The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

Civil partnerships for "thruples"?

So we've reached a point where homosexuals can have civil partnerships, giving them broadly the same legal rights as heterosexuals getting married AFAIK.

With the increase in "thruples" (relationships involving three people) do you think we'll move towards some form of legal partnership that can involve more than two people? Is there any real reason we shouldn't?

Scroll to see replies

In many countries now including the UK same sex couples can get married

I think that it’s possible, and I don’t see why there shouldn’t be such a provision
This would be seen as a move towards polygamy, which is very much a taboo in the western democracies. Don't expect such a change within the next fifty years.
Had to Google thruple as I thought you'd made it up.

First result is quite accurate:
"Thruple" is a hideous neologism that sounds like wet paper being torn
Reply 4
Avatar for Milax1x
Milax1x
15
No. There’s a big link between mass polygamy and abuse.
Reply 5
Avatar for Dheorl
Dheorl
OP
17
Original post by Good bloke
This would be seen as a move towards polygamy, which is very much a taboo in the western democracies. Don't expect such a change within the next fifty years.


It seems to becoming less taboo at quite a rate though. It's taken less than 50 years for homosexuality to go from illegal to essentially equal rights. Is there any reason there shouldn't be at least this rate of progression with polygamy?
Reply 6
Avatar for Dheorl
Dheorl
OP
17
Original post by Milax1x
No. There’s a big link between mass polygamy and abuse.


Do you have any sources to back that up? And is it focused on male dominated polygamy when the man has multiple wives, or a more open polygamy where everyone is married to everyone else in the relationship?
Original post by Dheorl
Is there any reason there shouldn't be at least this rate of progression with polygamy?


Yes, three and two are related to religion.

Firstly, the west is becoming increasingly secular. Most people who want multiple spouses do so for reasons of religion. Irreligious impatience with special pleading is wearing thin.

Secondly, nearly all would-be polygamists are Moslems. How popular do you think a move to allow polygamy would be in the west?

Third, it is not in the public interest for a man to leave two widows who can each claim benefits and privileges as a result of a polygamous marriage.
(edited 5 years ago)
Reply 8
Avatar for Milax1x
Milax1x
15
Original post by Dheorl
Do you have any sources to back that up? And is it focused on male dominated polygamy when the man has multiple wives, or a more open polygamy where everyone is married to everyone else in the relationship?


http://law.emory.edu/elj/content/volume-64/issue-6/articles-and-essays/polygyny-violence-against-women.html
Tl;dr polygyny ruins society as a whole
Reply 9
Avatar for s.a.u
s.a.u
17
No, it’s a legal minefield. What if someone wants a divorce? Who are they divorcing? One, both? Whose assets get divided? At the end of the day it comes down to legal simplicity rather than any real question of morals, when it comes to the government. Monogamous pairings are easy to legislate, gender regardless.
Reply 10
Avatar for Dheorl
Dheorl
OP
17
Original post by Good bloke
Yes, three and two are related to religion.

Firstly, the west is becoming increasingly secular. Most people who want multiple spouses do so for reasons of religion. Irreligious impatience with special pleading is wearing thin.

Secondly, nearly all would-be polygamists are Moslems. How popular do you think a move to allow polygamy would be in the west?

Third, it is not in the public interest for a man to leave two widows who can each claim benefits and privileges as a result of a polygamous marriage.


I should have been more specific. I'm referring to the more modern take on polygamy, where everyone in the relationship is equal and intimate with everyone else, whatever combination of genders that may be. Not where there is one dominant individual with multiple partners.

I'm not suggesting a law allowing one person to have multiple legal partners, but a law that enables multiple people to be joined in one legal partnership.
Reply 11
Avatar for Dheorl
Dheorl
OP
17
Original post by Milax1x


So it focuses entirely on one man having multiple separate partners. Not really relevant.
Reply 12
Avatar for Dheorl
Dheorl
OP
17
Original post by s.a.u
No, it’s a legal minefield. What if someone wants a divorce? Who are they divorcing? One, both? Whose assets get divided? At the end of the day it comes down to legal simplicity rather than any real question of morals, when it comes to the government. Monogamous pairings are easy to legislate, gender regardless.


It would certainly be trickier. I'd assumed the fairly simple and logical conclusion though would be anyone could leave, and anyone would get 1/3rd of the total. It's not like standard divorces are always a mutually agreed situation. If that required dissolving the whole thing then two of the people remarrying, it wouldn't really change much.
Original post by Dheorl
So it focuses entirely on one man having multiple separate partners. Not really relevant.


Of course it’s relevant. If they allow polygynous CP’s then men will be allowed them too which will cause this entire issue. Seems like you’ve set your mind on it being legal and won’t change your mind regardless of evidence presented
Original post by Dheorl

I'm not suggesting a law allowing one person to have multiple legal partners, but a law that enables multiple people to be joined in one legal partnership.


it doesn't matter. What goes for civil partnerships must go for marriages (human rights lawyers will make sure of that), and the privileges of a civil partnership are virtually the same as those for a marriage.

i wouldn't be surprised if civil partnerships are abandoned in the UK in the light of recent court cases.
Reply 15
Avatar for Dheorl
Dheorl
OP
17
Original post by Good bloke
it doesn't matter. What goes for civil partnerships must go for marriages (human rights lawyers will make sure of that), and the privileges of a civil partnership are virtually the same as those for a marriage.

i wouldn't be surprised if civil partnerships are abandoned in the UK in the light of recent court cases.


I don't see what relevance that has. What I'm saying is in the situations you describe the man is married separately to multiple women. What I'm suggesting is those women will also be married to each other as part of the same agreement, taking away the power of the individual.
Reply 16
Avatar for Dheorl
Dheorl
OP
17
Original post by Milax1x
Of course it’s relevant. If they allow polygynous CP’s then men will be allowed them too which will cause this entire issue. Seems like you’ve set your mind on it being legal and won’t change your mind regardless of evidence presented


Yes, men will be allowed them, but unlike the ones examined in the link you provided the majority of the power won't be in the mans hands because everyone involved will be in one "contract", not one man holding multiple contracts over multiple women.

I will change my mind, if I see evidence which addresses the relationships described.
Original post by Dheorl
I don't see what relevance that has. What I'm saying is in the situations you describe the man is married separately to multiple women. What I'm suggesting is those women will also be married to each other as part of the same agreement, taking away the power of the individual.


As has been stated by another poster, this won't happen because it will be far too complex to untangle and, as I said, will present too high a burden on the state.
Original post by Good bloke
Yes, three and two are related to religion.

Firstly, the west is becoming increasingly secular. Most people who want multiple spouses do so for reasons of religion. Irreligious impatience with special pleading is wearing thin.

Secondly, nearly all would-be polygamists are Moslems. How popular do you think a move to allow polygamy would be in the west?

Third, it is not in the public interest for a man to leave two widows who can each claim benefits and privileges as a result of a polygamous marriage.
Plenty of non-Muslims have non-exclusive relationships, including menages a trois and other polyamorous relationships that people have. I know a couple of couples who are or were polyamorous, and they weren't Muslim.
Original post by Tootles
Plenty of non-Muslims have non-exclusive relationships, including menages a trois and other polyamorous relationships that people have. I know a couple of couples who are or were polyamorous, and they weren't Muslim.


I know. Nevertheless, the largest groups of candidates for such a contract are Moslems and Mormons. Living in such a group, unrecognised, is one thing, but being given privileges by the state for doing so is quite another.

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you