Why not polygamy?

[JamesATyler]

-A woman can enter into a prenup in which her infidelity can not be used for grounds for a divorce and or be used against her (held liable for) in a divorce.
-Your concern over sexual (as in gender, not relations) discrimination is not a valid counter argument against polygamy being illegal or never becoming legal. It would only be a valid argument if 1 man, many wives was currently legal and 1 woman, many husbands was not (and here it’s really only a valid argument for legalizing 1 woman, many husbands) or just 1 man, many wives was made legal while 1 woman, many husbands remained illegal (here, again, really just a valid argument for making 1 woman, many husbands legal).
-The “didn’t marry all the wives at once” argument is also faulty given that prenups can be altered or voided after marriage, contain provisions that incorporate changes in the marriage over time, and married couples can enter into post nuptial agreements.

I don’t see how my argument about sexual discrimination is faulty since what I was arguing was that both types (polygamy and polyandry) would have to be legal at the same time. My argument is mostly just saying that if both types are legal at the same time then what the legal system actually supports is group marriages of variable configurations. If that is allowed then the marital and divorce process would become much more complicated. So complicated that I doubt that such a thing will actually come to pass.

 

[lerapt78]

I was using liable in regards to the husband having to forfeit his rights to property or monies as a result of his violating the marriage contract and or having to compensate the wife for violating the marriage contract.

You mean alimony?

 

[oldcatholicguy]

I don’t see how my argument about sexual discrimination is faulty since what I was arguing was that both types (polygamy and polyandry) would have to be legal at the same time. My argument is mostly just saying that if both types are legal at the same time then what the legal system actually supports is group marriages of variable configurations. If that is allowed then the marital and divorce process would become much more complicated. So complicated that I doubt that such a thing will actually come to pass.

Ah, then I misunderstood your argument. As for it being too complicated, review our our tax laws or Obamacare, or pretty much any major piece of legislation. Too complicated simply translates to more lawyers.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

You mean alimony?

That and division of property, etc. that was acquired during the marriage or individual property, etc. that was joined by the marriage.

 

[otjm]

Against polygamy, Mark Twain wrote: “No man can serve two masters.”

Today the great debate about marriage is same-sex marriage.

Tomorrow the great debate may be polygamy.

What would be your main argument in defense of, or opposed to, polygamy?

Actually, it is not tomorrow; it has already started, and it is not polygamy; it is polyamory.