Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I cant even imagine divorces and the issues with children. Regardless of who the biological parents are living as one big family unit and developing love and attachments for ALL the members of your family will create new custody issues if some of those members split from the group.
I'd say that custody issues should favor biological parents, unless there are strong reasons not to do so in a particular case (essentially the same as it is today). The non-biological caregivers should be, for legal purposes, about the same as step-parents (if there are legal adoptions involved), or as simply people who live in the same household (basically like an extended family situation, or roommates, etc.).
And since you mention children, I will take a moment to add this thought: Some people worry about children in polyamorous households, but I see no reason why, on average, children shouldn't thrive just as well in a polyamorous household as they do in a traditional 2-parent family. Overall, a poly family is somewhat like an old-world style extended family, in the sense that you have more potential caregivers at home at any given moment to take care of the kids. Obviously there are difference between 2-parent and poly family structures, but there is no reason to think that, on average, these differences are worse for kids. In any case, the costs and benefits should be weighed by parents, in light of their particular situations. The government shouldn't be making these choices for parents unless there is some strong, tangible evidence that children really are worse off.
The 2-parent nuclear family has become the standard model in most people's minds, but this doesn't mean that it is the only healthy family structure.
Big difference between an extended family and 5 women around that daddy is sleeping with. Also if the child is male it models an unrealistic arrangement that the child is not likely to be able to duplicate when they are of age.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof
I'd say that custody issues should favor biological parents, unless there are strong reasons not to do so in a particular case (essentially the same as it is today). The non-biological caregivers should be, for legal purposes, about the same as step-parents (if there are legal adoptions involved), or as simply people who live in the same household (basically like an extended family situation, or roommates, etc.).
And since you mention children, I will take a moment to add this thought: Some people worry about children in polyamorous households, but I see no reason why, on average, children shouldn't thrive just as well in a polyamorous household as they do in a traditional 2-parent family. Overall, a poly family is somewhat like an old-world style extended family, in the sense that you have more potential caregivers at home at any given moment to take care of the kids. Obviously there are difference between 2-parent and poly family structures, but there is no reason to think that, on average, these differences are worse for kids. In any case, the costs and benefits should be weighed by parents, in light of their particular situations. The government shouldn't be making these choices for parents unless there is some strong, tangible evidence that children really are worse off.
The 2-parent nuclear family has become the standard model in most people's minds, but this doesn't mean that it is the only healthy family structure.
I'd say that custody issues should favor biological parents, unless there are strong reasons not to do so in a particular case (essentially the same as it is today). The non-biological caregivers should be, for legal purposes, about the same as step-parents (if there are legal adoptions involved), or as simply people who live in the same household (basically like an extended family situation, or roommates, etc.).
And since you mention children, I will take a moment to add this thought: Some people worry about children in polyamorous households, but I see no reason why, on average, children shouldn't thrive just as well in a polyamorous household as they do in a traditional 2-parent family. Overall, a poly family is somewhat like an old-world style extended family, in the sense that you have more potential caregivers at home at any given moment to take care of the kids. Obviously there are difference between 2-parent and poly family structures, but there is no reason to think that, on average, these differences are worse for kids. In any case, the costs and benefits should be weighed by parents, in light of their particular situations. The government shouldn't be making these choices for parents unless there is some strong, tangible evidence that children really are worse off.
The 2-parent nuclear family has become the standard model in most people's minds, but this doesn't mean that it is the only healthy family structure.
I can see the merits of a poly family as long as everyone is getting along. I would imagine as default the court would see custody the same but when living a long time sharing one father having multiple mothers and siblings and half siblings the lines of biological and non biological become thin. If one or two were to leave the marriage it could be difficult on the other spouses and children losing those family members with no visitation rights and Im sure there would be court challenges to this.
As custody is set up now the powers that be usually rule in best interest of the child. So if wife A works but wife B cares for the children of wife A most of the time and wife B wanted a divorce in theory wife B could get custody of wife A's biological children since she would be the primary care taker.
No to mention child support. I understand that in some situations the new wife's income is also taken to pay her husbands CS. Even if that dosen't happen, its money taken from the family unit.
Of course it will never come to polygamous marriage because outside of weird religious brainwashing who in their right mind would want to be in that legal situation. Legally it would really be a lose-lose for everyone involved.
No woman in her right mind would agree to it, thats usually why it takes brain washing or smooth talking cult leaders that prey on desperate people. I was reading up some on this and most women get into communes because they need a place to stay and dont make enough money. Typically in the communes everyone can have sex with every one so the women try to make themselves as unattractive as possible but of course that only works to an extent.
Sounds like a nightmare to me, I would think of some other way to pay rent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2mares
I can see the merits of a poly family as long as everyone is getting along. I would imagine as default the court would see custody the same but when living a long time sharing one father having multiple mothers and siblings and half siblings the lines of biological and non biological become thin. If one or two were to leave the marriage it could be difficult on the other spouses and children losing those family members with no visitation rights and Im sure there would be court challenges to this.
As custody is set up now the powers that be usually rule in best interest of the child. So if wife A works but wife B cares for the children of wife A most of the time and wife B wanted a divorce in theory wife B could get custody of wife A's biological children since she would be the primary care taker.
No to mention child support. I understand that in some situations the new wife's income is also taken to pay her husbands CS. Even if that dosen't happen, its money taken from the family unit.
Of course it will never come to polygamous marriage because outside of weird religious brainwashing who in their right mind would want to be in that legal situation. Legally it would really be a lose-lose for everyone involved.
No woman in her right mind would agree to it, thats usually why it takes brain washing or smooth talking cult leaders that prey on desperate people. I was reading up some on this and most women get into communes because they need a place to stay and dont make enough money. Typically in the communes everyone can have sex with every one so the women try to make themselves as unattractive as possible but of course that only works to an extent.
Sounds like a nightmare to me, I would think of some other way to pay rent.
Normally, a person without children, willing to live in a car or under a bridge, can get enough food from food banks, and eventually a place to stay in a shelter too sooner or later. I personally knew a person who did it 3 times. However, if you have children and don't have a work, nor marketable skills, and no safety net in the form of relatives willing to help you... The only other option might be a prostitution and I wouldn't blame such person for working on the streets.
OR find a guy you like and would want to willingly sleep with and work together to make it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by brrabbit
Normally, a person without children, willing to live in a car or under a bridge, can get enough food from food banks, and eventually a place to stay in a shelter too sooner or later. I personally knew a person who did it 3 times. However, if you have children and don't have a work, nor marketable skills, and no safety net in the form of relatives willing to help you... The only other option might be a prostitution and I wouldn't blame such person for working on the streets.
You can state all the "nopes" that you want. My angle is the equal treatment under the law as how people want to live their lives.
Your notes may have validity. That does not mean that it is a good reason to discriminate against other views because they do not match yours.
And your angle is not valid. if someone wants to live his life in an utterly destructive way to others, that is NOT tolerated.
Big difference between an extended family and 5 women around that daddy is sleeping with. ....
Quote:
Originally Posted by pittsflyer
No woman in her right mind would agree to it ...
I've noticed this trend to focus on women in these types of debates. I hope everyone understands that the question about polygamy is not a question about a husband with several wives. This is one possibility, but it is just one of many possibilities. The basic idea is to eliminate the restriction against multiple spouses.. A man or woman could marry more than one man or woman.
As for why anyone would want to do this, there are various reasons, but one fairly common reason would be bisexuality. A bisexual man or woman might want a husband and a wife. And then you might wonder: "So why not just stay single?" The answer is that a lot of people are interested in life-long commitment and fidelity. These concepts are not necessarily limited to one person. Commitment and fidelity can be to more than one person. The term polyfidelity references this idea. For example, two men and two women might agree to have sex only within the foursome. Polyfidelity is not necessarily implied by polygamy, but it would be one of the motivations for some people to get into a polygamous family structure, especially if two or more of the four are bisexual.
I've also noticed a tendency in discussions of this topic to mix up two distinct types of arguments:
(1) It should not be allowed because society would be harmed.
(2) You should not do it because it will be bad for you.
To me it looks like the OP is concerned with the first type of argument. Should society allow polygamy, or would polygamy threaten the fabric of our society? My answer is that polygamy would not be a threat to society (other than the fact that some people will get all pissed-off about it and complain about the world coming to an end, etc. - pretty much the same as with gay marriage).
Some people take the issue very personally, and slip into arguments of the second type. They try to convince us that this type of marriage could not work, or would not be good for us for a variety of reasons. This is along the same lines as if someone tries to convince you that you should not masturbate or you should not listen to rock music. People have opinions about how human beings should live, and they want to convince you that you should live by their standards. Conversations of this second type are okay so long as everyone understands that these are just expressions of opinions and preferences. The problem is that people mix (1) and (2). When this happens, they are no longer just expressing a personal preference, or offering a persuasive argument for why you should give up this or that type of activity. What they start to do instead is to insist that you should not be allowed to engage in the activity. This is a whole different ball game.
If you don't like the idea of polyamory or polygamy, them you are free to not live these lifestyles. But from the fact that you do not like these things, it does not follow that government should prohibit these things. Just because something would not work for you, it does not follow that it couldn't work for other people.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
