Multiple Spouses

[KentOhio]

Having more than one spouse at a time is illegal and punishable. Do you think the government has the right to deny certain people the right to marry whomsever they choose? Should Freddy be allowed to have 5 wives? Should Nancy be able to legally marry 3 men? They need to be able to pursue happiness, right? They're all adults and can consent to it, and they aren't hurting anyone, right? And besides, how is it the government's- or anyone's- business, (besides Freddy's and the 5 women's), if Freddy wants 5 wives? Or maybe Nancy can't help it that she loves all 3 men and they love her. And she wants them all to have the legal benefits. Live and let live... what goes on in their houses is their business and doesn't affect you, right?

[Arcael]

I don't see anything wrong with polygomy(sp?) as long as it was not used to exploit loopholes in rules. Love is love, and I know that I have loved more than one woman in my life.

[joft]

I voted yes but I ultimately think it doesn't have anything to do with government. You can have your government sanctioned "union," and then just have an open relationship with other people involved.

I think it is illogical, however. One mate is logical for a number of reasons which I don't care to explore at the moment, being that it's 1:30am and I'm shaking uncontrollably with fatigue. I say if someone else wants to do it, good for them, but I would only be able to derive satisfaction and pleasure from only bonding on that intimate level with 1 person.

[songbird36]

Having more than one spouse at a time is illegal and punishable. Do you think the government has the right to deny certain people the right to marry whomsever they choose? Should Freddy be allowed to have 5 wives? Should Nancy be able to legally marry 3 men? They need to be able to pursue happiness, right? They're all adults and can consent to it, and they aren't hurting anyone, right? And besides, how is it the government's- or anyone's- business, (besides Freddy's and the 5 women's), if Freddy wants 5 wives? Or maybe Nancy can't help it that she loves all 3 men and they love her. And she wants them all to have the legal benefits. Live and let live... what goes on in their houses is their business and doesn't affect you, right?

Right. Governments have no business legislating against private consensual behaviour (or self-harm for that matter).

[hemanthraz]

The government cant control such things, so it doesnt matter either way.Though i feel that i can bond with a single person at a time, too many people make life seem like a circus.

[Robespierre]

I agree that government has no right to sanctify any particular relationship and force others to recognize it.

[Dman]

I agree that government has no right to sanctify any particular relationship and force others to recognize it.

I'm shocked that you hold that opinion!

Nah, I agree with you here. I think it's more about social conformity than government though. It has religious roots, not simply a government mandate out of blue sky, correct? Even if the government left itself out of the situation, it takes a tolerant society to deal with it; there would be a stigma. Not that this makes it wrong, just difficult. Like being gay or a minority. A stigma is better than going to jail though.

The point is, since so many people believe so strongly against it, that's WHY the government is involved. Like women's rights, or slavery. If enough people believed in polygamy and made a strong effort to change the laws, it could happen. I think stopping the ridiculous war on drugs has a higher priority though.

[Robespierre]

I'm shocked that you hold that opinion!

Nah, I agree with you here. I think it's more about social conformity than government though. It has religious roots, not simply a government mandate out of blue sky, correct? Even if the government left itself out of the situation, it takes a tolerant society to deal with it; there would be a stigma. Not that this makes it wrong, just difficult. Like being gay or a minority. A stigma is better than going to jail though.

The point is, since so many people believe so strongly against it, that's WHY the government is involved. Like women's rights, or slavery. If enough people believed in polygamy and made a strong effort to change the laws, it could happen. I think stopping the ridiculous war on drugs has a higher priority though.

I actually don't care one way or another how society views relationships between multiple partners, partners of the same sex, or what-have-you. I don't lose any sleep over the fact that the majority of the public thinks gay marriage is wierd and wrong. My problem, as you understand, is the enforcement of recognition of various relationships being enforced by the various governments. If I choose not to recognize two individuals as married, that is my right. Whether I am denying a man and a woman the couple's discount at my hotel, or whether I am refusing to include a lesbian spouse in a life insurance policy issued by my company. (I own neither a hotel nor an insurance underwriter)

In this sense, the root of the problem is NOT religion. The root of the problem is government involvement in the lives of its subjects. Before the various governments started involving themselves by lisencing marriages, granting tax breaks, passing disgusting bills like the civil rights act of 1964, this was not an issue. If a private citizen chooses to discriminate against another, with his own property, that is his right.

[Dman]

I actually don't care one way or another how society views relationships between multiple partners, partners of the same sex, or what-have-you. I don't lose any sleep over the fact that the majority of the public thinks gay marriage is wierd and wrong. My problem, as you understand, is the enforcement of recognition of various relationships being enforced by the various governments. If I choose not to recognize two individuals as married, that is my right. Whether I am denying a man and a woman the couple's discount at my hotel, or whether I am refusing to include a lesbian spouse in a life insurance policy issued by my company. (I own neither a hotel nor an insurance underwriter)

In this sense, the root of the problem is NOT religion. The root of the problem is government involvement in the lives of its subjects. Before the various governments started involving themselves by lisencing marriages, granting tax breaks, passing disgusting bills like the civil rights act of 1964, this was not an issue. If a private citizen chooses to discriminate against another, with his own property, that is his right.

I don't care either, and I wasn't referring to religion being the root of the problem, I was referring to religion being the root of why there are laws against polygamy.

Even so, I disagree that the root problem is government, it goes beyond that. The problem is the beliefs of the majority of society. That is the reason there is governmental interference in the first place. Yes, the government has the authority to put you in jail for it, but that is the carriage drawing the horse. In this case the gov is the tool being used, not the root of the problem. The "means", if you will. Had the majority of society believed polygamy was/should be legit, the gov would recognize it as such and not interfere. Hence, not the root of the problem.

[Robespierre]

Even so, I disagree that the root problem is government, it goes beyond that. The problem is the beliefs of the majority of society. That is the reason there is governmental interference in the first place. Yes, the government has the authority to put you in jail for it, but that is the carriage drawing the horse. In this case the gov is the tool being used, not the root of the problem. The "means", if you will. Had the majority of society believed polygamy was/should be legit, the gov would recognize it as such and not interfere. Hence, not the root of the problem.

Okay the, the root of the problem is the masses willingness to be ruled by a federal government and many state and local governments, and a willingness of those impowered by those governments, to use the power granted by them, for evil purposes, such as growing the above mentioned governments' powers.

[Dman]

Okay the, the root of the problem is the masses willingness to be ruled by a federal government and many state and local governments, and a willingness of those impowered by those governments, to use the power granted by them, for evil purposes, such as growing the above mentioned governments' powers.

Yes! "the masses" - People!

"Evil purposes" seems kinda subjective.

[Robespierre]

Yes! "the masses" - People!

"Evil purposes" seems kinda subjective.

Indeed it is, which should demonstrate the ridiculous nature of coercive government to you.

[Dman]

Perhaps I naively believe in the ability of the masses to eventually get it right, given enough time and education. It’s the most realistic, best-case scenario I can picture at this point.

[Arioch]

I don't care either, and I wasn't referring to religion being the root of the problem, I was referring to religion being the root of why there are laws against polygamy.

Even so, I disagree that the root problem is government, it goes beyond that. The problem is the beliefs of the majority of society. That is the reason there is governmental interference in the first place. Yes, the government has the authority to put you in jail for it, but that is the carriage drawing the horse. In this case the gov is the tool being used, not the root of the problem. The "means", if you will. Had the majority of society believed polygamy was/should be legit, the gov would recognize it as such and not interfere. Hence, not the root of the problem.

Actually, on a further note I remember reading something by St. Augustus that there is nothing in Christianity that does not allow a man to marry multiple women. Except perhaps if it was the law of the land or something like that.

[songbird36]

I'm shocked that you hold that opinion!


The point is, since so many people believe so strongly against it, that's WHY the government is involved. Like women's rights, or slavery. If enough people believed in polygamy and made a strong effort to change the laws, it could happen. I think stopping the ridiculous war on drugs has a higher priority though.

Women's rights and slavery are not good analogies. These are examples of behaviour (or in the case of women's rights barriers) which affect or harm other people.

Drugs are legislated against primarily because of their link to organised crime.

Polygamy's in the same category as laws against homosexual behaviour - an unjustified incursion into the realm of private morality.

[Robespierre]

Perhaps I naively believe in the ability of the masses to eventually get it right, given enough time and education. It’s the most realistic, best-case scenario I can picture at this point.

Trust no one to get it "right".

[Robespierre]

Drugs are legislated against primarily because of their link to organised crime.

That's a bit backwards. Organized crime exists because of prohibitions against certain demanded substances. First alchohol, now marijana etc.

[Dman]

Women's rights and slavery are not good analogies. These are examples of behaviour (or in the case of women's rights barriers) which affect or harm other people.

Laws against polygamists do not affect them?

Besides, my point was that people have the ability to change these types of laws, but there must be a cultural shift in thinking for it to occur.


Drugs are legislated against primarily because of their link to organised crime.

Yes, and that is my point - if currently illicit drugs were legal, would there be any reason for organized crime to be linked to them?


Polygamy's in the same category as laws against homosexual behaviour - an unjustified incursion into the realm of private morality.

It's not in the same category when one is illegal and the other is not.

Furthermore, it's not in the same category of being born having a sexual preference to the same gender vs. deciding you want to marry several people at the same time.

[KentOhio]

Who's been saying no? Haven't heard from you.

[Edmond Zedo]

Hmm. I'll say no, once again because it defies my definition of marriage, not because I think it's immoral.

If Mr. Pied Piper can get himself a harem, he should feel lucky enough without having it government sanctioned.

[jimkopelli]

Yay for Heinlein. Has anyone actually read any of my suggestions? Lemme know. This is another Time Enough For Love situation, but it could also call for Stranger or even Friday.

Why assume that it's a 1/x relationship? What about group situations?

Social mores currently say no, but I say: fuck 'em. Do what you like.

[gypseymothlee]

I've been thinking of establishing a harem of moderately attractive men... isn't that what Utah is for?

[Robespierre]

I've been thinking of establishing a harem of moderately attractive men... isn't that what Utah is for?

So long as you don't try to marry them, yes.

[Edmond Zedo]

I've been thinking of establishing a harem of moderately attractive men... isn't that what Utah is for?
I'm moderately attractive. I could spare a year or two...If the PRICE...IS...RIIIIGHT!

[jimkopelli]

Hmm... might be interesting... depends.

[coffeezombie]

The only reason that I voted it should stay illegal is because some guy more charming than me would probably get all the women and I'll just end up staying single and lonely.

[KentOhio]

Why assume that it's a 1/x relationship? What about group situations?



Yes, why indeed? How about a man married to 5 women, and each of those women is married to 5 men? Anyone care to discuss that?

[garak]

I don't really see any decent reason why marriage should even involve the law in any way.

[Arioch]

Their is a simple solution. Just get married.
You just wouldn't get the legal benifits.

And if marraige was for love (as so many people seem to think) then that really shouldn't matter.

[matthew0028]

Legal, sure. Extra government sanctioned benfits for spouses past the first? I'd say nah.

[jimkopelli]

It would all be legal hell past the first few spouses... but lawyers can always use more headaches. I think the easiest method would be group marriages... open ended. Two people get married. Say they want to add another. They marry them too. Meet a couple that's cool. Bring them on in. One of the original wants out because they have to move for work and don't want to move the whole family. Amicable divorce, goes, and has a visit any time welcome.
Note how gender was never specified.
You might have to do genetic testing of kids more often... establish paternity... or not. Families that didn't want to wouldn't have to, they could just support all the kids evenly.
This is kinda how it was set up in Friday... H goes into better detail.