Marriage

[Setarcos]

What, exactly, are the objections to polyandry/polygynandry/polygyny and other forms of polygamy? What are the "moral" objections and what are the legal objections to recognizing such unions as the same breed of contract as other forms of marriage?

 

[GHook93]

What, exactly, are the objections to polyandry/polygynandry/polygyny and other forms of polygamy? What are the "moral" objections and what are the legal objections to recognizing such unions as the same breed of contract as other forms of marriage?

Hell I support plural marriage. I would come home and say:
"You cook dinner!"
"You clean the house!"
"You watch the kids!"
"You in the bedroom!" "What you have your period, OK then you watch the kids and YOU in the bedroom!"

It's my dream to be Bill Hendrickson

 

[Setarcos]

What, exactly, are the objections to polyandry/polygynandry/polygyny and other forms of polygamy? What are the "moral" objections and what are the legal objections to recognizing such unions as the same breed of contract as other forms of marriage?

Hell I support plural marriage. I would come home and say:
"You cook dinner!"
"You clean the house!"
"You watch the kids!"
"You in the bedroom!" "What you have your period, OK then you watch the kids and YOU in the bedroom!"

It's my dream to be Bill Hendricksen

Problem
Health Report - 08/06/1998: Menstrual Synchrony
Synchronized Cycles | Serendip's Exchange

 

[Catbert]

Lorena Bobbitt comes to mind.

 

[bodecea]

Lorena Bobbitt comes to mind.

You can only take it off once.

 

[REVxERIK]

why is this in politics?

 

[pinqy]

What, exactly, are the objections to polyandry/polygynandry/polygyny and other forms of polygamy? What are the "moral" objections and what are the legal objections to recognizing such unions as the same breed of contract as other forms of marriage?

Moral objections: As predominantly practiced in the world (Muslim countries, African countries, splinter LDS groups) polygamy places women in an inherently inferior position in the marriage contract as the multiple women are married to a single man. I know of no way to structure a contract to ensure equality. While in many one-one marriage one spouse will dominate to the detriment of the other, it's not inherent in the structure and the law, while not usually adequate, can address outright abuse. It cannot address an inherent position of inferiority. While this does not apply to many plural marriages, the unfortunate reality is that it is probably better to restrict them all than allow them all (and the law has no choice but either/or).

Legally, property division and child custody would be a mess. Long, long contracts in addition to the marriage contract would required for each individual marriage depending on structure and personal preferences. One to one is easy...there is a seperation between the two, divide things out. For plural marriages, if A, B, and C are married to each other, and C wants to divorce A but not B, and B wishes to be married to both, how do you settle anything? For one to many marriages, if spouse 3 wants to leave, what are the other sub spouses' rights for visitation? And what portion of the property is 3 entitled to and at whose expense?

Basically it's preferable to allow only one to one marriages and allow individuals who mutually want a plural marriage to work things out themselves and use legal contracts as their means...they'd end up having to do it anyway even if it was legal.

 

[KittenKoder]

I am against marriage as a whole.

 

[REVxERIK]

I am against marriage as a whole.

same. f*** monogamy

 

[Setarcos]

I am against marriage as a whole.

same. f*** monogamy

Way to totally miss the entire concept

 

[KittenKoder]

I am against marriage as a whole.

same. f*** monogamy

Never said I was against monogamy.

 

[Ringel05]

What, exactly, are the objections to polyandry/polygynandry/polygyny and other forms of polygamy? What are the "moral" objections and what are the legal objections to recognizing such unions as the same breed of contract as other forms of marriage?

You'll have to ask my wife. I won't.

 

[Setarcos]

Moral objections: As predominantly practiced in the world (Muslim countries, African countries, splinter LDS groups) polygamy places women in an inherently inferior position in the marriage contract as the multiple women are married to a single man.

And? So long as entry into the union is wholly volunteer and of the volition of all parties involved, what does it matter to outsiders the social dynamics within the relationship? I fail to see how it matters.

I know of no way to structure a contract to ensure equality.
While in many one-one marriage one spouse will dominate to the detriment of the other, it's not inherent in the structure and the law, while not usually adequate, can address outright abuse. It cannot address an inherent position of inferiority. While this does not apply to many plural marriages, the unfortunate reality is that it is probably better to restrict them all than allow them all (and the law has no choice but either/or).

(emphasis added)

Using that same argument, one must call for the abolition of all marriage, since the law cannot prevent either partner from dominating the relationship. Do you support the abolition of all marriages, or do you withdrawal your argument?

Legally, property division and child custody would be a mess.

I don't see how it'd be any more complex or illogical than it is currently. If not otherwise specified, property is divided equally or shared.

Long, long contracts in addition to the marriage contract would required for each individual marriage depending on structure and personal preferences. One to one is easy...there is a seperation between the two, divide things out. For plural marriages, if A, B, and C are married to each other, and C wants to divorce A but not B, and B wishes to be married to both, how do you settle anything?

The easiest way: C leaves the contract between A, B, and C

this leaves A and B in the original agreement

B and C then enter into their own contract- but only property and earnings of A that are left after the preexisting contract with B is honoured can be a part of the contract can be forwarded by B when contracting with B

For one to many marriages, if spouse 3 wants to leave, what are the other sub spouses' rights for visitation?

If the court determines that Party A has a right to see party B, then that right will be honored. parties C and D can refuses to let A in the house, but must let A and B do as they please if B wishes to meet A elsewhere.- just like an estranged parent who wished to visit his/her child after his/her spouse has remarried.

And what portion of the property is 3 entitled to and at whose expense?

The oldest contracts are honored first. If a new contract allocatyes property or funds not available, then that portion of the nwerer contract is void, since it was not valid in the first place, as the items/finances allocated were not available for negotiation. Whoever failed to ensure they had the freedom to negotiate with said goods/finances effective renegs and is ni debt for the value of the later contract.

Basically it's preferable to allow only one to one marriages and allow individuals who mutually want a plural marriage to work things out themselves and use legal contracts as their means...they'd end up having to do it anyway even if it was legal.

Is not marriage but a legal contract- a very involved legal contract with special legal protection? Is it not filed with the courts and recognized by the State as binding?

 

[xotoxi]

What, exactly, are the objections to polyandry/polygynandry/polygyny and other forms of polygamy? What are the "moral" objections and what are the legal objections to recognizing such unions as the same breed of contract as other forms of marriage?

Hell I support plural marriage. I would come home and say:
"You cook dinner!"
"You clean the house!"
"You watch the kids!"
"You in the bedroom!" "What you have your period, OK then you watch the kids and YOU in the bedroom!"

It's my dream to be Bill Hendricksen

Problem
Health Report - 08/06/1998: Menstrual Synchrony
Synchronized Cycles | Serendip's Exchange

It would be called "wank week".

Besides, just having your period doesn't preclude you from cleaning, cooking, and tending to the kids.

 

[Setarcos]

You really want her cooking your food when she's in that mind of a mood?

Should I hide the arsenic?

 

[xotoxi]

What, exactly, are the objections to polyandry/polygynandry/polygyny and other forms of polygamy? What are the "moral" objections and what are the legal objections to recognizing such unions as the same breed of contract as other forms of marriage?

I think the biggest reason why these laws were enacted was to prevent monopolies.

If a single man was married to many women, this guy would never have a chance...

 

[chanel]

What, exactly, are the objections to polyandry/polygynandry/polygyny and other forms of polygamy? What are the "moral" objections and what are the legal objections to recognizing such unions as the same breed of contract as other forms of marriage?

My objection is that it's gross. Morally, legally, sexually, intellectually, financially, and any other "ly" you can think of.

 

[Setarcos]

What, exactly, are the objections to polyandry/polygynandry/polygyny and other forms of polygamy? What are the "moral" objections and what are the legal objections to recognizing such unions as the same breed of contract as other forms of marriage?

My objection is that it's gross.

How so?

Morally,

How so?

legally,

We've a legal definition of "gross"?

sexually,

The OP said nothing about sex

get your mind out of the gutter

intellectually,

How so?

financially,

How can something be financially gross?

and any other "ly" you can think of.

So it's not really gross?

You had me going for a moment, there

 

[xotoxi]

What, exactly, are the objections to polyandry/polygynandry/polygyny and other forms of polygamy? What are the "moral" objections and what are the legal objections to recognizing such unions as the same breed of contract as other forms of marriage?

My objection is that it's gross. Morally, legally, sexually, intellectually, financially, and any other "ly" you can think of.

Really? Literally? Sally?