Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

B1242 - Multi-Spousal Marriages (Polygamy Legalisation) Bill 2017 Watch

Announcements
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Easiest nay I have ever given.

    Marriage is supposed to be based on love and if two people are truly in love, I do not think they would fall for one more person.

    Not sure about you, but I would not marry someone just to be their third wife and I would not make someone my fourth spouse either. It seems unfair to me, especially since this bill would result in people getting married and hitting on and lying to other people who may not like the idea of polygamy just to marry them too (it is legal and what they do not know cannot hurt them, right?), which is as good as cheating to me. This would also create a lot of tension in the dynamics of a couple if one wants a second spouse and the other rightfully sees that as cheating.

    If someone cannot stick with and be loyal to one person, they should either be in an open relationship or not be in one at all. There is no need to ruin the concept of marriage just for the greed of a few.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Michiyo)
    Easiest nay I have ever given.

    Marriage is supposed to be based on love and if two people are truly in love, I do not think they would fall for one more person.

    Not sure about you, but I would not marry someone just to be their third wife and I would not make someone my fourth spouse either. It seems unfair to me, especially since this bill would result in people getting married and hitting on and lying to other people who may not like the idea of polygamy just to marry them too (it is legal and what they do not know cannot hurt them, right?), which is as good as cheating to me. This would also create a lot of tension in the dynamics of a couple if one wants a second spouse and the other rightfully sees that as cheating.

    If someone cannot stick with and be loyal to one person, they should either be in an open relationship or not be in one at all. There is no need to ruin the concept of marriage just for the greed of a few.
    Surely that is up to the individuals seeking a polygamous marriage? I also fail to see how it ruins/corrupts the concept of marriage, either, because monogamous marriage will remain available, and the norm, this bill will simply cater to a minority.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    All of you fail to engage with the biggest argument against polygamy which is the impact on the development of children. If men remain in the marriage market, there is the possibility of high-status men investing their resources in obtaining more wives, spreading their genes, and gaining social status. It is the biological instinct of humans to mate, when these children are born the males will choose to neglect their children, and poorer men will be forced to invest their resources in finding any bride as many women share the high-status man. The concept of wealthier men neglecting their children seems strange, however, studies of historical polygamous societies confirm the phenomenon is strong. Studies revealed that in polygamous societies of past, poorer men had 6.9 children survive to the age of 15 compared to wealthier men who had 5.5 survive to 15. The same impact has been found from studying contemporary polygamous societies in Africa where children in polygamous families have higher rates of malnutrition, lower life expectancy, and worse health.

    What this bill does is place poorer children at a larger disadvantage, increase neglect of children, and place strain on the state who has to step in to take the place of father who refuse their parental duties because reproducing with new wives is seen as more desirable. And there will be a new cost on the state if there is a divorce that results in the father needing to pay child support. Men running around making babies for status will lead to the state needing to step in to pay for the children the men cannot afford to have.

    Laws against polygamy are in place to protect the valuable concept of a two-parent family which is the optimal conditions to raise children. In the eyes of the law each child may have two parents, however, in reality it will be different because if a man has many children with multiple wives, it is not possible for the man to be a present father for all of them: his attention will have to be shared among the wives. If MPs are serious about the well being, development, and mental state of children, this bill will be rejected. The idea that children in two-parents families do better than children raised in single-parent families, families where there is conflict, and families where the children are not given attention is founded in deep scientific research.
    You have mave made me an abstain. Have been flip flopping on this issue since I first saw the bill.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gladstone1885)
    Aye, though I would prefer you didn't prohibit discrimination against them by private sector actors
    As you support this bill, justify why the evidence-based critique of this bill harming the development of children I presented is wrong.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    x
    Okay, in the past I've been on both sides of this issue, so I'd like to say that I understand your argument, Nige.
    The problem I have with it is that by your conclusion, you're already suggesting that the government has successfully enshrined straight marriage, which just isn't true. Marriage between men and women has been falling drastically for the past 40 years.
    Figure 1b- Marriages rates for men and women, 1934 to 2014.png

    The reason why I want the government out of the business of marriage is because the government will inevitably force gay and polygamist marriage onto various types of churches that do not wish to facilitate such a wedding. Marriage privatization is a simple solution to a long, complex and infuriating problem that will not go away as long as the government has a role to play in its direction. This doesn't just account for marriage, but lots of other things that you would probably agree with me on.

    Polygamous communities, like the Mormons and various African societies, ultimately failed because polygamy was the rule. Can you honestly tell me that the privatization of marriage will lead to polygamy and homosexuality becoming the majority of marriage?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Michiyo)
    x
    While I don't agree with polygamy either, the idea that something shouldn't be allowed because you personally wouldn't partake in it yourself isn't a valid argument. If the legalization of polygamy were to negatively impact society on a mass scale, like Nigel is suggesting, then I would agree with you, but I don't believe that is applicable either since polygamy has almost zero chance of ever becoming the majority of marriage facilitation.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Nay. A concerning proposal.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joel 96)
    Okay, in the past I've been on both sides of this issue, so I'd like to say that I understand your argument, Nige.
    The problem I have with it is that by your conclusion, you're already suggesting that the government has successfully enshrined straight marriage, which just isn't true. Marriage between men and women has been falling drastically for the past 40 years.
    Figure 1b- Marriages rates for men and women, 1934 to 2014.png

    The reason why I want the government out of the business of marriage is because the government will inevitably force gay and polygamist marriage onto various types of churches that do not wish to facilitate such a wedding. Marriage privatization is a simple solution to a long, complex and infuriating problem that will not go away as long as the government has a role to play in its direction. This doesn't just account for marriage, but lots of other things that you would probably agree with me on.

    Polygamous communities, like the Mormons and various African societies, ultimately failed because polygamy was the rule. Can you honestly tell me that the privatization of marriage will lead to polygamy and homosexuality becoming the majority of marriage?
    Using something that might happen in the future as justification for supporting a bill that is not ideal today will create problems. Neither your justification for support nor your critique of the vulnerable children argument works because you implicitly accept the problem of problem fathers will become worse The whole society will not become polygamous, however, legalising polygamy will give justification for unfaithful men's behaviour, for bad fathers to ignore their children, and for men to start controlling their wives. To cite an example, if a wife wanted to divorce an unfaithful father who used this law to secretly marry another woman and spend time finding other wives than attending to his children, the first wife cannot obtain a divorce if the husband fights the divorce. Under current law the wife could use adultery as grounds for divorce but as this bill legalises official adultery, it follows that adultery cannot be used as grounds for divorce. Removing a big reason for divorce leads to legal cases where the outcome is the wife being legally required to stay married to the man and needing to live separate lives for five years before the court approves a divorce. In those five years the husband could try to be more involved to stop a separate lifestyle being lived, if that happens, there will be a situation where a woman is being manipulated in improvable, legal ways that will be worsened if a child is involved. This bill makes the problem worse and has no strong safeguards to protect children and women; supporting this bill is voting against caring for vulnerable children and women.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Nay, cannot agree with this and reading Nigel Farage MEP's points it reinforces my opposition to this bill.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    Using something that might happen in the future as justification for supporting a bill that is not ideal today will create problems. Neither your justification for support nor your critique of the vulnerable children argument works because you implicitly accept the problem of problem fathers will become worse The whole society will not become polygamous, however, legalising polygamy will give justification for unfaithful men's behaviour, for bad fathers to ignore their children, and for men to start controlling their wives. To cite an example, if a wife wanted to divorce an unfaithful father who used this law to secretly marry another woman and spend time finding other wives than attending to his children, the first wife cannot obtain a divorce if the husband fights the divorce. Under current law the wife could use adultery as grounds for divorce but as this bill legalises official adultery, it follows that adultery cannot be used as grounds for divorce. Removing a big reason for divorce leads to legal cases where the outcome is the wife being legally required to stay married to the man and needing to live separate lives for five years before the court approves a divorce. In those five years the husband could try to be more involved to stop a separate lifestyle being lived, if that happens, there will be a situation where a woman is being manipulated in improvable, legal ways that will be worsened if a child is involved. This bill makes the problem worse and has no strong safeguards to protect children and women; supporting this bill is voting against caring for vulnerable children and women.
    The "single" aspect refers to a unitary and consensual marriage from by all individuals (although I accept that could have been made clearer) and all the nuanced scenarios you are putting forward apply to normal marriages anyway when the husband is being difficult and adultery cannot be proven or he is refusing to grant divorce. Desertion is still grounds for divorce if the father neglects the family like you mention. I know I can't persuade you as you appear to be clearly against but just thought I'd jump to the Bill's defence here a bit. Also - the judiciary goes through these situations for every law on a daily basis as they apply its wording, and they do the same with complicated divorce proceedings for traditional marriages just like they would be with polygamous ones of up to 4 people.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by harrisonpopple)
    The "single" aspect refers to a unitary and consensual marriage from by all individuals (although I accept that could have been made clearer) and all the nuanced scenarios you are putting forward apply to normal marriages anyway when the husband is being difficult and adultery cannot be proven or he is refusing to grant divorce. Desertion is still grounds for divorce if the father neglects the family like you mention. I know I can't persuade you as you appear to be clearly against but just thought I'd jump to the Bill's defence here a bit. Also - the judiciary goes through these situations for every law on a daily basis as they apply its wording, and they do the same with complicated divorce proceedings for traditional marriages just like they would be with polygamous ones of up to 4 people.
    The difference is under the current rules adultery can lead to divorce if it can be proven, however, under this bill, adultery would not be able to be used if it could be proven. A man having multiple marriages and children with different women is a way to prove adultery. Desertion can be grounds for divorce under this bill, however, the argument is this bill provides a legal justification for men wanting to desert their wives and children. There could be a divorce but divorce is not going to prevent the damaging impact that will have on a child who grows up with their father not a present influence. And to deal with you final point, the courts may decide the interpretation but when the wording is clear there is no debate on interpretation needed.

    To defend this bill you need to attempt to prove that this bill will not lead to an increase in neglect of children by fathers who become more interested in acquiring wives than tending to their children. To do this you should present a case to counter the case studies showing more neglect of children in polygamous societies in a contemporary context and a historical context. This bill extends past what your individual idea of marriage is to the need to protect children. If you cannot counter the case studies and show that child neglect will not increase, you need to argue that child neglect is not a bad thing, fathers are not important in the life of children as they grow, and that the state should not be worried about the increased costs of caring for neglected children. Not doing that would be allowing stubbornness to block clear thought.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    All of you fail to engage with the biggest argument against polygamy which is the impact on the development of children. If men remain in the marriage market, there is the possibility of high-status men investing their resources in obtaining more wives, spreading their genes, and gaining social status. It is the biological instinct of humans to mate, when these children are born the males will choose to neglect their children, and poorer men will be forced to invest their resources in finding any bride as many women share the high-status man. The concept of wealthier men neglecting their children seems strange, however, studies of historical polygamous societies confirm the phenomenon is strong. Studies revealed that in polygamous societies of past, poorer men had 6.9 children survive to the age of 15 compared to wealthier men who had 5.5 survive to 15. The same impact has been found from studying contemporary polygamous societies in Africa where children in polygamous families have higher rates of malnutrition, lower life expectancy, and worse health.

    What this bill does is place poorer children at a larger disadvantage, increase neglect of children, and place strain on the state who has to step in to take the place of father who refuse their parental duties because reproducing with new wives is seen as more desirable. And there will be a new cost on the state if there is a divorce that results in the father needing to pay child support. Men running around making babies for status will lead to the state needing to step in to pay for the children the men cannot afford to have.

    Laws against polygamy are in place to protect the valuable concept of a two-parent family which is the optimal conditions to raise children. In the eyes of the law each child may have two parents, however, in reality it will be different because if a man has many children with multiple wives, it is not possible for the man to be a present father for all of them: his attention will have to be shared among the wives. If MPs are serious about the well being, development, and mental state of children, this bill will be rejected. The idea that children in two-parents families do better than children raised in single-parent families, families where there is conflict, and families where the children are not given attention is founded in deep scientific research.
    First of all, I'd like to thank the honorouble member for the time he has taken to create such a well-expressed response that is clear. Despite this, I fear that the member has evaded some facts with his - seemingly blind - opposition to the bill. While polygamous societies have been shown to produce undesirable effects what's forgotten is that: a) we're talking about entire communities where polygamous relationships were rife with only males having multiple wives (which I'm sure was the case) and b) these communities existed in the 19th century and therefore not compelling enough irrespective of how they existed to argue against this bill as time has moved on along with people. While the argument that men would want to acquire wives to subsequently spread their own genes might have held some merit in the past (and granted, I know it does) I'm not convinced the same phenomena would be apparent today and if it was to not such a great extent as the past. Also, to the contrary of examples provided, it's entirely possible that a multi-spousal household would foster an environment actually positive for children as a result of there being multiple sources of income providing financial stability, having more loving individuals to the child fulfilling emotional desires and greater chances that the child would have parental contact by virtue of there being more parents.

    This piece of legislation serves the purposes of expanding individual liberties and trusting people to make their own choices. It's because of that I'll be voting Aye.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    The difference is under the current rules adultery can lead to divorce if it can be proven, however, under this bill, adultery would not be able to be used if it could be proven. A man having multiple marriages and children with different women is a way to prove adultery. Desertion can be grounds for divorce under this bill, however, the argument is this bill provides a legal justification for men wanting to desert their wives and children. There could be a divorce but divorce is not going to prevent the damaging impact that will have on a child who grows up with their father not a present influence. And to deal with you final point, the courts may decide the interpretation but when the wording is clear there is no debate on interpretation needed.

    To defend this bill you need to attempt to prove that this bill will not lead to an increase in neglect of children by fathers who become more interested in acquiring wives than tending to their children. To do this you should present a case to counter the case studies showing more neglect of children in polygamous societies in a contemporary context and a historical context. This bill extends past what your individual idea of marriage is to the need to protect children. If you cannot counter the case studies and show that child neglect will not increase, you need to argue that child neglect is not a bad thing, fathers are not important in the life of children as they grow, and that the state should not be worried about the increased costs of caring for neglected children. Not doing that would be allowing stubbornness to block clear thought.
    Irreconcilable differences is the most common reason for divorce and this is easily used for scenarios which you describe where the wife or husband is unhappy for any reason in the marriage. And the divorce damage argument again applies to traditional marriages just as much as polygamous marriages - especially because the child still only has two parents legally. And the reason children are more neglected is because of the cultural background many people in polygamous marriages are in right now; they are from usually deeply religious and other non-western backgrounds where children are regarded as less important (in GENERAL). Also, children may be more neglected due to the secrecy and criminal connotations currently attached to polygamy and so many fathers of other children have to operate covertly and hence "neglect" their children more often. Moreover you seem to presume it is the father who is always in the wrong when in reality it could be either, and either way the polygamous aspect will arguably provide more support to the child with multiple guardians in the absence of a father/mother figure. I assume you don't agree with same sex marriage then if you feel certain sexes are needed for a child's development? Which has been time after time disproven.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Conceited)
    First of all, I'd like to thank the honorouble member for the time he has taken to create such a well-expressed response that is clear. Despite this, I fear that the member has evaded some facts with his - seemingly blind - opposition to the bill. While polygamous societies have been shown to produce undesirable effects what's forgotten is that: a) we're talking about entire communities where polygamous relationships were rife with only males having multiple wives (which I'm sure was the case) and b) these communities existed in the 19th century and therefore not compelling enough irrespective of how they existed to argue against this bill as time has moved on along with people. While the argument that men would want to acquire wives to subsequently spread their own genes might have held some merit in the past (and granted, I know it does) I'm not convinced the same phenomena would be apparent today and if it was to not such a great extent as the past. Also, to the contrary of examples provided, it's entirely possible that a multi-spousal household would foster an environment actually positive for children as a result of there being multiple sources of income providing financial stability, having more loving individuals to the child fulfilling emotional desires and greater chances that the child would have parental contact by virtue of there being more parents.

    This piece of legislation serves the purposes of expanding individual liberties and trusting people to make their own choices. It's because of that I'll be voting Aye.
    Echoing my sentiments exactly
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 04MR17)


    In Egypt, and other countries of that colour, Polygamy is legal
    In India, and other countries of that colour, Polygamy is only legal for Muslims
    In Russia, and other countries of that colour, Polygamy is illegal, but practice is not criminalised
    In China, and other countries of that colour, Polygamy is illegal and practice criminalised
    Others: Legal status unknown


    Apologies for no colours in the key but I found the image but the key would not copy over. Since I am colourblind, I thought this would be the best option rather than guess.
    In other words if you're in a civilised country polygamy is illegal and criminalised
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    In other words if you're in a civilised country polygamy is illegal and criminalised
    Difference is this bill isn't religiously motivated and has provisions which set it apart from those other countries.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Conceited)
    First of all, I'd like to thank the honorouble member for the time he has taken to create such a well-expressed response that is clear. Despite this, I fear that the member has evaded some facts with his - seemingly blind - opposition to the bill. While polygamous societies have been shown to produce undesirable effects what's forgotten is that: a) we're talking about entire communities where polygamous relationships were rife with only males having multiple wives (which I'm sure was the case) and b) these communities existed in the 19th century and therefore not compelling enough irrespective of how they existed to argue against this bill as time has moved on along with people. While the argument that men would want to acquire wives to subsequently spread their own genes might have held some merit in the past (and granted, I know it does) I'm not convinced the same phenomena would be apparent today and if it was to not such a great extent as examples from the past. Also, to the contrary of examples provided, it's entirely possible that a multi-spousal household would foster an environment actually positive for children as a result of there being multiple sources of income providing financial stability, having more loving individuals to the child fulfilling emotional desires and greater chances that the child would have parental contact by virtue of there being more parents.

    This piece of legislation serves the purposes of expanding individual liberties and trusting people to make their own choices. It's because of that I'll be voting Aye.
    You have not read the studies I have linked, if you did you would know there is mixture of historical examples and contemporary examples where polygamy is a common practice. One big contemporary example is the damage children suffer in Amish communities where polygamy is common. You have no evidence that legalising polygamy will not lead to more absent fathers and the consequences absent fathers has on children. Claiming multi-spousal homes create a better environment for children to grow up in is against research that has been conducted and far from being reasons why the environment would be better, the justifications you provide ignore the consequences of polygamy. If there are multiple spouses in the home the child will be receiving mixed messages from each spouse; spouses will be arguing about parenting, when their spouse can be used in bed, and what their jobs around the house are; and children becoming closer to their non-biological parent will present difficulties if their biological parent wants something different. To illustrate this final point it is worth examining the household dynamic of step families, as recent events show us, there are situation where children from the relationship are treated differently to children from another relationship: polygamy will increase the number of these situations.

    (Original post by harrisonpopple)
    Irreconcilable differences is the most common reason for divorce and this is easily used for scenarios which you describe where the wife or husband is unhappy for any reason in the marriage. And the divorce damage argument again applies to traditional marriages just as much as polygamous marriages - especially because the child still only has two parents legally. And the reason children are more neglected is because of the cultural background many people in polygamous marriages are in right now; they are from usually deeply religious and other non-western backgrounds where children are regarded as less important (in GENERAL). Also, children may be more neglected due to the secrecy and criminal connotations currently attached to polygamy and so many fathers of other children have to operate covertly and hence "neglect" their children more often. Moreover you seem to presume it is the father who is always in the wrong when in reality it could be either, and either way the polygamous aspect will arguably provide more support to the child with multiple guardians in the absence of a father/mother figure. I assume you don't agree with same sex marriage then if you feel certain sexes are needed for a child's development? Which has been time after time disproven.
    You are right to say the divorce aspect applies to homogeneous relationship but it will apply more to polygamous relationships because divorces will be harder to obtain. In the historical and contemporary examples of polygamy, there is not secrecy involved because polygamy is an accepted part of their culture. You fail to challenge the point which is under polygamy fathers have an incentive, legal justification, ability to focus their resources on obtaining wives, not looking after children. Your defence of children having more than one parents does not work because parents will have different parenting styles, some parents would favour their own biological children than strange children, more spouses will lead to more arguing in the household, and children could form a closer bond to the non-biological parent which creates problems, this applies in step household, however, there will be more incidents of it happening in polygamous households.

    Stop arguing the straw man point, children need two parents in a stable relationship to grow up, fighting parents, more than two parents, mixed messages from parents, and an absent parent is damaging to child development as loads of scientific research in the modern day reveals. The use of the man in my argument reflects the reality of this bill which will be the alpha male type going around trying to bed and marry as many women as possible. The result will be children growing up with fathers absent because their fathers are prioritising their other wives and children over them, women in difficult marriages where they feel helpless, and an increased cost on the state to care for the neglected children.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    In other words if you're in a civilised country polygamy is illegal and criminalised
    Or, if you do not wish to offend large swathes of the planet, "there is a mixed picture globally"
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    You have not read the studies I have linked, if you did you would know there is mixture of historical examples and contemporary examples where polygamy is a common practice. One big contemporary example is the damage children suffer in Amish communities where polygamy is common. You have no evidence that legalising polygamy will not lead to more absent fathers and the consequences absent fathers has on children. Claiming multi-spousal homes create a better environment for children to grow up in is against research that has been conducted and far from being reasons why the environment would be better, the justifications you provide ignore the consequences of polygamy. If there are multiple spouses in the home the child will be receiving mixed messages from each spouse; spouses will be arguing about parenting, when their spouse can be used in bed, and what their jobs around the house are; and children becoming closer to their non-biological parent will present difficulties if their biological parent wants something different. To illustrate this final point it is worth examining the household dynamic of step families, as recent events show us, there are situation where children from the relationship are treated differently to children from another relationship: polygamy will increase the number of these situations.



    You are right to say the divorce aspect applies to homogeneous relationship but it will apply more to polygamous relationships because divorces will be harder to obtain. In the historical and contemporary examples of polygamy, there is not secrecy involved because polygamy is an accepted part of their culture. You fail to challenge the point which is under polygamy fathers have an incentive, legal justification, ability to focus their resources on obtaining wives, not looking after children. Your defence of children having more than one parents does not work because parents will have different parenting styles, some parents would favour their own biological children than strange children, more spouses will lead to more arguing in the household, and children could form a closer bond to the non-biological parent which creates problems, this applies in step household, however, there will be more incidents of it happening in polygamous households.

    Stop arguing the straw man point, children need two parents in a stable relationship to grow up, fighting parents, more than two parents, mixed messages from parents, and an absent parent is damaging to child development as loads of scientific research in the modern day reveals. The use of the man in my argument reflects the reality of this bill which will be the alpha male type going around trying to bed and marry as many women as possible. The result will be children growing up with fathers absent because their fathers are prioritising their other wives and children over them, women in difficult marriages where they feel helpless, and an increased cost on the state to care for the neglected children.
    Well with the historical studies you reference the emotional wellbeing of children again was seen as less important and multiple children more important as they increased financial stability in a family, so those studies have no relevance or at least significantly reduced relevance in the modern day context of this Bill. And with your point about obtaining wives again there is a limit to only 3 others so it's not like they are going to be collecting them and if they don't want children they can just use contraception like everyone else - you're viewing this through the lens of medieval Islamic or fundamentalist scenarios I feel. Your point about multiple parents is just conjecture and the exact opposite could just as likely be true. Again, the women and their children who are neglected could file for divorce like any other person would and again it's only 3 other wives maximum. That list of scenarios where children are damaged again is conjecture and the marriage could just as easily be happy, supportive and stable.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    In other words if you're in a civilised country polygamy is illegal and criminalised
    Hear, hear!
 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: August 1, 2017
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    How are your GCSEs going so far?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.