General Discussion

reflection

(6,287 posts)

47. As I said earlier

Thu Jun 6, 2013, 05:04 PM

Jun 2013

All parties would have to come to the table and lock in the agreement. Whether or not the two wives are married to each other is something that could be established during the agreement.

Protecting the property rights of all parties in the event of a dissolution is also something I addressed. Child custody would definitely be problematic.

If you had two wives, they could not have two husbands unless they were part of the original agreement.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

101 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

If polygamy can empower women, why not legalize it? [View all] Emelina Jun 2013 OP

Ugh Blue_Adept Jun 2013 #1

Then why not allow that too? Emelina Jun 2013 #3

Legally there's little difference between polygamy and polyamory. Xithras Jun 2013 #13

But the term... Blue_Adept Jun 2013 #23

While true, the OP was talking about legalization. Xithras Jun 2013 #25

What a group of sane adults voluntarily do to each other isnt my business... TampaAnimusVortex Jun 2013 #91

Polygamy doesn't empower women. leftyladyfrommo Jun 2013 #2

Did you listen to the anthropologist interviewed in the video? Emelina Jun 2013 #4

My degree is in Anthropology. leftyladyfrommo Jun 2013 #7

It's not so great for most men either. lumberjack_jeff Jun 2013 #15

Indeed. No one likes to talk about the male cubs that get cast off. nt msanthrope Jun 2013 #93

Well, great for the women, too Warpy Jun 2013 #55

And where the woman's total value is as a breeder. Ick. Squinch Jun 2013 #59

Not always true Warpy Jun 2013 #74

Whenever it is associated with fundamental Mormonism, Squinch Jun 2013 #77

Yea! That's right. leftyladyfrommo Jun 2013 #84

Then the problem is fundamentalist Mormonism Warpy Jun 2013 #92

True. But fundamentalist Mormons are the vast majority of polygamists in the US, I think. Squinch Jun 2013 #94

But nothing Warpy Jun 2013 #95

Well, it was Utah. leftyladyfrommo Jun 2013 #79

Kind of like the hippy communes. leftyladyfrommo Jun 2013 #8

That made me laugh Puzzledtraveller Jun 2013 #12

Do you really think that anyone here who supports polygamy wouldn't also support polyandry? EOTE Jun 2013 #38

the question was asked to a specific person, who did not in fact answer it at all. Bluenorthwest Jun 2013 #51

Well, I'd imagine the great, great bulk of DUers who support polygamy EOTE Jun 2013 #53

That's as maybe, but my point is that when asked the OP did not say Bluenorthwest Jun 2013 #63

You could also argue that allowing females to have as many mates as they please would empower them. appleannie1 Jun 2013 #5

That's true. HappyMe Jun 2013 #14

Having been married 47 years, I find just keeping one person happy enough of a job for me. appleannie1 Jun 2013 #31

I live with two men. Things are done my way most of the time. In_The_Wind Jun 2013 #6

Is it sexual? Aerows Jun 2013 #9

Only with one. In_The_Wind Jun 2013 #29

Why not polyandry? hobbit709 Jun 2013 #10

How about a "my body my choice" law to replace all laws? alp227 Jun 2013 #11

It doesn't. n/t Yo_Mama Jun 2013 #16

Polygamy dis-empowers women siligut Jun 2013 #17

Polygamy is one person with a few mates. HappyMe Jun 2013 #21

One woman with > males is polyandry siligut Jun 2013 #24

Thanks for the correct word. HappyMe Jun 2013 #30

Actually, technically, one man with many women is polygyny. One of either sex with Squinch Jun 2013 #64

Is wearing draperies like those women in the photo are doing Squinch Jun 2013 #61

Why am I suspicious of a new poster essentially posting geek tragedy Jun 2013 #18

Polygamy is a consensual agreement. EOTE Jun 2013 #39

People are already allowed to shag whomever they want on a continuing basis. nt geek tragedy Jun 2013 #40

Yep. And yet there are still consenting adults who can't marry who they want. EOTE Jun 2013 #42

I favor the simple rule that any two consenting adults should be able to marry. nt geek tragedy Jun 2013 #43

So, it's just the number that's arbitrary. EOTE Jun 2013 #46

Having the state attach legal rights and obligations goes beyond geek tragedy Jun 2013 #48

No one other than polygamists/polyandrists, that is. EOTE Jun 2013 #49

Sure, it's worked just fine in sharia law. geek tragedy Jun 2013 #52

Those scary Muslims also breathe air! We should stop immediately! EOTE Jun 2013 #54

Polygamy is associated with backwards, patriarchal geek tragedy Jun 2013 #57

So, guilt by association. I expected nothing less. EOTE Jun 2013 #58

Yawn. geek tragedy Jun 2013 #65

Now the bigotry shines through. EOTE Jun 2013 #67

I favor full marriage equality for same-sex couples. geek tragedy Jun 2013 #69

No, it's bigotry to suggest that certain things are bad because certain groups of people do them. EOTE Jun 2013 #71

You're very angry and saying a lot of nonsensical things. geek tragedy Jun 2013 #72

I figured you might have a problem with plain english. EOTE Jun 2013 #73

Finally. Community support for me and my Yertle. CincyDem Jun 2013 #60

. geek tragedy Jun 2013 #66

yeah...so I missed the part where this was an actual comment made by someone in public CincyDem Jun 2013 #75

I thought he bested Senator Man-on-Dog with that one nt geek tragedy Jun 2013 #76

Are you suggesting he and Mitch McConnell are "a thing"? Quantess Jun 2013 #68

I don't care how you try to dress it up, polygamy doesn't "empower" women. Sheldon Cooper Jun 2013 #19

And those old men are so creepy. leftyladyfrommo Jun 2013 #81

It is illegal because it is socially destabilizing. lumberjack_jeff Jun 2013 #20

I don't have a problem with people having multiple committed partners. MadrasT Jun 2013 #22

^that LadyHawkAZ Jun 2013 #36

Because it doesn't empower women leftynyc Jun 2013 #26

The anthrolopogist interviewed does not appear to be a religious zealot... Emelina Jun 2013 #34

Because they generally are leftynyc Jun 2013 #35

common sense noiretextatique Jun 2013 #87

Religion get the red out Jun 2013 #27

This got me wondering..... clarice Jun 2013 #28

I think you have been shown way too much respect in this thread. NCTraveler Jun 2013 #32

Because it doesn't. n/t pnwmom Jun 2013 #33

Every time I articulate my desire for legal same-sex marriage reflection Jun 2013 #37

So, how about a 10,000 person marriage then? geek tragedy Jun 2013 #41

I agree that I have had that same internal question also. reflection Jun 2013 #44

Any more than two, and it really isn't a marriage. geek tragedy Jun 2013 #45

As I said earlier reflection Jun 2013 #47

If one had 100 years one could eventually figure it out, maybe. geek tragedy Jun 2013 #50

Agreed, probably not going to happen. reflection Jun 2013 #62

And that's kind of the rub--there's no domestic constituency in the US geek tragedy Jun 2013 #70

True, what a mess treestar Jun 2013 #80

That wouldn't be practicable either. geek tragedy Jun 2013 #83

Then you wouldn't put a spouse through graduate school treestar Jun 2013 #85

Legal paternity would be a lot thornier absent marriage. geek tragedy Jun 2013 #86

So society does not have to deal with divorce treestar Jun 2013 #88

The benefits of marriage outweigh the pains of divorces that do happen. nt geek tragedy Jun 2013 #89

I'll take 5 please notadmblnd Jun 2013 #56

Child support, custody, and tax issues galore jberryhill Jun 2013 #78

Holding a marriage together is the hardest thing I've ever attempted badtoworse Jun 2013 #82

It doesn't empower women. nt riderinthestorm Jun 2013 #90

It doesn't quite work out that way EdKociela Jun 2013 #96

Just a few set of rules though MattBaggins Jun 2013 #97

Are you sure those young men are angry? Sheldon Cooper Jun 2013 #99

Yes they are horrible MattBaggins Jun 2013 #100

If they are angry, I can't say that I blame them. Sheldon Cooper Jun 2013 #101

I have no problem with legalizing polygamy, but polygamy sounds like a nightmare Zorra Jun 2013 #98