Should polygamy be legalized?

People who are married already cheat all the time so what "sanctity".I say yes to polygamy as long as everybody who's involved is happy/in agreement with each other

I'm sure most polygamist will be happy just for their marriage to be acknowledged, even if it means foregoing the benefits.

This isn't about forming financial partnerships, it is about being a family and being able to realize the dream of marriage with those you love.

Well lets starts with basic foundation of marriage.

Why cant three happy people be recognised as married?

True, but it could potentially get much more complex than that. Say that one mother is unfit or unable, or one wife is used as a surrogate for the other, who gets custody of children then? If one marriage gets split, what happens then? If one partner generated income, but splits with the other, who gets what in the case of divorce?

It goes on to be hugely complicated, and open to abuse in so many ways. If I'm not mistaken there are some cases where 50 people married each other interconnectivity just to exploit the tax laws in some countries.

Of these, the issues of property on divorce and tax avoidance are the only ones to which matrimonial law doesn't have existing solution. However, the law has found solutions to similar issues in other spheres: partnership law, tax law etc.

Incest leads to children with cross bodily disfigurements leading to a poor quality of life. This is actually a big issue is some (really not many) Pakistani communities in the Uk who marry their cousins then their children marry their own cousins and so on. Entire families end up suffering from the same disabilities, generally Asians wish intellectual success for their children in school however the children of first cousin marriage are generally severally impaired mentally. 37% of British Pakistani babies parents are the product of a first cousin marriage.

The foundation of marriage is a legal contract first a foremost, giving you some social and economic benefits, and in return a more stable household and better citizens for the people(most of the time). There is no benefit for having 10 people married to each other, in fact it is the opposite. There is no rule saying you can't live with or be sexually active with 2 people, you just can't claim the legal contract for both of them.

Government cannot simply bow down to the whims of people at their beck and call. There has to be some kind of limit. There is no benefit for society for allowing 3 or more people to get married, but there are a host of negatives involved.

This is even touching the impossible-to-regulate legal challenges that can and will arise.

Incest leads to children with cross bodily disfigurements leading to a poor quality of life. This is actually a big issue is some (really not many) Pakistani communities in the Uk who marry their cousins then their children marry their own cousins and so on. Entire families end up suffering from the same disabilities, generally Asians wish intellectual success for their children in school however the children of first cousin marriage are generally severally impaired mentally. 37% of British Pakistani babies parents are the product of a first cousin marriage.

I bet you don't see the them legislating gay marriage as bowing down to the whims of people?

I mean, the social and economic benefits of civil partnership practically had it on par with marriage.

What benefit does gay marriage bring to society?

You haven't shown them to be impossible to regulate you have just raise questions, good questions though they are. I can't see them being insurmountable, certainly not enough to discriminate against polygamous marriage.

Except it can be open to so much abuse it's not practical at all. Would you be ok with 20 people married to each other claiming the benefits of marriage? It just wouldn't work in any way. There are already so many documented cases of abuse by polygamists cheating the system. You can't just discriminate on 3 either.

Do all parties need to consent to bringing in a 3rd, 4th or 5th partner? Would it just be the majority? What about divorce? Does everyone have to agree to kick the unwanted person out or just a majority? How are assets divided? How is custody decided? Is it just between the two biological parents or do all the parents in the marriage have custody rights? And there are probably a myriad of other legal issues that would be unique to a polygamous marriage and I don't think we're close enough to addressing them.

There is no rule about being in love with or sleeping with 5 people. You just can't have a legal contract between them.

Like I have said repeatedly. Gay marriage is not a personal choice is a sexuality. No one is born a polygamist. I

You have a lot of questions, understandable but this doesn't mean it is impossible, it just means some effort will need to be made.

Here are some proposed answers.

Do all parties need to consent to bringing in a 3rd, 4th or 5th partner? Yes

Would it just be the majority? No

How are assets divided? In the absence of pre-nup, evenly. If 1 person leaves a marriage of 3, they are entitled to 1/3 of the assets.

How is custody decided? Is it just between the two biological parents or do all the parents in the marriage have custody rights?
Custody rights will ultimately remain with the biological parents

Are you Indian?

We cannot forget that due to India's caste system, there are more likely to be more first cousin marriages with Indians simply to keep a family name.

Like I have said repeatedly. Gay marriage is not a personal choice is a sexuality. No one is born a polygamist. It's not bowing down to choice of people, it's being accepting of who they are. There is a clear difference.

Gay marriages are just as stable and just as able to raise productive citizens as well as straight parents, if not better in some cases. There is no reason why they too cannot rear healthy and productive children and be able to reap the benefits of society and the tax code.

Polygamy does not. There are many things that have been documented wrong with them, and there is no interest for society in general, and can be downright destructive.

.

Not nearly enough. There are a myriad of issues that can arise.

Do all parties need to consent to bringing in a 3rd, 4th or 5th partner? Would it just be the majority? What about divorce? Does everyone have to agree to kick the unwanted person out or just a majority? How are assets divided? How is custody decided? Is it just between the two biological parents or do all the parents in the marriage have custody rights? And there are probably a myriad of other legal issues that would be unique to a polygamous marriage and I don't think we're close enough to addressing them.

Among those benefits are tax considerations, rights of inheritance, priority of conservatorship, rights of retirement/death benefits, medical decisions, etc. While some of these benefits would not be affected by a polygamous marriage, others are workable but would require specific legislation to iron out. For example, are you saying that someone can get married to multiple people on an individual basis? As an example. Person A marries Person B. Later A marries C, too. Is person B and C legally connected in any way? Now say, Person C marries Person D. So if Person A claims both B and C as dependents for tax purposes, can person C claim person D as a dependent? Could Person A? If B get pregnant by A, does person C have any parental rights?

It's not that it's hard to regulate, it's actually impossible to do so, and it leaves so much to abuse.

I'll respond to them one by one.

1) Why? Why is there any reason why A can't be married to B (married to X and Y) and C (married to E, F, G) independent of each other? There is certainly no moral reason why these marriages cannot be independent.

3) If one partner in the marriage after the prenup signed generates much more income on their own, how is it fair to give up 1/3 of that to one lazy house partner who wants to cash in? Again, this becomes an absolute nightmare if people can marry different partners independent of each other. Does A get the assets of X and Y equally of EFG? Do B get them of G?

4) So non-biological parents cannot have rights? Consider M1F1F2. M1 and F1 have a baby. F1 dies or leaves and F2 raises the child. Does F2 not have any parental rights? What if M2 enters and help raise the child. What about adopted ones? Should they just be shipped around 5 parents?

1) Why? Why is there any reason why A can't be married to B (married to X and Y) and C (married to E, F, G) independent of each other? There is certainly no moral reason why these marriages cannot be independent.

Firstly I don't think it is that unreasonable to say that people shouldn't be married to others against their will.

Note that under my proposal, polygamy isn't a collection of individual marriages between couples, but rather a single marriage between a group of consenting adults.

But suppose that anyone could bring in an extra member to the group, then if someone brings in an extra member without the other members permission, the other members can "divorce" the group anyway, and reform their own group.

It is thus much simpler to just have it that all members have to agree to who they are marrying. But most importantly, no one should be forced to enter into marriage with someone against their will.


3) If one partner in the marriage after the prenup signed generates much more income on their own, how is it fair to give up 1/3 of that to one lazy house partner who wants to cash in? Again, this becomes an absolute nightmare if people can marry different partners independent of each other. Does A get the assets of X and Y equally of EFG? Do B get them of G?
Mate, in a traditional marriage, if I earn all the money and my wife does nothing, she still gets half. That's the law, deal with it.

4) So non-biological parents cannot have rights? Consider M1F1F2. M1 and F1 have a baby. F1 dies or leaves and F2 raises the child. Does F2 not have any parental rights?
F2 will have the option to nominate a guardian to take on his rights in the event of his demise. This will likely be another member of the marriage.

What if M2 enters and help raise the child.
They will have the same rights as an aunt or uncle who steps in to help raise a child when one of the child's parents dies. That is, the courts will take this into account when deciding on contentious issues regarding the child's future.

What about adopted ones?
The judge will make a custody decision based on the best interests of the child (as done in traditional relationship breakups)
http://www.nytimes.com/1991/03/29/us/utah-polygamists-allowed-to-adopt.html

1) You're getting confused. B wouldn't be married to C. A would be married to B and C, and B and C would would not me legally married. There is no moral reason why this could not be the case, only legal hurdles.

4)

a) Why does F2 have any right over M2 to nominate a guardian? They are both unrelated by blood. Is there a time limit? Or is it just whoever comes first? Why should M2 be any less deserving of that privilege? What if F2 is barely at home and M2 (who joined marriage later) raises the child with M1 in essence. Why should M2 be thought of less? What about step children?

b) How does one possibly determine that in a plural marriage? On what criterion? If a 5 way marriage (all of which are capable parents) breaks up with 2 adopted child, who is to say any of them should get less custody?

There is precedent for all of these issues, but answering all of those questions adequately would make Paradise Lost look like a pamphlet. You're right that they are complex issues (of which justice requires a nuanced treatment), but they aren't new issues.

The point about enforceability is more interesting. But I think this is only a particular issue off the back of cuts to legal aid which have had the effect of limiting access to justice. That issue aside, I don't see why the burden of regulation could not fall on ministers responsible for marrying people, as well as between the private parties who will naturally seek to defend their own interests.