This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

If gays can marry, why shouldn't I be allowed multiple wives?

Scroll to see replies

Reply 20

Shaun1991

Original post by PythianLegume

If you read my post above, that's essentially why I said it won't happen.

I didn't see the post, sorry.

Reply 21

username878045

Original post by Ripper-Roo

It shouldn't make much effort for something to be recognised as a marriage. Just because it's not widely popular, it doesn't mean the people who want it shouldn't have it. It's not the state's business what goes on between personal relationships (consenting and non-violent) and in bedrooms.

Marriage has certain legal benefits, which would have to be changed in relation to polygamy, which is why it's harder to implement.

Reply 22

Andy_Morris

Polygamous relationships face huge amounts of prejudice even from homosexual couples who see it as abnormal and threatening. They have a phobia not just a disagreement. Frankly, it's bigoted just like people who abuse gay people.

By the way, people are saying they see no similarities between homosexual marriage and polygamous marriage, then why do homosexuals use the fact that people thought allowing blacks in school was illegal as justification for allowing homosexual marriage? Surely under these people's minds, this is even more far fetched!

Reply 23

Shaun1991

Original post by Ripper-Roo

As I mentioned before, whilst I can see a number of issues with legalising polygamy, I doubt it would be popular, and as a result would probably be harmless to society. However, with not much of a call for it, and a potentially large proportion of the country who would be against it, I can't see it happening in our lifetime.

Reply 24

69cards

Original post by Ripper-Roo

There isn't anything wrong with either for either not to happen

THEN WOMEN SHOULD BE ABLE TO HAVE MULTIPLE HUSBANDS, eh?

Reply 25

Andy_Morris

Original post by Schichtoe

Not sure what reality you're living in, but the UK is overwhelmingly in favour of equal marriage. So is the US, much as certain Republicans try to bury that. In fact, through all of Europe, which is why there is legislation being passed in increasing numbers of countries to rectify the inequality.

I'm not bothering to respond to the question posed, because it's ridiculously idiotic. Using bold to highlight your point is less effective when it's highlighting 50% of your post. Just wanted to point out that this supposition is wildly incorrect. ;o

You're unable to even form a coherent point let alone justify such a conclusion.

Reply 26

username878045

Original post by 69cards

THEN WOMEN SHOULD BE ABLE TO HAVE MULTIPLE HUSBANDS, eh?

He said polygamy, not polygyny, so he has no problem with that.

Reply 27

Andy_Morris

Original post by 69cards

THEN WOMEN SHOULD BE ABLE TO HAVE MULTIPLE HUSBANDS, eh?

So you agree with me? :smile:

By all means argue for this if you want it.

Reply 28

Ripper-Roo

Original post by 69cards

THEN WOMEN SHOULD BE ABLE TO HAVE MULTIPLE HUSBANDS, eh?

When did anyone claim otherwise?

Reply 29

nic-nac

I don't see how the two relate. And why the sexism? why not also allow polyandry (I think it's called that anyway) where a woman can have multiple husbands?

On an interesting note, most of the world does allow polygamy, Britian is not the norm for banning it! Plus it has been suggested that there is a link between the relative size of testicles and whether a species should be ploygamous (polygyny) or monogamous. Compared to the size of the whole body, humans have medium sized testicles. This may suggest that humans should naturally be a bit polygnous but not going out on one night stands and getting women pregnant constantly.

So perhaps having a baby with a woman, staying around until it's reached puberty/adulthood, then move onto another woman OR living with and having kids with a few women, like Islam etc allow. Although at the moment, there is a pretty much even split between males and females, so one man having several wives at once wouldn't allow every man to have a partner. But then perhaps thats a bit of natural selection going on? the rich men who can afford to provide for 2-4 wives get that many wives and get to pass on their genes ? But then if we allow polyandry aswell, then men with multiple wives would possibly cancel out the women with multiple husbands !?!?!?

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 30

Andy_Morris

A lot of you are being very open-minded about polygamy, it's heart warming to see some non-knee jerk reactions!

Reply 31

Andy_Morris

Original post by nic-nac

I don't see how the two relate.

On an interesting note, most of the world does allow polygamy, Britian is not the norm for banning it! Plus it has been suggested that there is a link between the relative size of testicles and whether a species should be ploygamous or monogamous. Compared to the size of the whole body, humans have medium sized testicles. This may suggest that humans should be a bit polygamousbut not going out on one night stands and getting women pregnant constantly. So perhaps having a baby with a woman, staying around until it's reached puberty/adulthood, then move onto another woman OR living with and having kids with a few women, like Islam etc allow. Although at the moment, there is a pretty much even split between males and females, so one man having several wives at once wouldn't allow every man to have a partner. But then perhaps thats a bit of natural selection going on? the rich men who can afford to provide for 2-4 wives get that many wives and get to pass on their genes ?

That's some interesting research, thanks for sharing.

I'd like to know how these 2 types of marriage are unrelated.

Reply 32

nic-nac

Original post by Andy_Morris

That's some interesting research, thanks for sharing.

I'd like to know how these 2 types of marriage are unrelated.

They're just completely different. It's like people who say that allowing gay marriage will open the doors to beastiality ... theyre completely unrelated !

If we lived in a society that allowed polygamy but not polyandry and your thread was 'if men can have multiple wives, why can't women have multiple husbands?' then you would have a point.

Reply 33

Andy_Morris

Original post by nic-nac

You just compared beastiality to polygamy in an effort to differentiate monogamy and polygamy. Forgive me, but this is really offensive to polygamous married couples as well as all those who care about open marriage.

So are you saying that because I didn't make a thread about polyandry my point is invalid? I have to make the two points together to have a point?

Reply 34

und3niable_

Wait..are you poly-amorous? If not, then no you can't. This is incomparable to gay marriage.

Reply 35

username878045

Original post by nic-nac

Polygamy is non-gender-specific. Polygyny is 1 man, many wives and polyandry is the opposite.

Reply 36

Theflyingbarney

I think the biggest block to allowing polygamy is that marriage is these days not just a religious or social institution, but a legal one too - whether you are married or not can have a profound effect on your taxation and benefits, for example. Amending these laws to allow for gay marriage is simple enough, all that has to be done is change any reference to 'husband and wife' to 'partner A and partner B' or whatever. However, to allow for polygamy the whole system would have to be reworked and entire new policies drawn up; it would completely change the operation of family law, housing, adoption, tax, benefits etc etc.

Reply 37

Andy_Morris

Original post by und3niable_

Wait..are you poly-amorous? If not, then no you can't. This is incomparable to gay marriage.

No it isn't.

Reply 38

Skip_Snip

I'll bite ...

No-one's stopping you having multiple girlfriends, why not do that? And then you can marry your favourite one.

Marriage is the legal union of two people who love each other, and if you're in a polygamous relationship, you obviously don't love any of them enough to commit to marriage. Therefore, polygamous marriage is unneeded :smile:

Reply 39

username878045