• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Group Marriage on the Way?

You'd better worry about your kids marrying a sign post. That is coming too.
 
A sign post might be good. No asshole in-laws to deal with. But only if the sign post is consenting.
 
I honestly have no problem, politically, with plural marriages between consenting adults. There are plenty of examples of them being pretty foundational throughout nature, history, religion, etc.
 
IHPTe4.gif
 
Deacfreak07 said:
I honestly have no problem, politically, with plural marriages between consenting adults. There are plenty of examples of them being pretty foundational throughout nature, history, religion, etc.
Click to expand...

I could care less as well, but it's going to entertaining as hell the watch the politicians on both sides deal with this one.
 
Last edited:
SCDeac said:
I could care less as well, but it's going to entertaining as hell the watch to politicians on both sides deal with this one.
Click to expand...

I doubt many politicians spend much energy on this issue at all. There simply aren't votes to be had about it. It would be pretty hard for evangelical conservatives to argue against plural marriage, because the bible is just littered with examples.
 
Laws against plural marriage force bisexuals to choose to marry a man or a woman. Makes sense there will be challenges.
 
ETA: i see this has already been well addressed in above posts.

SCDeac said:
http://nypost.com/2014/04/23/married-lesbian-threesome-expecting-first-child/

Which state will recognize marriages of three or more first? Now that marriage can be redefined to be whatever we want it to be this ought to be interesting from so many points. How about an employer providing benefits to multiple spouses?

And what the hell is up with the chicks' names?
Click to expand...

marriage has had a fluid definition throughout societies over time. marriage has never held a single, universal, stable definition. to answer the question, maybe Utah though.

i have a question: what would be the big deal if three people did marry? honest question from my camp, as polygamy is, again speaking about all of human history, a lot more common than monogamy.
 
just to argue the other side for the sake of it -
Polygamous marriage greatly complicates issues of child custody and asset distribution when the marriage(s) end.
Polygamous marriage also is complicated for medical decision making. When the polygamist husband becomes incompetent or is unconscious and medical decisions have to be made, who makes them? The oldest wife? The longest-married wife? Majority rules?
Polygamous marriage creates issues with property rights for the group's heirs after they (or some of them) die.

Statutes could be written to deal with all of these issues. However, unlike same-sex marriage, it is not simply a matter of changing or ignoring some pronouns, it is a matter of whole-sale rewriting the relevant statutes, probably creating a whole new family code to deal with it.

Aside from the legal issues - while I agree that polygamy has a long history and could be said to be quite "biblical" and "traditional", quite a lot of that history involves treating women and children like property. Campaigns to end the practice have been partially based on evolving religious beliefs but also on human rights grounds. One can argue the pros and cons but I think there is at least an understandable rational ground for any given government (US or otherwise) to make a determination that its people are better off without the "freedom" to practice polygamy.
 
dmcheatw said:
ETA: i see this has already been well addressed in above posts.



marriage has had a fluid definition throughout societies over time. marriage has never held a single, universal, stable definition. to answer the question, maybe Utah though.

i have a question: what would be the big deal if three people did marry? honest question from my camp, as polygamy is, again speaking about all of human history, a lot more common than monogamy.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a hellish existence. Two people trying to live a compatible life is tough enough.
 
If there is legitimate consent (not coercive) then I'm fine with it. It would require a lot of changes to statutes and the tax code though I would imagine.
 
Deacon923 said:
just to argue the other side for the sake of it -
Polygamous marriage greatly complicates issues of child custody and asset distribution when the marriage(s) end.
Polygamous marriage also is complicated for medical decision making. When the polygamist husband becomes incompetent or is unconscious and medical decisions have to be made, who makes them? The oldest wife? The longest-married wife? Majority rules?
Polygamous marriage creates issues with property rights for the group's heirs after they (or some of them) die.

Statutes could be written to deal with all of these issues. However, unlike same-sex marriage, it is not simply a matter of changing or ignoring some pronouns, it is a matter of whole-sale rewriting the relevant statutes, probably creating a whole new family code to deal with it.

Aside from the legal issues - while I agree that polygamy has a long history and could be said to be quite "biblical" and "traditional", quite a lot of that history involves treating women and children like property. Campaigns to end the practice have been partially based on evolving religious beliefs but also on human rights grounds. One can argue the pros and cons but I think there is at least an understandable rational ground for any given government (US or otherwise) to make a determination that its people are better off without the "freedom" to practice polygamy.
Click to expand...

What is to stop monogamous marriages from treating women and children like property? I understand that legal nuance involved, and I personally would be opposed to plural marriage for myself or family members, but I just don't really oppose it from a political perspective.
 
Deacfreak07 said:
What is to stop monogamous marriages from treating women and children like property?
Click to expand...

Nothing. Happens all the time and throughout history (see Middle Ages, The). Just that abusive practices toward women and children seem to be more highly correlated with polygamy than otherwise, at least in the modern era (see Jeffs, Warren). I don't have any scientific support for that other than a general impression. I think the other issues I posted are more relevant than this more generalized concern.

I don't feel super strongly about it, just that the first few posters were kind of taking a "no big deal" approach and I felt like pointing out a few counterarguments to get a discussion going.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top