Should marriage to more than one person be legal?

  • Yes, yes, yes!

    People want long term loyalty and also excitement. Monogamous relationships are either do not last for life or they will, but become very dull, and if they are healthy then at least one of them will cheat. One reason for that is the human machine is built to maximize reproductive variety in the interest of the race through built-in addiction to novelty seeking and not for the lasting happiness of the individual. Just think about it, as social beings we want to join in when others do something. Activities with your single partner might not be so exciting after 20 years, but if you see 2 partners doing something, then immediately they will both become crazy exciting for you right away, whatever they are doing. And just how nice that they would love you to take part!
    Another reason is ownership. All human relationships are entwined with the feeling of various degree of ownership of the other one. When two people are together, one of them will be in love more and then other one will inevitably feel they are in a comfortable position of owning their partner. This will lead to disrespect and boredom and forever unfair testing of the one in love. When three people are together they will never own any one of them as much as to become boring, they will be forever exciting and new to each other. If this comes with respect, absolute loyalty (which will be natural as everyone will get everything from the threesome, that they were previously enjoyed in affairs, and not behind each others back like in affairs, but sharing the experience together, which is an amazing feeling) and complete trust and honesty with each other, then this could be the perfect harmony, the closest thing to a perfect life.
    Every single year people are getting closer to know: They are getting older, they are going to die way too soon, if only they could live more than one life. Very soon they discover that they can only live more than one life, if they have more than one lovers, as the experience of seeing/feeling ourselves together with a particular someone gives us the perception of living another unique life. So they are going to cheat or split up, so they can live more lives. A logical solution is to live and love faithfully in a threesome relationship.
    There are just so many benefits apart from unbelievably exciting sex. Twice as many help with children (the nanny culture has already introduced the third parent), not to mention sharing financial and domestic burdens. 2 people can always alternately finance the living expenses of the the third one whilst that studies for example, slowly but surely allowing the trio to move upwards in society. Having programs and lots of fun together, it all has twice the value and deeper meaning if you share it with two people, especially in a long term relationship.

  • Love love love

    I think it should be legel to marry multiple partners. In some occasions when one person loves 2 people so much that choosing only one would leave that person with an empty spot in there heart. And if those 2 people who are loved soo much by that one person also loved him enough that they had to be with him at all costs. There is no such thing as one person for everyone.

  • People need lots of love.

    A person has the ability to love an infinite amount of people. Quite often it happens that somebody finds themself loving x amount of people and unable to choose between them. As long as all parties consent to the multi-marriage, there should be nothing in the way of it. As adults, people should have any option open to them in regards to marriage, be it poly, monogamy, open marriages, what-have-you. Adults participating in any marriage should be required to be 1) sober 2) consenting entirely ans 3) not under any condition or stress that could impair their judgement.

  • Yes please

    I love two women with all my heart and I need them both. The love I have for one doesn't take away from the love I have for the other. It is not comparable. I just have more love than the person that loves only one woman. The mother of 5 children loves all of them the same as the mother of only one. Why can't society understand that it is the same with romantic love?

  • No one should be allowed to marry more than one person at time, it is unnatural and disgusting.

    The point of marriage is to spend the rest of your life honoring and loving one person for the rest of your life. People that marry numerous people at once and call it a religion are ungodly and dishonoring the sanctity of marriage.

    Posted by: emotopiwah
  • Yes

    If you think about it, in a conventional marriage, problems usually arise because there are too many responsibilities and not enough time to complete them by just one husband and one wife, even if there are no children. In addition, partners often fantasize greatly, if not stray from their spouse because they want to explore other partners. If we approach marriage knowing that the other will inevitably want to have other partners, and they indulge, then we are no longer waiting for the "other shoe to drop." If we expect and welcome each other to engage in sexual pleasures with another person, we may actually discover new, previously unexplored ways to truly satisfy, accept and love each other. Knowing that we have needs to be with a few other people, and allowing that leniency, may actually nurture a stronger bond between spouses, whether, 2 or 10 spouses. (I think an ideal number of spouses is around 4 or 5). This alleviates boredom, allows for enough people to partake in chores and contributing household income, and allows for variety of different sexual experiences, but still allowing enough time to cultivate a close bond (5 spouses and 7 days a week, that's about 6x's a month) this is counterintuitive, but I really think marriages can be stronger if we don't fight human nature of needing a little variety.

  • Yes, because in our Bible-influenced culture we have no Bible basis for prohibiting polygyny.

    Many of the greatest men of the Bible had more than one wife or concubine (woman bought as a slave). Those who condemn polygyny have no basis for their position in the bible. Throughout history, most societies have permitted if not encouraged polygyny. That the first recorded instance of polygyny in the Bible involved a descendant of Cain does not mean that he was the first polygynist. Abraham had one full wife and two concubines, the first his wife's slave woman. Gideon, one of the greatest heroes of Israel, had seventy sons, which strongly implies more than one wife! Solomon had seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines. Despite this (the king taking "man?" Wives) being forbidden by the law of Moses, he was not condemned for that but for marrying pagan women. David had many wives and concubines, some of which he inherited from his predecessor, Saul. He was never condemned for this but for stealing another man's wife and having the man killed. The lord is pictured as having two "wives?" Aloha/Israel/Samaria and aholibah/Judah/Jerusalem. Jesus is pictured as having a wedding to ten women, five of whom proved unworthy and who were rejected at the last moment. He also is pictured as having a husband-wife relationship (figuratively) with each of millions of Christians. For a figure to be valid, the physical principle upon which it is based must also be valid or it makes no sense. The levirate rule required a husband's "brother" (near relative) to marry his widow if he had no son with her. This did not matter whether the "brothel?" Already had a wife.

  • Marriage to more than one person is already legal, serially. Marriage should extend to concurrent relationships.

    It just so happens that I've been in a King triple for over twenty years, and my partner is looking to adding a love to our family. We came together in college and were a family, even without protection. We've raised good children who are a pride to us, we protect each other. Right now my other third is in recovering from having his appendix removed. I can be going out to work while he recovers, and his partner can be finishing up college. Our family is stable and safe and a comfort. I'd like it much better if nobody had special protection by government, but if male/female marriages are protected, male/male/female marriages like mine are just as worthy and should not be treated to discrimination. I will be generous, and happy, with or without legal cover but a lot of solid families with more than two break up without legal cover. It's only by private insurance that we had domestic partnership for Daniel, so that when he collapsed in pain he could go to the hospital and so everyone could care for him. It damages society that families of whatever side do not have the full protection of the law.

    Posted by: groovybox
  • I believe that what happens between consenting adults is their business, marriage included.

    There are a lot of social mores that are put into law. In the West, one of the most easily over looked it is marriage. Once an entirely religious event, the supposed separation of Church and State should have changed that. But this is not the case, at all. To be acknowledged as a legal union, there can only be two partners of opposite genders. A very Book religion view of a lifestyle, and one that doesn't necessarily coincide with how what we think of as a family functions.

    Posted by: R0II4Icy
  • Yes, with everyone's consent

    As long as it isn't one man marrying multiple women without his partner's consent, it should be fine. As long as every person loves each other, then there is no reason why they can't marry. Their kids will be loved by all parents and everyone has agreed. Of course, this only works if one woman has the right to marry more than one man as well.

  • God did not create men to have more than one wife.

    I wish it could be like in the olden days, but it is not. The times of David and Saul are over, and men cannot have more than one wife. Although, many men marry different women for more than just sex. I've always looked at it like a trade off, a big family filled with kids and one good husband to support the beautiful women in his life.

  • Marriage to more than one person at a time should never be allowed as it would strain any relationship emotionally and financially.

    Most marriages struggle to endure at some point and adding another family or families to the obligations and responsibilities would most likely prove to be too much. Keeping a marriage in tact and raising successful and happy children requires the full attention of husband and wife. The conflicts that would arise from any other arrangement are beyond the ability of most people to cope with.

    Posted by: vempyrik 66
  • I think marriage should only be between two people because I believe it is the foundation of a happy family.

    The National Marriage Project at Rutgers University reported that 63% of all American children grow up with their biological parents, that's almost half! Now if couples were allowed to marry more than one person, this would create conflict between them. Jealousy problems would also rise and kids would just grow up even more unattended, resulting in unhappy families.

    Posted by: W4ylHiro
  • Esmeraldine

    No. Marriage to more than one person should not be legal because it skews tax benefits for marriage. For example, if a man is married to three wives, do those wives get the same tax benefit that he does for having three spouses? Do they all receive exemptions for their shared children, or only for children to whom they are biological parents?

  • More than on spouse

    In the old days some had more than one wife but the word says one and we all need to go by that. Why would someone want more than one wife and what are you teaching your children about life and how they go about living their life sorry I see it wrong

  • Marriage should be between one man and one woman only.

    Marriage is a covenant before God in which one person vows to spend the rest of their life with only one person. Romantic relationships will naturally only be beneficial and functional when only two parties are involved. The introduction of a third party only complicates things and is detrimental to the mental and social well being to all parties involved.

    Posted by: R0m4nticCar
  • No, marriage should be between one man and woman.

    I think marriage is sacred. It is a bond between two people of the opposite sex. Marriage in any other form should be illegal. I don't feel a man can be faithful to more than one woman. The same holds true for the woman. How can she honor more than one man? It's just not right.

    Posted by: BriaBlacken
  • If you want more than one sexual partner DON'T GET MARRIED!

    Marriage is about being dedicated to ONE person! That's why people get married! It can't just be a consensual sexual relationship. For example I shouldn't be able to marry my cousin just because I want to there would so many problems with that. There was some dumb redneck that was having consensual sex with his daughter and another guy with his son. Should they be allowed to be married? Oh while we're at who thinks NAMBLA should have marriage rights?

  • Its wrong.

    Its wrong and it can cause problems in the relationships and jealousy between the spouses. Some spouses may get more attention than others causing emotional harm to them. It can cause abuse and unhealthy fighting among the women or men in that matter. It may also cause a higher divorce rate in the states.

  • I oppose legalizing marriage to more then one person, because it would create problems in relationships and result in higher divorce rates.

    Marriage to more than one person can cause jealousy and resentment, if one partner feels the others are getting more attention and affection. If it were legalized, I can see many couples trying it, thinking it would help the relationship, only to find it's not what they believed it would be, and they do not feel the same way that they expected to about it. There would be much higher divorce rates, resulting in more custody and child support issues in the courts.

    Posted by: UnadvisedLeif

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.