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.
Each wife is only entitled to the children she bore, not the other children bore by the other wives. That's how these things work. In effect, the man has multiple mini families he comes and in and out of. Everything follows accordingly.
Why would legal, civil polygamous marriage work that way? Civil marriage creates joint entities, the members of whom equally share rights and responsibilities - that includes parental rights and responsibilities. If you were to extend civil marriage to polygamous families, each member would have equal parental right over all children in the family (regardless of who bore the child or whether the child were adopted).
Why would legal, civil polygamous marriage work that way? Civil marriage creates joint entities that equally share rights and responsibilities - that includes parental rights and responsibilities. If you were to extend civil marriage to polygamous families, each member would have equal parental right over all children in the family (regardless of who bore the child or whether the child were adopted).
If you were to extend civil marriage to polygamous families, naturally you'd extend it the way I described. A woman has no use bossing or taking care of another woman's children. In fact, at least back in Chechnya, the women still live with their parents. The man pays them a visit from time to time, and gives their parents money. In effect, the women don't know for certain how many brides the man has or his income, or anything like that.
If you were to extend civil marriage to polygamous families, naturally you'd extend it the way I described. A woman has no use bossing or taking care of another woman's children. In fact, at least back in Chechnya, the women still live with their parents. The man pays them a visit from time to time, and gives their parents money. In effect, the women don't know for certain how many brides the man has or his income, or anything like that.
Well, then you'd be extending it in a way inconsistent with civil marriage law.
Not really. Think of this as multiple 2 way contracts instead of one contract with multiple people on it.
Yes, really. In civil marriages, all rights and responsibilities are shared equally among the married. You're describing a situation in which they are not. You're describing something structurally different.
I agree with you, if we did write some sort of law governing polygamous marriages, your way makes more sense . I'm simply pointing out yet another problem of extending civil marriage law to groups of any size. This is just another example of how it isn't feasible and doesn't make sense.
Each wife is only entitled to the children she bore, not the other children bore by the other wives. That's how these things work. In effect, the man has multiple mini families he comes and in and out of. Everything follows accordingly.
But that is not how marriage law works. The wife is a joint owner of all things belonging to the husband.
Do you think step children are just out in la la land? Step parents get parental rights once the spouse remarries and the appropriate paperwork is completed by the courts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zombieApocExtraordinaire
If you were to extend civil marriage to polygamous families, naturally you'd extend it the way I described. A woman has no use bossing or taking care of another woman's children. In fact, at least back in Chechnya, the women still live with their parents. The man pays them a visit from time to time, and gives their parents money. In effect, the women don't know for certain how many brides the man has or his income, or anything like that.
This is America, not Chechnya. I'm sure they'd love to have you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zombieApocExtraordinaire
Not really. Think of this as multiple 2 way contracts instead of one contract with multiple people on it.
Yes really.
This isn't the middle ages. A man doesn't get to sign into multiple contracts and control other people's lives simply because he is a man.
Yes, really. In civil marriages, all rights and responsibilities are shared equally among the married. You're describing a situation in which they are not. You're describing something structurally different.
The thing you're not grasping is that the women did not enter into a contract with other women. They entered into a contract with one man under the pretext of knowing that man will enter into further additional contracts with other women. So what you say doesn't apply. The civil part of the marriage is between her, her kids, and the husband.
This isn't the middle ages. A man doesn't get to sign into multiple contracts and control other people's lives simply because he is a man.
We don't need him to control anything. In Chechnya, he can make life and death decisions for the woman, I understand that this is too radical for America.
What in effect happens is you allow the man to get into multiple contracts. Provided the women are fine that he will marry another wife and have a contractual agreement with her, it's again consenting adults.
And as our DitsyD friend brought up, women can do the samething I guess, provided everyone is willing though it's not going to be as popular as the above.
The thing you're not grasping is that the women did not enter into a contract with other women. They entered into a contract with one man under the pretext of knowing that man will enter into further additional contracts with other women. So what you say doesn't apply. The civil part of the marriage is between her, her kids, and the husband.
Now you're changing your tune. You've been talking about polygamy as a contract between multiple people, but now you're describing it as a series of 2-person contracts (1 man and his series of 2-person contracts with any number of women). Those are very different situations.
Last edited by hammertime33; 03-24-2013 at 10:20 PM..
Now you're changing your tune. You've been talking polygamy as a contract between multiple people, but now you're describing it as a series of 2-person contracts (1 man and his series of 2-person contracts with any number of women). Those are very different situations.
I didn't think it out when I started with the hypothetical so I'm going with the flow. The series of 2-person contracts is just so polygamy can function like it does elsewhere. You could have a multiple contract too, again all these details can get hammered out. But the point is, when you debark from tradition, you get a confusing mess.
Anyways, the series of 2 person contracts are in keeping with the spirit of civil marriage provided the women knew ahead of time.
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.
