Polygamy

[luislsacc]

Opening a fresh can of worms and putting popcorn on the microwave, here's what might be a controversial topic.

If someone is against same-sex marriage, then they'd naturally be against polygamy, at least the form in which all members of the polygamous relationship are married to each other, for what I assume are obvious reasons ( apart from defining a third gender that would be accepted by people opposing same-sex marriage, there would be at least one same-sex marriage in there). However, if you are in favour of allowing same-sex marriage to be equal to conventional marriage on most places, would there be any reason to not approve of polygamous marriage? Keep in mind that I'm not making a "slippery slope" argument against same-sex marriage, it's just that if gender is no grounds to discriminate who can marry who, why would quantity be? Sure, it'd be a legally complicated issue, but there's enough hungry lawyers out there to make sure it'd be possible to figure it out.

Also, if for any reason it matters for you to know, I am an european law-student who has studied family ( familial relations and inheritance matters included) in a country where same-sex marriage is legal.

P.S. Please do point me to other discussions on the matter, as I believe one or two might have come up considering poly-amory is ( so eventually this might be) a subject in Leftover Soup.

[snowyowl]

Well, starting from a practical standpoint: It's already a bit of a bureaucratic nightmare updating all the forms everywhere to read "Mother or Parent A" and "Father or Parent B". I can barely imagine how difficult it would be to update the laws for child support, inheritance tax, divorce, and so on, to account for polygamous marriages.

And I positively guarantee you some lawyer somewhere will try to figure out how to break the system. Is it possible for someone to be married to two people who are not married to each other? Is there an upper limit to the number of people one can be married to? Can a married couple become a triad without going through a divorce first?

Otherwise, I have no strong opinion on the subject of polyamory and polygamy. Neither is something I have personal experience with: I don't know any polygamists, and I haven't been in love with two people who also love each other. I also don't put much stock in that "marriage is a sacred institution" stuff. Like you said, if you're in favour of same-sex marriage (which I am; I have several friends who ought to be able to get married), there's no real reason to turn down polygamy.

Although... the polyamorous pentad in the comic is atypical. Polygamy tends to be "one man, many women". I would say this is anti-feminist. So I'd be careful about arguing for polygamy until someone can quote statistics showing that it's not going to end with treating women like possessions to be collected.

[Globus]

If someone is against same-sex marriage, then they'd naturally be against polygamy, at least the form in which all members of the polygamous relationship are married to each other, for what I assume are obvious reasons.

Erm... Most people, who are actually against same-sex sex actually claim to be against same-sex marriage. The Old Testament, for example, forbids homosexuality, while having a man take multiple wives was nothing out of the ordinary.

That is all.

[Horizon]

To quote a friend of mine,"Out in Utah, a man can have as many wives as he has room in his basement for, but not a single husband."

[luislsacc]

Well, starting from a practical standpoint: It's already a bit of a bureaucratic nightmare updating all the forms everywhere to read "Mother or Parent A" and "Father or Parent B". I can barely imagine how difficult it would be to update the laws for child support, inheritance tax, divorce, and so on, to account for polygamous marriages.

And I positively guarantee you some lawyer somewhere will try to figure out how to break the system. Is it possible for someone to be married to two people who are not married to each other? Is there an upper limit to the number of people one can be married to? Can a married couple become a triad without going through a divorce first?

My rebuttal to that would be:
Firstly, to the point of bureaucratic complication, if the "It's difficult to explain to children it shouldn't be allowed." principle is assumed as ludicrous ( at least by me), then by extension even if it was difficult to figure out the bureaucracy, as long as it's possible ( which I don't see why it shouldn't be, otherwise fiscal law wouldn't be a thing) there's no reason to avoid doing it.

Secondly, it's likely some lawyer would try to figure out how to break the system, but that would just make him/her exactly like every other lawyer ever. I don't think there should be an upper limit to the amount of people you marry, and you'd only ever be married to the person/people you signed the registry with ( remember, marriage is still, legally speaking, a contract).

If someone is against same-sex marriage, then they'd naturally be against polygamy, at least the form in which all members of the polygamous relationship are married to each other, for what I assume are obvious reasons.

Erm... Most people, who are actually against same-sex sex actually claim to be against same-sex marriage. The Old Testament, for example, forbids homosexuality, while having a man take multiple wives was nothing out of the ordinary.

That is all.

Yes, but the relation is still marriage between a man and a woman, it's Man A is married to Woman B, C and D, but none of the women are married to each other.

[Packbat]

Highly relevant: Sam Hughes discussing questions of same-sex marriage, etc., from a database-engineer perspective.

[Alex Starkiller]

Why not add incest and zoophilia and up the taboo? Honestly, we should just have a general taboo thread. Mostly because I have nothing to say about polygamy. It's not my problem, so it's fine.

[Horizon]

No to zoophilia because, as it stands now, only humans are capable of granting informed consent, and having sex with an animal is similar to rape.
Incest is the trickier of the two. My opinions on the subject are a tangled web, and cannot be expressed in words without grossly oversimplifying. Ask me again after I've had a few years to sort it out.

[Alex Starkiller]

No to zoophilia because, as it stands now, only humans are capable of granting informed consent, and having sex with an animal is similar to rape.
Incest is the trickier of the two. My opinions on the subject are a tangled web, and cannot be expressed in words without grossly oversimplifying. Ask me again after I've had a few years to sort it out.

FUCK. I was watching commercials. There's a deal going on at a wildlife preserve/zoo thing in Phoenix. I meant XENOphilia. Ugh. Dammit. Obviously no on the zoophilia. Rape's bad, mmkay?

[Horizon]

That actually made me chuckle. As for xenophilia, there's already a thread for that.