Illegal/legal relations VS Polygamy in West

[Godobeyer]

Hello all


Thanks to Smart_Guy for give me the inspiration to this thread

Why it's ok in West to men/women to make legal sex with different women/men , but its not allowed to marry them ?

I suppose that 2 women loved a man , so they accept to live with him as wives together , so why the Western law restrict them to do that?


I mean in West ,man could sleep with different women (inverse) at same time because he (they love each other) , but NOT marry them (legalize that relation).

my point is why ban something, that's already allowed in illegal (fraud) way !!

 

[Sunstone]

my point is why ban something, that's already allowed in illegal (fraud) way !!

Historical reasons.

Although serious questions about the consequences of allowing polygamy, etc have been raised by some of the science on the subject.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It's an interesting point. I personally agree with Stephen Fry on the issue, when he spoke about it in one episode of Q.I:

"... This is the weird thing about polygamy; I mean we all treat it as if it's some terrible thing like incest, but actually the weird thing is if you deceive someone by having a mistress and a whole family, that's not against the law. But if you said to two women (or two men) "Look, I love you both, you're absolutely splendid, how would it be if I married you both?" and they both said okay, that would be breaking the law. It's kind of odd."

 

[Godobeyer]

Historical reasons.

Although serious questions about the consequences of allowing polygamy, etc have been raised by some of the science on the subject.

polygamy is already allowed by illagel way (fraud) or may worst

Do you think that man could not have two women as lovers (or more) at the same time , and live with them?

 

[HonestJoe]

Why it's ok in West to men/women to make legal sex with different women/men , but its not allowed to marry them ?

Legal marriage isn’t about the government simply allowing something, it’s the government actually doing something with all sorts of economic and legal consequences. It’s perfectly rational for government not to actively prevent people having multiple sexual partners (though they might seek to discourage it) while not legally recognising plural marriage.

 

[LuisDantas]

polygamy is already allowed by illagel way (fraud) or may worst

Do you think that man could not have two women as lovers (or more) at the same time , and live with them?

Sure, that has been known to happen, albeit not very often.

It is entirely legal, too, mostly because it is not acknowledged or monitored by law.

 

[Thanda]

Sure, that has been known to happen, albeit not very often.

It is entirely legal, too, mostly because it is not acknowledged or monitored by law.

I think in the US it is illegal to live in a situation that looks like polygamy.

 

[LuisDantas]

Much of the law regarding marriage aims to decide how various people's legal rights interact with each other. While there are a few references to cohabitation and to sexual life, that is (far as I know) only a minor, even marginal part of it, and it tends to go unenforced even when it is present.

It is not about whether people can constitute two families and live all together - they actually can, although it would be quite the cultural challenge - but rather about whether and how the relationships affect expectations of inheritance of property, financial support of children in case of divorce, surnames, decisions on the behalf of medically incapacitated relatives, taxes, and other similar considerations.

I suspect that in the Middle East law is often understood to mean "how people should behave". That is a popular understanding here in "the West" as well, but not an accurate one. Law here is actually about how the state, the government, expresses its expectations and which rights it reserves itself to enforce those. Law is a tool for management, not a moral instrument.

 

[LuisDantas]

I think in the US it is illegal to live in a situation that looks like polygamy.

If so, then I stand corrected. I assume however that enforcing such a law is problematic and rare.

Of course, it is not all too common to openly challenge it, either.

 

[Rival]

I think polygany should be legal in Europe.

 

[Deathbydefault]

If it isn't detrimental to society then there is no actual reason as to why it shouldn't be legal.
Not to mention that it happens anyways, just without the marriage part (as you said).

 

[HonestJoe]

I think polygany should be legal in Europe.

It is, in as much as you can hold any kind of ceremony you want, consider yourself married to any number of people and live together in any form and manner you choose.

The only thing you can’t do is have legal recognition of marriage to more than one person at any one time. Changing that isn’t as straight forwards as it might first seem though and there would be a number of legal and social elements that would need careful consideration before any change is made. In practice you’d need to demonstrate a significant need or widespread support for such a change to justify the costs and effort involved.

 

[LuisDantas]

Maybe I am mistaken, but it seems to me that generally speaking most "western" societies simply do not care all that much about legal acknowledgement of marriages anymore.

In part because they often feel like an unwanted complication by the parties directly involved. Attempting to convince the government that one should be married or (as is unfortunately very common) that said marriage should be ended is taxing in several senses, often leads to avoidable difficult moments, and has increasingly become of dubious actual benefit.

 

[Rival]

It is, in as much as you can hold any kind of ceremony you want, consider yourself married to any number of people and live together in any form and manner you choose.

The only thing you can’t do is have legal recognition of marriage to more than one person at any one time. Changing that isn’t as straight forwards as it might first seem though and there would be a number of legal and social elements that would need careful consideration before any change is made. In practice you’d need to demonstrate a significant need or widespread support for such a change to justify the costs and effort involved.

I think marriage makes it safer and less like a lower pleasure hobby. Any kids born would have both parents etc. Marriage just makes more sense.

 

[Jumi]

It's the same as a woman marrying many women in Muslim world. It's a cultural thing.

 

[LuisDantas]

It's the same as a woman marrying many women in Muslim world. It's a cultural thing.

Maybe there is a typo in there?

 

[SSDSSDSSD3]

It's a religious based issue, the FLDS church marries multiple people, while the rest of America has to follow the monogamy law, (Islam is a unique thing by itself), religious ideology effects that to an extent. Why does the Eastern World usually accept polygamy? It's because religion doesn't strictly require monogamy for most of their ideology.

 

[Godobeyer]

Legal marriage isn’t about the government simply allowing something, it’s the government actually doing something with all sorts of economic and legal consequences. It’s perfectly rational for government not to actively prevent people having multiple sexual partners (though they might seek to discourage it) while not legally recognising plural marriage.

Why not legal all kinds,as I know its OK to have sexual partners ( girlfriends ) except polygamy, its just about legalization.

 

[Estro Felino]

I've nothing against polygamy, as long as also women have the right to marry more than one man.
Either you give this right to both genders, or you give it to neither of them.

 

[Iti oj]

I support changing the laws