?

[FrustratedFool]

@Belacqua
Agreed.  My spirit is such that I desire the old system to collapse more quickly and more fully.  Bur that's probably a dangerous impulse.  Mostly, I just don't like what appear to be stupid restrictions on my life.

Agreed, restrictions that no longer serve a purpose are often too slow in disappearing. I suppose it has to do largely with one generation dying off, and the next generation being more accepting. 

There have been work-arounds in the past... Like for gay couples in Japan it was normal for the older man to adopt the younger man as his son and heir. Even if they were nearly the same age. This gave them all the legal rights of inheritance, co-ownership, etc. I'm sure the record-keepers at city hall knew exactly what was going on, but nobody stopped it. 

So I hope that whatever it is that's best for you, there's a way to manage it in the near future. 

But I'll suggest another idea that maybe I've written about before, that is relevant here. I think that non-traditional relationships have a certain value in remaining non-traditional. Though something is gained in making gay marriage, for example, the norm, something is also lost. 

If you read about the Paris of André Gide, or the Tokyo of Yukio Mishima, it is clear that the men in these circles saw their homosexuality as an alternative to the bourgeois mainstream lifestyle. They would have hated the idea that hotels would offer expensive wedding packages for two men just as they do for male/female couples. Two men together, or two women, or other non-traditional combinations, were an intentional thumb in the eye to the uncreative, workaday, white-picket-fence life. (Neither Paris nor Tokyo have white picket fences, but you see what I mean.) 

The genius of the modern system is that it subsumes all alternatives within it. They all become just another page in the same catalog. Five men sharing an Italian farmhouse for sexual pleasure, as Oscar Wilde did, is no longer transgressive, but an option on a discount package tour. 

It's the same with modern US Satanism, for example. Satanism used to be a truly dangerous alternative, when its adherents believed in Satan and thought they were risking something. Now it's a bunch of cosplayers, who get a kick out of teasing conservative Christians, but buy their clothes in the same stores, vote Democrat, take out car loans, and hate Putin. Just as they're told to do. They share 99% of their values with their non-Satanic neighbors. 

So-called hippies are distinguished by the brands of corporate clothing they buy.

So while I absolutely support the right of people to live the way they wish, and commit to whomever they love, I wish we could maintain strangeness. I want sub-cultures which enable a more complete escape from normie life. 

Elliot Page, before he transitioned, did a documentary about gay life in Tokyo. He went to a tiny gay bar of a type that's very Japanese -- unmarked, only seats about four customers, only known by very limited word of mouth. He asked the 80-year-old proprietor if it wasn't hard to live as a gay man in Japan before gay liberation. And the proprietor's answer was kind of wonderful. He said, "It was very beautiful." Emphasizing each syllable: u-tsu-ku-shi-ka-tta.

I agree that something is lost. Ask the lesbians who can't find a lesbian bar now.

I still enjoy the slight feeling of rebellion I get from being outside the norm. But the law shouldn't have to get involved. I can easily be bohemian enough for most people to consider me odd and challenge social norms without having to break laws that shouldn't exist. Laws like that simply get in the way.

[Thumpalumpacus]

So why am I not permitted 1 wife and 5 husbands in any nation?

Social order seems an unlikely motivation against its prohibition given the many things we allow that disturb the social order.

I can cohabit with a thousand men and women and spend all day making pornography and selling alcohol and printing subversive political tracts and blaspheming all religions and all kinds of other order-disturbing stuff.

But I can't marry two people of any gender.

Doesn't add up.  Smells like religious influence.

Not all religions demand monogamy.

[FrustratedFool]

Why is it illegal to be a bigamist/polyandrist etc?

Traditionally, marriage isn't about love. It's about partnership, benefits, agreements between the two wider families marrying the couple, fulfilling religious duties, having kids.

You get married to two or more people for what? Just because you love them?

I'm thinking the opposite way. Besides legal benefits, what's even the point of marriage from a secular perspective?

Legal benefits are the only point to a legally recognized marriage.
I'm married in non-legally recognised ways already.
But I dislike discrimination, unfairness, silly laws, religious leftovers, and the powers that be telling me 'no'.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I’m not sure it would be possible to remove the state from marriage AND preserve the legal benefits that marriage confers.

Even with private contract law, those laws ultimately originate from the state. And if there’s ever a dispute over a contract, the people involved may well wind up in court.

Boru

[FrustratedFool]

Yes, you couldn't have any benefits. There would be literally no legal status whatsoever. Any legal stuff would be by contract and dealt with as any other contract.