Should the US legalize polygamy? (mother-in-law, casual, wedding, exclusive)
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'm still not convinced that the legal complications would be very bad - especially if all marriages continue to be binary from a legal point of view. If the prospect ever became a serious political issue, I'm sure we'd start to see plenty of legal experts weigh in, and then we might get a clearer picture of the possible problems. Splitting ownership of stuff in divorce settlements could get more complicated, but I don't see why it would be impossibly so. If the divorcing people can't agree on who gets what, then an arbitrator decides. Same with custody. It's not like the legal system has never had to deal with groups of people making contrary claims. And if marriages are binary, as I suggest, then it wouldn't matter who is married to who at the time of a divorce. I think people are imagining a lot more complications then there really would need to be.
True, and again, I'm not saying the scenario is impossible, just that I think this would be a bit of complication that issues like interracial or gay marriage never had to deal with. At the end of the day, laws are simply rules written by people and they can be clarified or redefined as necessary.
My point was simply that I think it will be the biggest hurdle to overcome. Especially when you start trying to figure out taxes.
Fortunately for gay/interracial marriages, there was already a working model in place that they just had to squeeze into. For a polygamy situation, there's no model, and developing a new one will literally take an act of Congress.
As an example, the solution for taxes could be as simple as getting rid of all marital tax implications. It would certainly solve the problem, but getting people to buy into that change would be difficult.
Theoretically speaking, if we're talking not about a family, but about a company or a trust owning the same house, which is totally permissible nowadays. How would you solve that problem? Does it look such a big problem at all? Please note, that a company or a trust could have unlimited number of partners or trustees; and individuals are able to form any number of companies and trusts with different partners. Nonetheless, it's not a major hurdle at all - a company decides who could use its property, who has to take care of it, and how proceeds are going to be divided when the property is liquidated. If the company dissolves, then all its assets are to be sold, and proceeds to be divided. If a single partner is leaving the company, he or she has to get his/her share of the company assets in the form of cash. It seems fairly simple IMO, when you look at the family as a business unit.
One difference is there are no emotional bonds between partners in a corporation, the relationship is strictly a financial one. Even so having one partner pull out can cause the entire company to go under financially.
In a marriage between two people splitting of assets and liquidation can be complicated. When I divorced we had two properties. I wanted the farm which we had just purchased so there was no equity, our house was almost paid off and it would go to my ex with me getting 1/2 of an agreed upon equity. Enter problem, he later tried to back out of our agreement=a couple more months of court dates, then he couldn't come up with the money. This dragged things out for many months to the point I was going to have to petition the court to force him to auction the house. Now add in a couple more spouses/children whose home may be in jeopardy due to a payout. This is just one small example of a complication in divorce.
Whats worse is if he had declaired bankruptcy you would have got 50cents on the agreed upon dollar amount.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2mares
One difference is there are no emotional bonds between partners in a corporation, the relationship is strictly a financial one. Even so having one partner pull out can cause the entire company to go under financially.
In a marriage between two people splitting of assets and liquidation can be complicated. When I divorced we had two properties. I wanted the farm which we had just purchased so there was no equity, our house was almost paid off and it would go to my ex with me getting 1/2 of an agreed upon equity. Enter problem, he later tried to back out of our agreement=a couple more months of court dates, then he couldn't come up with the money. This dragged things out for many months to the point I was going to have to petition the court to force him to auction the house. Now add in a couple more spouses/children whose home may be in jeopardy due to a payout. This is just one small example of a complication in divorce.
But this statement from the article caught my eye: "...monogamy is a great democratizing institution. Compared to polygyny, it enables many more men to have a wife and a chance at a family."
Compared to polygany, I would agree that monogamy has a democratizing effect, but I'm not sure that monogamy is more democratizing than polygamy (approached from the polyamory mindset, as I discussed in earlier posts). It is not uncommon for people to "settle" for someone, which leads to a lot of trouble for monogamy down the road. And even when people think they find the unquestionably perfect mate, most people find out, down the line, that nobody can really fill all of our needs. Anyway, my point is that some people are harder to settle for than others, especially if someone is taking the idea of lifelong monogamy with great seriousness. Someone might have a great personality, make lots of money, be super-great potential parents, etc., but we're just not super-attracted to them, or vice versa. If polygamy became more common, there might not be quite so many people "out in the cold" - so to speak - unable to find mates. It is somewhat easier to accept what is behind door #1 if you know that you might, in principle, still eventually have the option to enjoy what is behind door #2 or door #3. Many people already do this, in effect, via serial monogamy, but with polyamory, you are not necessarily forced to give up one treasure in order to enjoy another.
Nothing is perfect, of course, but in the long run I suspect that more people would be able to find long-term satisfying love-lives under the mindset of polygamy/polyamory than under the general social mindset of lifelong monogamy.
Location: Subconscious Syncope, USA (Northeastern US)
2,365 posts, read 2,159,036 times
Reputation: 3814
First I don't agree with the opening statement in the article. People are perfectly capable of monogamy. I'm not sure why someone interested in floating from flower to flower, or bee to bee, would even bother getting marriage. Marriage is focused on commitment.
Not only people, but wolves, blue jays and other animals mate for life.
Second I agree with the legal issues, and also there is a burden on society. It shouldn't ever be allowed unless we have strict and enforced laws that state no one shall make more children than they can afford to provide for.
Third how convoluted can you get, lol. We are married but we are both out messing around with others? I mean we have laws against gender discrimination so how does the primary couple in a family also marry someone else who is married?
We live in an insane enough world just dealing with monogamy, in my honest opinion.
Not only people, but wolves, blue jays and other animals mate for life.
True, but there is a distinction between "mating for life" and "being monogamous for life." Creatures that mate for life are generally not monogamous for life. "Cheating" is common - perhaps even the norm - for animals that mate for life. (I put "cheating" in scare quotes because it is anthropomorphizing.)
Quote:
It shouldn't ever be allowed unless we have strict and enforced laws that state no one shall make more children than they can afford to provide for.
I agree that people should not make any more children than they can afford, but I don't see why this would be any more of a problem in the context of polygamy than it is already.
Quote:
Third how convoluted can you get, lol. We are married but we are both out messing around with others?
Polygamy is not "out messing around". The whole point is that you "mess around" within the family unit. It's just that the family unit can have more than two adults. And, yes, for some people it might be unbearably convoluted but, for others, polygamy can actually simplify life. It really depends on preferences and personalities. If you can't imagine how polygamy could possibly simplify or improve anyone's life, then you are clearly not the sort of person who should try it. But there are many types of people in the world. Diversity is a fact of life. Very few things in life work best when "one size fits all" is the only option.
Quote:
I mean we have laws against gender discrimination so how does the primary couple in a family also marry someone else who is married?
I don't see how polygamy relates to gender discrimination.
Quote:
We live in an insane enough world just dealing with monogamy, in my honest opinion.
You are certainly welcome to you opinion. And, as I said, you are clearly the sort of person who should not try polygamy. But I am not at all convinced that upholding monogamy as the social standard, while not allowing polygamy for those who might prefer it, keeps the world any more sane. I think there are some unwarranted assumptions underlying the idea that polygamy necessarily complicates everyone's life.
1) When was the current arrangement of one man/ one woman family adopted?
2) What is the reason for keeping it alive and exclusive in the 21st century?
3) Why the government isn't supposed to intervene in people lives, yet it is accepted by all that it can control marriages?
2. If you've been married, then you most likely already know that there are times when one wife is too many.
The same can be said of husbands (i.e. toddlers in large bodies).
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.
