If we try and apply the previously stated logic, the argument would go a little something like this… Society is, and has always been, founded on the principle of a single man and a single woman being married, producing offspring, and repeating the process. Not so much that of insidiousness. Then we'll just be back to square one. What I mean by fascination is people have a natural tendancy to imitate others, especially those of superior stature. The result would be wealthy men having multiple wives.
I want her to have the security that comes with the legal status of being married, the tax benefits, and many of the social benefits that go with a legally recognized marriage. So, stop assuming that the law is only going to allow only men to marry multiple times and not the women. Until recently, you couldn't get a marriage license to marry someone of the same sex. Do you think they're just going to work, pay taxes, and accept their fate? The dilemma is whether they should be paid for the way it suits the rich —by tolls, or the way it suits the poor —by income taxes. But if an unmarried man buys a house for a woman and she quits her job and after 5 years they split, she gets alimony, a share of accumulated assets, etc.
In some religions, people are allowed to have polygamous marriage, but in Canadian society, most of them are Christian. Prior to that time polygamy had been considered legal in the territory and continued to be practiced long after the ban by a break-away sect of the Church of Latter Day Saints. And until a few decades ago, you couldn't get one to marry someone outside your race in most places there is an interesting case of a Filipino man and white woman who married in Los Angeles because the law didn't address the Malay race. A more esoteric concept would be speed limits on roads. Unless the excess of women are locked up in convents as the Romans and Greeks did, and later the church. But is it really a choice? Adherents of that position are blind to the many rational, good-faith concerns about the normalization of polygamous unions, and deaf to the conservative logic behind special benefits for unions between a man and a woman, a man and a man, or a woman and a woman. Turkey has long been known for its promotion of , and has introduced measures establishing stricter bars against polygamy; these were passed by the ruling moderate Islamist as well.
Numbers are the next-strongest argument against plural marriage. There is every reason to think that the pattern would hold if polygamous marriages became common in secular society. But that's plainly not how it is, ever. I think both of these assumptions are self-evident. But can you say with confidence that the issue is not actual? It informs things as fundamental as how we date, how we marry, and how we organize society.
Just because polygamy is legal, doesn't mean people will jump on the bandwagon to do it. It seems deeply unfair that American men and women are denied the rights that their fellow polyamorists are permitted to indulge in in countries as diverse as Nigeria and Indonesia. Listen, it is as simple as this, living primally does not mean we have to live like a neanderthal! He uses prostitution as his example, but the argument is somewhat analogous to monogamy. I know he doesn't need to prove that to me or anyone else and frankly I am in the same boat. And really, the rate of polygamy probably wouldn't increase overall.
I am descended from the first son of the King of England and his concubine. This law is interesting and it is called polygamy. Conclusions There could be benefits to recognizing polygamous relationships. The regions of Somaliland and in northern Somalia also recognize polygamy, as does the country's itself, since the country is governed by. If a woman's husband impregnates her co-wife, he can immediately impregnate her, too. In other words, for every hundred men on the planet, there were 130 women.
Herbinator, I hope you were just kidding with this comment. It is just an opportunity for those who need it Need? If same sex marriage is legalized then marriage between multiple people should also be legalized since one has the right to exercise their beliefs according to the First Amendment. I saw a docu a long time ago about some buddhist country where polyandry was normal. When do two women not get in a cat fight when he is with both of them at once? And Lawyers must stop for a minute to stop trusting their minds and Come down to real world. Also another aspect no one has mentioned with women and multiple men is keeping track of whos baby is whos.
Also to give one man this power of more than one wife is actually psychologically bad for his health. When people put this into Canada context, it is not very proper to push polygamy to be legal because it will lead to lots of social problems and destroy Canadian society structure. That being said, we're a long, long way off from polygamy being legal. She may suffer other reproductive costs from having to share a husband like receiving a smaller proportion of his resources for her own children , but these costs are less severe than not being able to reproduce at all for four years. Could it be something much better? I like it, good work. Adultery has been with us for as long as humans have had the institution of marriage.