Polygamy

[Gottesstrafe]

Both my girls came to me of their own free will. They choose to belong to me, to be my property yes. However, our lifestyle is not just a bedroom thing, its something we do in our lives as a whole, they never stop being my slaves, unless they opt to leave.

Oh good. Sorry, that just threw me for a second. Yes, I'm familiar with the lifestyle. Too spicy for me to handle every day, but I sometimes enjoy a light sprinkle.

Anyhow, you actually do demonstrate a very good point - you live what one might consider a polygamous lifestyle, but because you are not married to any of your partners, you aren't getting any legal trouble over it.

That's actually polyamory, he'd live a polygamous lifestyle if he was married to them.

Also, you bring a very good point when it comes to the legal definition of marriage and taxation. Personally, a problem I have with polygamy/polyandry is the semantics of it. Typically in marriage one would expect a certain level of devotion and commitment between partners, it's a public acknowledgement that you're putting your partner first in your life. When you add multiple partners, you tend to throw a wrench in the works. It's not like a group of friends who like to hang out with each other or some sort of super orgy in the pool, it's a bit more complicated than that.

It brings up all sorts of questions to mind. For instance: Is it possible to be fully and equally devoted and intimate with multiple partners? How would you divide your time among them? Would it become a form of oppression if you pit your partners against each other to determine who would be your favorite? Who would take care of the children (if there are any), and can they be raised in a suitable environment once competition between siblings/partners arise? How would divorce work? What are the laws of inheritance when concerning polygamy? How would welfare programs work if one or more partners lose their job or are unable to adequately provide for their family? What happens when you marry siblings? I'm not even going to get into the larger social implications of it.

 

[imperialwar]

with cost of housing and living going up in general, it could be a prudent idea to at least consider this kind of life style.
without going into to much details lets just say my wife and I have a strained bedroom relationship, but perfectly happy one outside of it. So I have considered this option previously.

 

[Draconalis]

It brings up all sorts of questions to mind. For instance: Is it possible to be fully and equally devoted and intimate with multiple partners? How would you divide your time among them? Would it become a form of oppression if you pit your partners against each other to determine who would be your favorite? Who would take care of the children (if there are any), and can they be raised in a suitable environment once competition between siblings/partners arise? How would divorce work? What are the laws of inheritance when concerning polygamy? How would welfare programs work if one or more partners lose their job or are unable to adequately provide for their family? What happens when you marry siblings? I'm not even going to get into the larger social implications of it.

Well, all the siblings would be blood related, so that one's out, but I do see a lot of complications here. Though, in terms of the welfare, I think a 3 income family would be doing better than a two income family right now.

But keeping it illegal because it's complicated?

I suppose there are stupider reasons out there...


Edit:

Though I AM thinking of the relationship in terms of 3... I suppose if 2 males and 2 females all wanted to be married, that might make it even more complicated.

 

[quantumsoul]

My issue with polygamy is just a few guys will get all the decent women and everybody else has to do without. Polygamists are greedy assholes.

Look at the middle east where polygamy is ok. You've got young men suicide bombing to get 72 virgins. I'm sure there's a connection there. Sure it's just the terrorist sect but I have feeling it causes other problems. Having a large group of sexually deprived men is bad for any society.

 

[direkiller]

So... There are people in the world that can, and do share love among groups. There are married couples with open relationships because they understand the difference between love and lust.

There are groups of people that love each other as a couple would? Triples, if you will. (I need to TM that word!)

Something I've never really understood, and no one has ever given me a satisfying answer too...

Why is Polygamy (Having multiple marriage partners) illegal? (Strictly US, I don't know the stance on other countries)

Is it purely a prudish religion thing? (The answer I most often get, but NEVER satisfies me... ever) Or is there actual legal backing behind it?

Edit:

And of course, the word I really mean is whichever covers both genders, as "Polygamy" is 1 man, multiple wives.

Woman can have as many lazy useless husbands as they would like as well. I didn't mean to imply it was only right in the reverse.

It started as a religious stance
Utah before it was able to join the union had to ban the practice

now its just the tax code, healthcare/benefits problem as to why it remains banned(will wife 1 if she has a benefits carry over to the child of wife 2)

 

[Gottesstrafe]

Well, all the siblings would be blood related, so that one's out

For moral or legal reasons? I was under the impression that polygamy fell under the same scrutiny too. Besides, if you go at it separately then it doesn't become incest, right?

But keeping it illegal because it's complicated?

I suppose there are stupider reasons out there...

Those are just my own personal problems with polygamy/polyandry. I'm sure there are better financial, moral, and ethical precedents against it when it comes to its legality, but for now those are my own concerns off the top of my head. I'd be pretty interested to know your thoughts on the other questions.

Edit:

Though I AM thinking of the relationship in terms of 3... I suppose if 2 males and 2 females all wanted to be married, that might make it even more complicated.

I was actually considering putting something like that as well in there, but I really couldn't think of a question for it off the top of my head. Imagine if it was 3 men and 4 women, how would taxation and benefits for that look on paper?

 

[kidd25]

it is religiousness for the bible say one man and one woman. The western civ, was influence by the bible and kept that in. others places mention above don't believe in the same thing and therefore don't have a problem. Also now a days it polgamy would have to be bit crazy cause women would want to be able to marry more than one guy and then people would be married to like 3 different people who are married to 4 different people and so on and so on. I'n other words polygamy is just to gratify one own lust, or make them feel powerful over others.

 

[Draconalis]

I was actually considering putting something like that as well in there, but I really couldn't think of a question for it off the top of my head. Imagine if it was 3 men and 4 women, how would taxation and benefits for that look on paper?

Well, I suppose if you're going to limit it at any point, might as well be 1 to 1, otherwise it does grow complicated, but a large enough to live in one house might be a decent limit.

 

[Princess Rose]

polygamy was first made illegal because wealthy men were marrying women, getting them pregnant and abandoning them, so they decided 1 woman per man.

Now THAT I didn't know... interesting.

Indeed. That's what I was trying to remember properly earlier - the reason it got outlawed in the first place.

Basically, those men were abusing the system and hurting their spouses.

I might be interested in a multi-way marriage - my spouse and I have dated other individuals (and couples) before, so the idea of a third (or fourth) member to a marriage isn't out of the question. No one in mind at the moment though - none of our current prospects are serious.

Also, the whole point would be moot for me anyway - unless they legalize gay marriage AND polyandry I'm, as they say, "shit out of luck".

 

[Princess Rose]

That's actually polyamory, he'd live a polygamous lifestyle if he was married to them.

Yes, I'm aware. ^^ Also... you got the poster's gender wrong. She's a she, not a he. So, much like me, she'd need gay marriage legalized first, assuming she was interested in marrying her various partners.

 

[Princess Rose]

it is religiousness for the bible say one man and one woman. The western civ, was influence by the bible and kept that in. others places mention above don't believe in the same thing and therefore don't have a problem. Also now a days it polgamy would have to be bit crazy cause women would want to be able to marry more than one guy and then people would be married to like 3 different people who are married to 4 different people and so on and so on. I'n other words polygamy is just to gratify one own lust, or make them feel powerful over others.

First off, wow - spelling and grammar check please. "Religiousness" isn't a real word.

Secondly, have you actually read the bible? It has all kinds of polygamy. Several sects of Christianity had polygamy as standard until the past hundred years or so. The Mormon faith still practices polygamy in some parts of the country (usually in secret, or unofficially - married in the church, but not according to the state). So no, the bible says that polygamy is totally okay and normal - because it was when the bible was written.

Thirdly... as to your last point, about polygamy creating power over others, that is indeed the problem that occurred in the US to cause it to be outlawed. However, while several individuals did abuse the practice, it doesn't mean that the practice itself is inherently bad - just that jerks will be jerks.

 

[Nuke_em_05]

Well, civil (legal, state-recognized) marriage is actually a different beast from religious marriage; something people on any side of any table seem to forget.

The idea of civil marriage is actually kind-of flawed in execution because it does try to conform to the religious definition.

Polygamy provides an interesting problem, as civil marriage creates a legal contract. It is a way to gain citizenship in some countries, or add someone to your benefits package through your employer at reduced cost. If civil marriage allowed more than one, or unlimited, it would provide more opportunity to be abused than it already (very much so) is.

Civil marriage is fairly flawed in its current application, not simply in scope, but administration.

 

[Aerodyamic]

I believe its mostly for law purposes, as in, who is legally married to who and all that crap.

Personally, i have two slave girls, and a girlfriend, and im always looking for another slave so, im a polygamist

I believe you mean that you indulge in 'poly-amory', which IS NOT the same as polygamy. Polygamy implies that the relationship is made up of multiple marriages (or marriage-like arrangements). Mormons and some Islamic sects practice polygamy, although multiple marriage arrangements aren't recognized as legal in Canada.

At any rate, being a sub in a poly-amorous relationship, my view is probably quite biased, but considering this is the healthiest (and longest) relationship I've been in, I don't see the problem with poly-amory, at least in concept. The key issue is that is can only work amongst consenting and communicative adults.

My top and I trust each other, communicate a lot, and the other half of the actual marriage and I aren't in any sort of competition. Besides which, my ex-roommate is the sub for said 'other half' of my top's marriage. If I want to fool around with someone else, I talk to my top about it, and after we both examine the pros and cons, and the motivations, we reach a decision; sometimes, the decision is for, sometimes it's against, and sometimes it's to include the 3rd person in a 3-some. But it requires complete transparency, total honesty, the ability to communicate clearly, a grasp of the specific relationship dynamics, and an utter lack of jealousy.

 

[Xman490]

ITS A PLOY BY THE COMMUNISTS (sarcasm)
But if you think about it, it is pretty socialist, and I, somewhat of a socialist myself, like it that way. Of course, it puts away some freedoms, but I don't think the world isn't ready for sharing each others' love just yet.

 

[Astoria]

It's probably because marriage is seen as a partnership meaning two people are involved. It's seen as being between one man and one woman which is the excuse they use to keep gay marriage illegal. Personally I don't care if it's illegal or not but I see it as stupid. If you don't want to commit to one person don't get in a relationship. Simple.

 

[Draconalis]

Personally I don't care if it's illegal or not but I see it as stupid. If you don't want to commit to one person don't get in a relationship. Simple.

Humans, biologically speaking, aren't even "Mate for life" animals. Committing to one person isn't even in our instincts.

 

[Astoria]

Personally I don't care if it's illegal or not but I see it as stupid. If you don't want to commit to one person don't get in a relationship. Simple.

Humans, biologically speaking, aren't even "Mate for life" animals. Committing to one person isn't even in our instincts.

Then like I said don't get in a relationship, stay single. You don't even need to be married anymore to get most of the benefits that come with it.

 

[Draconalis]

Then like I said don't get in a relationship, stay single. You don't even need to be married anymore to get most of the benefits that come with it.

Except for all the legal stuff that is pretty much the sole reason to get married if you're not religious.

 

[Astoria]

Then like I said don't get in a relationship, stay single. You don't even need to be married anymore to get most of the benefits that come with it.

Except for all the legal stuff that is pretty much the sole reason to get married if you're not religious.

Not really anymore. Even gay couples get most of the rights now. It's why a lot of people argue that marriage is meaningless now.