Plural Marriage

Kotoko said:
My husband and I have talked at length about the idea of plural marriage. It came up in another thread, so I decided to discuss it here...
Click to expand...
Hi Kokoto,
You might be interested in this old (18 months) thread, in which some of us discussed some pros and cons of plural marriage. It included a poll, in which 18 of 32 respondants answered "yes" to the question "Should polygamy be legal".

[thread=25237]Should polygamy be legal?[/thread]
 
Last edited:
perplexity said:
There really is a hell of a lot more to it than that, all sorts of rights and responsibilities.
Click to expand...

like what? in the US you have to pay a marriage tax, and then after you are married you have the right to own things jointly, have rights to each others possessions, you can get on each other's health insurance...etc. but mainly its about property or ownership of privelege. when the marriage ends, the property is divided, alimony is decided, and custody of any children is decided. but really, what are all the legal rights and responsibilites that come with marriage that dont involve property on some level?

And it is certainly not just about the relationship between two people. The difference in practice is about the relationship between the two and everybody else.
---
Click to expand...

well, thats just a point of semantics. it is about the relationship between the two people, and then other relationships existing outside the marriage conform accordingly or there is a breach of the marriage. but it has to be about the two people who are married. people dont go around asking their friends if they are going to be ok with it if they get married, they ask their potential spouse if they are willing to alter the nature of their relationship and accordingly, the nature of all others as a result. there is no reason however, that people couldnt make this honest commitment to each other without the need for legally binding contracts. it has been done in the past successfully.
 
perplexity It's the ceremony itself that's out of date. The institution is not. What alternatives would you suggest that would require or allow a financial or other institution to deal with a "couple" as one entity (as in my case where my husband had money but no time to get anything done whereas I had time but no money, but dealing together we got a lot accomplished and got out of debt)?
 
A civil contractual union. That's what we are referring to. If people can't marry (homosexuals, third parties, etc.) because of religious reasons, then the other option would be civil contractual unions under the same laws. That's what we are talking about.

Pete,

There was another thread as well, that had more information and was very well thought out. The thread you linked was just a bunch of religious zealots espousing the sanctity of marriage and whatnot, and then talking about suicidual polgamists without any backing up of the argument. I'll see if I can find the coherent and relevant one.
 
perplexity said:
What for instance when somebody marries because of a pregnancy though in love with another?

---
Click to expand...
if someone is in love with someone else and there is a pregnancy involved, they marry either for the pregnancy or for love. if you are marrying primarily because of the pregnancy then you are not marrying because of love. if you are in love with the person and they get pregnant and the pregnancy becomes a catalyst for the marriage proposal, then you are still marrying for love, just on a different time frame.
 
perplexity said:
And both parties would be asked, or not?

---
Click to expand...
no. it is up to the person whose love interest conflicts with their perceived responsibility to decide on their own. if it were myself for instance, and i were to impregnate a woman, but was in love with another, i would have to decide either to marry the woman i impregnated out of a sense of responsibility to the child and its mother, or to be honest with myself and marry the woman i love and attempt to be a father to the child of the woman i impregnated despite my abdication of our relationship.
 
Kotoko Ahh, gotcha. I agree. Religion should have no part in marriage excpet as the voluntary trappings of a mutually agreed upon theme, should the parties in question decide to make an event of it, sort of like a marriage party, similar to a cast party after a play or something.
 
well well..I must admit, if I were the lady originally asking the question, I'd feel more inclined to get another man in the house, rather than let her husband have a woman. She might find the reason she's finding sex such hard work is because he's not good at it.
 
I see no problem with it either, so long as all members of a marriage are okay with it.
 
aliceamazing said:
well well..I must admit, if I were the lady originally asking the question, I'd feel more inclined to get another man in the house, rather than let her husband have a woman. She might find the reason she's finding sex such hard work is because he's not good at it.
Click to expand...

I didn't say it was hard work, and I didn't say that I didn't enjoy doing it at all. But my husband can go probably three times a day, when I am only up for it once or twice a day. He's very good at it, never fails to bring me to orgasm either and it's very enjoyable and fun. But sharing that time to keep him satisfied doesn't sound like a drawback to me. It's only one of many reasons we'd like to share our lives with someone else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top