Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Zeraph
I think either way (mutiple husbands or wives) is fine. A combination is even better. IE 2-3 husbands and 2-3 wives, all sharing each other, and raising a group of kids as if each was their own. I think this is were our society will eventually evolve (I first heard this from Heinlein, great author and philosopher.)
Imagine a well functioning family unit like that. Think of all the love and affection in having 4-6 parents, a kid will always have someone to talk to, never be left unwatched, etc. And even better the other parents can go out without worrying about getting a babysitter, etc.
|
YES.
This is what I think of as the perfect "polygamist" relationship. If we take into consideration that the marriage covenant was likely founded around the protection of children, I think it makes perfect sense to have a more extended definition of family.
I think it also makes sense that marriage as we have defined it today is at least as much an economic contract as it is an emotional one. This helps shape what a polygamous relationship should/might be like.
Our ancient tradition as a people was most likely a tribal one; many men & women living together for the common good. I see this tribal group as very closely analagous to a polygamous relationship. It would allow the pooling of resources to further propagate the good of the family, and it would allow for a close-knit group of care-givers for the children borne of the relationship. Heinlein even had multi-generational family groups; so that the family unit would live on beyond the originators.
But would it work? I can see a few problems:
- How to handle jealousy within the group, especially where sexuality is concerned.
- How to handle those who wish to leave the family group, both from an emotional and an economic standpoint.
#1 is probably the toughest -- jealousy is an inescapable part of being human. Having Joe sleeping exclusively with Emma, for example, might cause another member of the group to harbor resentment towards the offending couple.
#2 is probably the easier -- have strict contractual agreements from the onset with regards to joining / leaving the group. Since these agreements are inevitably about money, you either leave with a share of the group's total assets, or you leave with nothing. Either way, spell it out contractually and there shouldn't be a problem.