Turn on thread page Beta

Civil partnerships for "thruples"? watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    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?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    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
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    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
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    No. There’s a big link between mass polygamy and abuse.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (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/vol...nst-women.html
    Tl;dr polygyny ruins society as a whole
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Milax1x)
    http://law.emory.edu/elj/content/vol...nst-women.html
    Tl;dr polygyny ruins society as a whole
    So it focuses entirely on one man having multiple separate partners. Not really relevant.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    20
    (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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
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: July 25, 2018
Poll
Who is most responsible for your success at university
Useful resources

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

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