Should polygamy be illegal?

[rug]

[IndianaJones]

1. yes. nt.

[Festivito]

220. Wow. You had to edit THAT! And it took 25 minutes?

[Bobbieo]

2. YES!!!!!

[yardwork]

9. Why?

[Genevieve]

3. no nt

[Recursion]

4. I'ts got a much longer history than monogamy NT

[Catch22Dem]

5. No, I don't give a shit who marries whom

[zoner4]

148. this is america! why should it be an issue at all

let them marry!

[azurnoir]

6. No as long s it works both ways

I suppose in the case of a women with more than one husband paternity issues could be "complicated"

[MrSlayer]

7. Only if it's forced or the people being married are not of age.

If you're an adult and you want to be in a multiple marriage I see no reason why you shouldn't be allowed to.

[Political Tiger]

150. I agree completely. n/t

[northofdenali]

176. Agreed.

Marriage is about belonging, love, caring, sharing, and children.

What about that precludes multiple spouses? I think Heinlein had it right. If you chose monogamy, great - if you don't, and those with you don't, go for it.

[tomg]

210. I agree.

[elshiva]

8. No, it should be legal as long as everyone is 18 and over and

a consenting adult.

[Fuzz]

10. Yes, unless you can get my wife to agree to it. I'm not miserable enough.

;)

[Name removed]

11. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TexasObserver]

12. No. Why should I care how many people want to be married to each other?

As long as they're all of age.

[Mari333]

13. I think polygamy and polyandry should be legal

what 2 or more consenting adults choose is none of my business when it comes to marriage. I said ADULTS.

[curse of greyface]

14. No and most arguments against it are sexist and insulting to women.

[Fuzz]

16. Who said it had to be multiple wives?

;)

[curse of greyface]

17. Nobody.

B-)

[RichardRay]

33. Doesn't have to be, and there's a plethora of terms

for the various arrangements of one man, 2 or more women, one woman, 2 or more men and 2 or more of each. The anthropoligists have had a taxonomic food fight about it all for years. :-)

[anigbrowl]

119. .

mis-post.

[zoner4]

145. fight fire with fire and put ont he ballot

[NashVegas]

55. There's No Biological Basis For a Pro-Polygamy Argument

Polygamy's only measurable benefit to society is in population control / balance.

In a country like India, where population needs to be brought down, there's an argument to be made for 1 wife-multiple husbands scenario. Same for China.

[Dogtown]

65. I doubt the people in question

are particularly concerned with providing a benefit to society.

Are you suggesting that "marriage" is an institution designed to benefit society rather than the interested parties?

I sincerely believe that marriage and the choice of partners is an issue to be decided by the involved and neither 'government' nor society should interfere.

The only limitations should be a defined age of consent and the willingness of the participants.

In a country like India (or Mexico/China/America) where populations are exceeding their support systems, there's an need (rather than an argument) for easily obtained birth control methods and education.

And protection from religious dogma that is contrary to societal needs and restrictive of the freedoms of 'married' individuals.

[NashVegas]

83. Absolutely, Marriage Benefits Society

Whether or not that was the original intention, it is the result. (Assuming we're talking about healthy, non-abusive marriages.)

[Dogtown]

115. Certainly, as a by-product

People don't marry to benefit society, they marry to benefit themselves.

[riverdeep]

193. The concept of marriage as a vehicle for self-fullfillment is a recent development.

In the past, marriage was seen as far more utilitarian. People married almost exclusively out of convenience. The family had a great say in who got married to whom, especially the father with respect to the daughter. Women were seen as property of the father, and in exchange for something, be it goats for peasants or a shared throne for nobility, the father exchanged this property for the daughter. The father literally 'gave away' her hand to the son in law. Fathers walking the bride down the aisle may seem sweet today, but it had far more sinister connotations in the past.

Marriage originated to benefit society, if the people in question received benefit, great. If not, too bad.

[cushla_machree]

139. marriage" is an institution designed to benefit society

A marriage is a contract. When two people consent to marry, and the community set the terms of the marriage and it was fixed in common law. Marriages benefit communities. Your recognized as individuals as well as a pair...your making a commitment to each other and to society and the rights you get as a couple deal a lot with taking care of each other. Your pledging to care for each other.

I fail to see how polygamy benefits our society. I have no desire to prosecute them, but i don't think it should be legal. In this country at least, there isn't really any social benefit to it, and its one of those things were religious leaders (men) brainwash the young woman into believing it. Some of them may say they believe in it, but if you look their religion tells them they can't get into heaven without their husband and he needs to have many wives.

[dorkulon]

183. I'd say there is.

That's how our closest biological relatives do it.

[NashVegas]

213. I Beg Your Pardon?

What biological relatives do we have that have marriage, and all the accompanying societal aspects?

[dorkulon]

230. Fine, then by that standard,

there's no biological argument for pro-monogamy arguments.

[NashVegas]

231. Who Said I Was Making One?

Monogamy is something that can happen in a marriage, but it is not equivalent to marriage.

[Midlodemocrat]

15. D00D!!!!!

:spank:

[rug]

132. So, how's things with you?

:popcorn:

[Dr. Strange]

18. No.

Years ago some religious people were persecuted and prosecuted for polygamy. The government hammered them with the notion that marriage is for one man and one woman only. This group took that notion to heart.
And we saw the effect last week.

[Omnibus]

19. No.

As long as all parties are above the age of consent, and their consent is without coercion, why not?

What business is it of mine how other people want to get married?

[Imagevision]

20. Some think it's ok for a 39 - 46 year old dude to nail a few 13-14 year olds then

say mind you're own business, when the kid's have no clue what's going on

[Warren Stupidity]

24. 'consenting adults' is the key phrase here.

nice try though. This is also why interspecies marriage is out until we declare some other species sentient enough to be considered capable of 'adult consent'.

[cherokeeprogressive]

36. The OP didn't make any such distinction.

Interesting that you think there might be a time when other species are thought to be sentient to the point of being capable of "adult consent".

You see that on the horizon?

[pipi_k]

70. There are times when I wonder

if some other species are actually more intelligent/self aware than we are...


;)

[get the red out]

126. The consenting adults

are created by brain washing girls from birth to think of themselves as nothing but servants to a man, is this what we want? Brainwashing little girls to be nothing but sex slaves so polygamy will "work" in our society?

[OwnedByFerrets]

21. Only if equally illegal to both sexes....My answer is a resounding NO.

[Liberal Gramma]

22. Isn't it already illegal?

What am I missing here? Is someone saying it shouldn't be?

[cherokeeprogressive]

37. Yes it is. Rendering the OP moot IMHO. n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

23. no of course not

it really isn't any of my business what living arrangements consenting adults choose to make with each other.

[Gwendolyn]

25. You'd have to allow same sex marriage first in order for it to be equitable.

Since heterosexuals are not overwhelmingly interested in marrying the same sex, and homosexuals are not interested in marrying the opposite sex, you end up with one person, male or female, marrying multiple partners. That translates into a hareem atmosphere which is not conducive to equality among the partners. Some people may master this kind of relationship, especially if all partners are bi, but as a whole, I don't think average people can handle it and it would end up with a lot of people being owned by the few.

So I'm gonna go with YES, it should be illegal.

[Trillo]

49. "it would end up with a lot of people being owned by the few."

Another parallel to corporatism.

[Gwendolyn]

56. There's def a parallel imho!!!

It might be interesting to have 3 or 5 husbands for awhile. But if they didn't marry each other as well as me, then I would be the focal point of the relationship. They would all be mine, but not of each other. That's inequitable. And that's why it's outlawed in most countries except where polygamy is synonymous with owning people.

[Trillo]

185. I think what you're talking about is Polyamory.

So while the words are related, some of the nuances are different, more idealized in Polyamory.

What I was finding curious with the corporatist slant was the economic benefits, not the sexual in a literal way, but in a metaphorical sense, sure. Corporations merge with each other, the only limit being regulatory in a "too big to fail" sense :-) . . . . "Lets make a Deal!" They share income and expenses. They've been declared Persons! A corporate polyamory where all the corporations under the same corporate umbrella or ownership are practicing economic nirvana and paying little to no taxes.

[curse of greyface]

69. This concept that adult women can't make their own decisions bothers me. nt

[Gwendolyn]

72. How do you get from my post that women can't make their own decisions?

[cushla_machree]

140. as long as the woman keep sweet, whats the problem?

"Keep sweet" meant girls should accept the polygamist lifestyle and the men's wishes without complaint.

'Keep sweet' -- that means don't question. And if you do try to question, your family will never see you again. Good luck getting out too, because woman aren't allowed out without their husbands permission...so if you try to drive off one night, the police will bring you back to your husband, because they are FLDS members.

Those woman aren't choosing that lifestyle. And just to make sure they sincerly believe it, they can't get into heaven without their husband. I just read a book from a former FLDS member, she got her kids out...but one of them went back because she thought her mother was sending them all to hell. So she went back to marry some 60 year old. thats not choice, thats brainwashing.

To any of you who think these woman choose that lifestyle, read any of the books from former FLDS members, like when men are gods. These people are the taliban on our own soil.

[curse of greyface]

78. I don't understand the marriage dynamics where many are owned by a few.

In the majority of marriages I have seen in my life the female has most of the power and the man is more of a get along. (There is a reason marketers target females for the big ticket items. They are the decision makers in the majority of marriages)

I understand that certain religions have a true patriarchal outlook. But even there often the reality can be quite the opposite.

[NashVegas]

96. I'm Sure

Let's take the typical polygamy situation as practiced in Mormon and Islamic society.

Who gets to have sex and procreate? Men of ambition, property, and fortunate birth, and those women who will attach themselves to such men and be "bottom."

Pretty much everything most DUers lay down as anathemas.

[curse of greyface]

188. But the United states as a whole isn't a Mormon or Islamic Society.

Hundreds of thousands of Americans are in Polygamous relationships right now. How many of our Presidents had a long term mistress that the wife new about? How many men live with a woman that has another lover.

It isn't uncommon at all.

It simply isn't codified into law.

[FarCenter]

26. No, the govt should get out of the business of licensing sex between adults

[Warpy]

27. How about serial polygamy?

You know, the guy who dumps families and marries a new chick when the mothers of his children go through the body changes childbirth brings and he thinks they're dumpy and let themselves go. How about him?

That's the worst form of polygamy out there and it's perfectly legal.

[comtec]

52. That's called serial marriages, not poly - it's a very gop thing to do

poly is simultaneously being bonded to more than one person at a time.
I understand your point, but please get it right, otherwise you just look like an asshole.

we can fight, and win against this abortion of a prop. we will win


YES WE CAN!

[Warpy]

124. Most of the serial polygamists

audition the trophy wife while still married.

My definition stands.

However, nothing signals a total lack of understanding like calling another poster an asshole. You might want to watch that.

[bananas]

177. Is it serial polygamy or serial monogamy?

I guess either term works.

[comtec]

201. I'm confused by the use of the term serial

serial means one after the other.
by definition of that word you can't have serial poly, it's illogical.
you can have PARALLEL monogamy/poly, but serial does not work in this instance.
that's WHY we have the term POLY, to suggest PARALLEL 'monogamy' which in its self is impossible
MONOgamy, root word MONO, meaning ONE.
how can you have a SERIAL (or parallel) of ONE?

these terms are ridiculous, and are only here to confuse the issue.

point being if more than two people love each other, and can stand LIVING with one another, and another, and.... and they're consenting adults, of LEGAL age - whatever that happens to be - then yes, I don't see a reason why that kind of responsible poly should be illegal.

BUT.... that is such a minor, insignificant issue right now..

right NOW, we need to fight to make sure ALL couples have the RIGHT to become bonded together legally.

[Greyskye]

224. "Serial Monogamy" is what is mostly practiced in the US

Most people in this country go from one monogamous relationship to another. Sometimes marriage is involved, sometimes it is not.
http://www.google.com/search?q=serial+monogamy+definition&sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS226US226&aq=t

The term is quite commonly used in the Poly community, and is used in the world at large as well.

I've never heard anyone ever use the term 'serial poly' - it almost seems like an oxymoron.

I agree with your last sentence, but personally, I would amend it slightly to read: "Right now, we need to fight to make sure ALL people have the RIGHT to become bonded together legally.

Cheers!

[Antennas]

28. While the Mormons are partly to blame for Prop 8.

It would be hypocritical of us too to tell them how to marry.

[IndianaJones]

31. what? nt.

[Antennas]

39. I meant.

We're all appalled by what happened, and we're all sickened by the people who voted for Prop 8.

Why would we want to stoop to their level and do the same thing back?

[Stinky The Clown]

29. ....

:eyes:

[camera obscura]

30. Hesitant no

I think it's inherently unequal. Furthermore there would be a lot of tax and welfare issues that would become complicated, new laws would lead to new loopholes, and it might lead to increased fraud.

[Prayingforrain48]

32. Marriage is a civil, not religious, right

and thus should be extended to any consenting adult(s).

[sjdnb]

34. Between consenting adults, Yes ... but not this

throwback Mormon BS where fathers marry their daughters, etc. That is just sick and wrong.

[99th_Monkey]

35. I think someone should be able to marry as many or as few as is agreeable to all: CONSENT RULES!

Either gender, both/and including polyamorous households who wish to marry as a group.

[Dems4me]

38. Yes

It would cause to many legal problems for our legal system to try to hammerout
when the need arose. As well as cause a lot of social/legal complications within their families'
dynamics if they chose to complicate things further by having children in the mix.

[LisaL]

64. And two men or two women getting married-there are no legal

issues there, of course.
:eyes:

[Dems4me]

199. Well...a close family member of mine got married

in a same sex relationship. They had a civil union and a religious ceremony.
They were happily married for a number of years until one passed away.
They got a good lawyer and had everything taken care of legally before hand.
There were no legal problems that came up that couldn't be resolved by way of their
legal arrangements.

The emotional side to their arrangement was of mutual love and
respect for their commitment to one another...not "let's spread the love to anyone willing
to jump into the mix".

Legalizing multiple marriages or bigamy,polygamy is any entirely different situation than same sex or
heterosexual committed relationships.

If you think those situations are difficult, just throw in a few more wives,
husbands and loads of kids into the mix- get serious!

[cboy4]

40. Only if it's gay polygamy.

ha!

[elshiva]

180. Yes, that, too!

Actually, there are some DUers who are polyamorous. I ain't telling who, but they figure out how to relate and I respect that. They are NOT mormons, either.

[LatteLibertine]

41. This is going to get me in trouble.

No. It should be legal as long as it's between consenting adults.

[Quantess]

42. it already is.

[LisaL]

60. The question asked is not whether polygamy is illegal.

:eyes:

[riverdeep]

43. The OP has succintly pointed out what loosening the tradition for gays would involve.

It would involve the loosening of rules for everyone. Whatever alternate arrangement people choose to come up with, that falls under the qualifications of 'consentual', would become fair game.

In our society, certain benefits are accrued to married folks because society believes there's a benefit to marriage. These perks include tax breaks. Letting groups of people allowed into this pool at one time, would likely affect the way benefits are doled out for everyone. Is there a limit on the number? Can ten people be in one marriage, how about a thousand?

It also cuts to the heart of the matter; is marriage a legal contract, like a business becoming incorporated, or it a reflection of social mores?

Personally, I don't have any emotional issues with gay marriage or civil unions, but people who support it, MUST support scenarios like the above, including certain cases of incestuous couplings. Two siblings who wish to marry, over 18, and one (or both) has undergone surgical infertility (so no deformed offspring issue), they would have to be supported. I'm not saying this a huge group, but when the door is opened, it's opened for everyone.

[npk]

46. And part of that line of thinking is what the religious right have made hay with

Trying to distort reality with their skewed perception. Trying to convince people that gay marriage would lead to all sorts of horrible scenarios, like a grown man being legally able to marry a twelve year old. When perception is skewed with reality, in this case, it leads to this kind of demonizing of a consensual relationship between two consenting adults, simply on the basis that their communion doesn't match the set of principles that the religious right think they have a right to set for the rest of us. When did the religious right get to be experts on predicting what culture could develop from their distorted line of thinking anyway. It is just one more nail in the coffin of the assault on common sense.

[riverdeep]

48. Absolutely they used trumped up scenarios.

And then they just flat out lied. However, it should be pointed out, that the twelve year old would fail the consensual test, whereas polygamy or polyandry can be theoretically be consensual.

[npk]

51. Absolutely you are correct

They lied and then lied some more.

[LisaL]

61. So what if there are three consenting adults?

Why should their relationship be demonized?
Do explain.

[npk]

161. I'm not demonizig their relationship

If you read what I wrote I said groups like the religious right are using their distorted view of perception to demonize those people. My point was that it is that kind of thinking that leads to this kind of perception that gay marriage is a wrong and corrupt.

[NashVegas]

102. No, It Wouldn't

We now know that homosexuality is rooted in biology, therefore, denying gay people the right to legally marry and share assets is discriminating against something an individual has no choice in, to live freely.

There is no such biological drive that pertains to polygamy; given the choice, free of religious dogma, most people probably will have more than one sexual partner in their life, but there is no biological drive to MARRY every partner.

Marriage is a social construct to assist a stable, yet adaptable society. How adaptable do these people look?

[Romulox]

143. Of course there is a biological drive for a male to sire children by multiple women

You may not approve of same, but of course a "biological drive" exists that impels men to desire multiple partners/mothers of their children.

[NashVegas]

208. Likewise, Women Have Drives to Mate With Multiple Men

But she doesn't need to marry every one of them any more than men have a need to set up house with every woman they want to screw.

Marriage is a social construct. Polygamy has no measurable benefit - if anything, as it is currently practiced among most societies that have it, polygamy destabilizes society and contributes to unadaptable tribes.

[Romulox]

214. Yet there is a difference in male and female mating strategies...

Marriage is designed, in large part, to compel males to rear their children. In return, males get some assurance of paternity of the children they raise.

Therefore, marriage is an adaptive response to the respective sexes basic biological strategies. Which is why attempting to root gay marriage in biology isn't the strongest argument...

[NashVegas]

226. I'm Not Rooting Gay Marriage In Biology

The biological aspect is merely the justification on why, socially, it should be at least given a shot.

With no historic record of gay marriage or its results on society, we don't have the data that suggests negative consequences in the transition from theory to reality.

I have yet to see even one pro-polygamy argument that mentions societal benefits, btw.

[curse of greyface]

187. Um actually the biological drive is quite rooted in multiple mates.

Your argument could not be more wrong.

[riverdeep]

191. Glad you stated this in neutral terms.

i.e. mate, as opposed to strictly males. The idea that males are exclusively promiscuous, and females monogamous by nature, is simplistic when it comes to both humans with different cultural circumstances and our closest relatives. Different primates develop different strategies.

Thus polyandry, or mating with multiple males, is an advantageous breeding strategy for langur females. By mating with as many extra-group males as possible, female langurs ensure their offspring against infanticide should one of those males take over the group at a later date.

Looking at female promiscuity among humans, Hrdy said that "what stands out is not so much the spectacle of women having fun, but of mothers making due under difficult circumstances."

Contrary to what earlier theorists have said about the advantage of women clinging to a single mate, "it may be inopportune for mothers to rely on just one man."

http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2000/10.19/01_monogamy.html

[curse of greyface]

197. I was well aware of the biology I'm glad you picked up on that

:)

[NashVegas]

211. Um Actually I Can Be Snarky, Too and Purposefully Miss the Point

Your argument is off the rails.

Marriage is a SOCIAL construct. Polygamy is a SUBSET of marriage.

Mating is a FORM of fucking, a BIOLOGICAL urge. It is SYNONYMOUS to fucking.

MOST of SOCIETY thinks POLYGAMY is harmful in very, very, large numbers. MOST of SOCIETY has the benefit of historical accounts and present day examples to back up its opinion. Pro-polygamists have ... what?

[curse of greyface]

228. I'm not pro-polygamy (despite my disturbing number of responses in this thread

I'm like a moth to a flame)

I just don't think it should be illegal.

It's like assisted suicide. It should be allowed. We will be surprised how few people actually take advantage of it once pent up demand is worked through.

If you feel that "most of society" should be able to vote on which adult relationships are harmful I have about 600 posts on prop 8 that are dying to hear from you. B-)

[NashVegas]

232. Okay, So ... What Are the Benefits of Polygamy, Again?

[mtnester]

44. Already is

moot point

Your "look, over there" tactic was a fail.

[Quantess]

45. It already is.

Polygamy is already illegal.

[LisaL]

58. The OP isn't asking if it is or it isn't.

Yes, it's illegal, but should it be?

[tkmorris]

47. No it shouldn't

You want to explain why you ask?

[Hubert Flottz]

50. You better think!

Q. Why do you think the terra-ists in the middle east have so many anger issues?

A. Multiple Mother-In-Laws

[shimmergal]

158. Actually, polyandry

might solve some of that free-floating anger. It's the young men who can't find a wife (or any other opportunity for sex) who're easy prey for terrorist recruiters.

[CreekDog]

53. yes

[curse of greyface]

88. Why?

[CreekDog]

179. because it's abusive to children and women

perhaps it does not have to be, but in practice it is always playing out that way.

[NashVegas]

54. Yes

It's nowhere on par with gay marriage. Sorry.

[LisaL]

63. So two women should be able to marry?

But two women and one man should be a felony?
Makes total sense, of course.
:eyes:

[Gwendolyn]

67. Yes it does make perfect sense.

As Marrah G. and someone else pointed out, there are social implications. Then there are the myriad of convoluted legal issues.

if two women and one man marry, do they all marry each other? If not, then it isn't a "true" marriage, where everyone has equal legal access to children, property, etc. If the husband dies for instance, must one woman share custody of her biological children with the other wife? If there is a divorce, do all the remaining spouses share equally in providing child support for the offspring of the divorced partner?

Because the combinations of spouses are virtually endless, it's much more practical for people who want to live in polyamorous relationships to set up their own legally binding contracts, outside the usual marriage model. These issues were never really a problem for days of yore societies since polygamous relationships basically consisted of one person amassing other humans as property.

[curse of greyface]

73. The "social implications" usually boil down to

We can't trust adult women to make adult decisions....

Along with the equally sexist but certain guys may not be able to find a good wife.

[Gwendolyn]

85. That's ridiculous, and has nothing to do with anything.

The social implications have to do with the care of children, emotional ties, legal issues like the disposal of property etc...

You seem to be obsessed with the sexual implication of polygamous unions. Grow up. The main function of a marriage is not to ensure a medley of constant sexual partners. People can have sex with numerous people, at the same time or separately, any time they wish. They can also choose to live with 6 or 75 sexual partners if desired. That's not the point.

[curse of greyface]

92. In what post did I mention sex (or restrict the genders to include females?)

If three men want to marry each other why not?

[Gwendolyn]

97. This thread is getting complicated. I meant I explained it in post #67.

If three men want to marry each other the legal issues remain the same as they would for any other polygamous combo. Perhaps you've never owned a home or had children, so you can't imagine what a break-up between two people can cost, let alone 3, or 5 equally invested partners. Use your imagination.

Again, you focus only on the sexual aspect, which is not an issue since people can have any kind of physical relationship they like outside of marriage right this very minute.

[NashVegas]

87. Funny How People Love Going Back To That "We Can't Trust Women"

To make the right decision.

I've never seen one person argue against polygamy by claiming women couldn't make an adult decision.

[gollygee]

120. That's the apparent strawman argument this time around

It's a legal nightmare if the polygamous marriage breaks up. Who pays custody to the children? Does the non-bio parent? Does the non-bio parent get visitation? What is the non-bio parent's legal relationship? What if one partner leaves and the other two stay together - what happens to the house? How is property divided? What if there are four partners and they break into two couples? Or five partners and two couples? Or five partners and two couples and one single person? Or five partners, one couple and three single people? The potential problems are endless and are not realistically going to be able to be handled by current divorce courts.

Now, the reason it does work in some countries is because in most countries where it's legal the legal issues are handled pretty simply: Man gets everything, woman or women get nothing. Maybe that's where the strawman argument comes in? But that's not really relevant because if it were legal here, we would obviously have to legally protect all parties involved. Which is where the legal nightmares of divorce court and child custody come in.

[Marrah_G]

108. No- this time social implications do indeed mean social implications

When you have men of mean marrying many females ( as is almost always the case, rarely are the genders reversed) that leaves and imbalance between available men and women.

That imbalance ends in some serious social implications over time.

[curse of greyface]

200. We have over a million men in jail... I'm sure that has created more of an imbalance. nt

[Marrah_G]

207. It has created imbalance

Especially among communities where the rate of incarceration is the highest. It leaves the women to raise children alone, struggle alone.

In a world where polygamy is the norm, the wealthiest and most brutal take the wives leaving a large part of the male population without hopes of ever having a mate. This causes inbalance.

[curse of greyface]

71. Why? nt

[Marrah_G]

57. Yes: Here is why.

It almost always ends up tilting the scales against women and young men.

It unbalance the male /female ratio of available mates.

That in turn causes a great deal of social problems.

[totodeinhere]

135. Why would it unbalance anything?

For every man who has more than one wife there could be a woman who has more than one husband. One could balance out the other.

[gollygee]

154. It theoretically could

That doesn't mean it will.

[Gwendolyn]

163. It's much more of a natural urge for men to want to have as many women as possible,

than it is for women. Men are more likely to prefer a scenario where they are impregnating their own women, rather than nurture and support other men's children. Women also have less financial power than men do as a whole, so the balance will always be hella lotta women to one man. History spells that out very clearly.

[Marrah_G]

209. Because it never happens that way

Human nature hasn't evolved to that point yet.

You know and I know, the majority would be males with multiple wives.

[Dorian Gray]

59. Yes

It is most likely harmful to women and children in it's true practice. Of course there may be exceptions, but the polygamous sects that put this into regular practice have a history of physical and emotional abuse and underage marriage.

[RadicalTexan]

62. Nope

nt

[WolverineDG]

66. No

Since mainstream society plays fast &loose with its sexual mores, there's no reason why polygamy between consenting adults should still be criminalized.

dg

[riderinthestorm]

68. Yes. Reality amply demonstrates that women and children fare far worse in this kind of relationship

socially, emotionally and legally.

As anyone who has gone through a messy divorce can tell you, it's hard enough to resolves difficult issues like custody and property disputes between 2 people - adding on even more partnerships would make this almost impossible.

I don't understand why people want to make this an equivalency argument. Gay marriage is between 2 people - a legal contract between two equal partners. Polygamy is anything but that.

[curse of greyface]

76. Yes cause women are innocent and need to be protected against the big bad man.

Look I think Zombie Hefner is as creepy as anything. But if he wants to live with three woman at the same time it's a lifestyle choice I embrace.

And why bring children up at all?

Who says marriages have to have children.

Please don't peddle your anti-women screeds claiming they can't handle life socially, emotionally and legally.

Let adult women make up their own minds.

[riderinthestorm]

77. You can peddle your theory about adult women making adult choices but that isn't the reality

for MARRIAGE (Hugh Hefner is not marrying 3 women at a time so your analogy is moot. Beyond which, are you really telling me that the women involved with Hefner are his financial, emotional and legal partners?).

The reality has been proven for centuries that women are not equal partners in polygamous relationships - not emotionally and especially legally.

If you really supported women's rights, you would support institutions that guaranteed FULL AND EQUAL rights for women in their relationships but even more so contractually and socially.

Finally as regards children, since the majority of marriages DO involve children they are certainly relevant to any discussion about marriage.

[curse of greyface]

81. Well Hugh can't marry three woman at the same time. so he is off the hook

so to speak.

"The reality has been proven for centuries that women are not equal partners in polygamous relationships - not emotionally and especially legally."

Well this is the 21st century and we are talking about America.

Full and equal rights include the right for a woman to make her own choices.

If a women wants two husbands or wishes to share a man with another woman should that not be her choice?

[riderinthestorm]

86. Look, you can spout your "theory" about the 21st century all you want

but the reality is that women in polygamous relationships - at any time and anywhere - are not treated equally.

A woman can choose right now to have two male partners, or to have a male and female partner at the same time but legally it would be virtually IMPOSSIBLE for that relationship to be contractually equal, let alone emotionally.

I'm sorry but my concern for women's rights encompasses the reality of the situations and not how I would want them to be. Theory is all fine and good but things just don't work that way in the real (and legal) world.

[curse of greyface]

95. First of all a polygamous relationship can involve three men not a woman in sight.

The other reality is that we have women who are mistresses of married men. Are they better of legally than if they were married to those men?

Polygamy is a reality in the United States. But without legal protections the "other" women gets the short end of the stick.

[riderinthestorm]

100. Name me one statistic about 3 men involved in a polygamous relationship

No anecdotes - real stats on how free, equal and "adult" these men are, their demographics etc.

The reality is that this is about women and marriage when you talk about polygamy. Your strawmen arguments about mistresses and multiple male partners only serves to make you look even more out of touch about what the terrible realities are for women in these relationships.

I will agree that polygamy is a reality in the US but legal protections for that type of relationship aren't feasible (without mentioning the stats that indicate what an emotional minefield multiple partnering brings). I don't care if people want to get into multiple partner relationships just don't drag the legal system into it.

For me, I will continue focusing on gaining full equal rights for partnerships.

[curse of greyface]

103. IO don't think mistresses are a strawman. They are a reality.

I'm not sure I understand the "emotional minefield multiple partnering brings"

I've been married I assure you regular marriage can be an emotional minefield as well. We don't go around banning heterosexual marriage because 50% of them go tits up.

Let adults be adults is all I am saying.

"I don't care if people want to get into multiple partner relationships just don't drag the legal system into it."

The legal system is for the protection of all the participants. Thats why we have marriage to codify the relationship and protect those involved. Using the hate language from the yes on 8 people to make your point is unseemly.

[riderinthestorm]

106. Mistresses aren't applicable because they aren't seeking to get married to their married partner

in order to create a polygamous relationship. Logic 101.

And you can say "let adults be adults" till the cows come home but that doesn't change the realities of polygamy and the consequences for those involved. Google is your friend.

You can relate to the emotional minefield involved in a partnership but won't acknowledge how much harder it would be if there were a third person added into that mix? or a fourth? Wow. Just wow. Honestly, you sink your own arguments better than even I can. 50% of partnerships going belly up is one of the most compelling reason to keep marriage as a legal partnership - marriages are contracts and the dissolution of those contracts is (often) a financial and personal hell. It's very, very difficult for even two people to legally separate. More than 2 - especially if there are children?! Well, go ask a divorce attorney and get back to me on how well they think that would fly.

Finally, what's unseemly is ignoring the realities of polygamy for the theory that if only it were legal all of the other problems associated with it would disappear. Your making polygamy equivalent to gay marriage is the unseemly action imho. A full and equal partnership isn't anything like a polygamous relationship and I dare you to bring me the stats that would show differently.

I'm a farmer and on a very slow rural dialup. This thread is already getting too unwieldy for me to load properly and I have to get back to chores. Just letting you know in advance why I'm leaving the discussion.

[fed_up_mother]

121. Do you think the wives of those mistresses want another wife?

Dealing with infidelity is hard enough without him bringing her home and calling her his wife. :(

Can you imagine the number of men who would threaten to leave if their wives didn't agree to another wife?

Can you imagine the mess in divorce courts? And in custody hearings?

Polygamy is not good for the majority of folks - and that includes women, children, and most men who aren't wealthy.

[curse of greyface]

128. You keep bringing up money. You know women work outside the home nowadays. nt

[gollygee]

131. Have you ever known anyone who has gotten divorced?

It is financially devastating regardless of whether the woman works outside the home.

[curse of greyface]

133. I don't disagree. But that is an argument against all marriage.

Furthermore how many women due you know that have lived with and supported a boyfriend only to have him leave once he graduates law school or something.

Adults will screw up. But they are adults. I myself would never have two spouses.

But I do know a couple that has a third woman living with them. They all share the expenses and help raise each others kids. Why can't these three women be a family with legal protections?

[gollygee]

134. You've been given that answer in a number of posts

Why don't you respond to those?

[fed_up_mother]

159. Yes, I know most women work outside the home, but the wealthy could still engage in it more

It would be tilted towards the wealthy.

[curse of greyface]

189. Marriage itself is tilted toward the wealthy if stats are to be believed.

[zoner4]

146. great point

[conscious evolution]

160. In the poly families I know

the women have more say so then the men.
I don't know about the theory but in real life the ones I know of seem to be doing fine.

[Gwendolyn]

79. He lives with those women, he isn't married to them all.

And he'd be a fool if he were to take on responsibilities of that scope. Technically he's bought those women anyway, but his fortune is certainly not at risk the way it would be if he married them.

People are free to have any kind of multiple sexual relationships they want. People can live and love fifty people under one roof if they wish. No one can say a word. But polygamy as a social construct is legally convoluted if approached from an equality-based, modern day standard, which you obviously can't grasp. The expense to society and the tax payer is enormous.

[curse of greyface]

82. Yeah people are free to be polygamous without the burden of responsibility.

Why would it be worse for adults to be able to codify the responsibilities of the various people in the relationship?

[Gwendolyn]

90. See my post #85.

[fed_up_mother]

74. Yes! It's bad for society

[NeedleCast]

110. Same argument the right uses against gay marriage

it's bad for society!

I guess that all depends on what sort of society you want to live in.

[Gwendolyn]

114. Except they have nothing to back up the claim...

...as relevant statistics from around the world show this not to be the case at all.

By the same token, there is historical as well as statistical evidence that polygamy/polygyny is harmful.

[fed_up_mother]

117. Exactly.

The fact remains that males and females are born in roughly the same proportion, so polygamy generally only exists for the older, wealthy and powerful men in society. Sure, there'd be some cases that defy that definition, but not enough to destroy the fabric of our society.

Folks are pleased to live in whatever arrangement they want, but legal sanction of such arrangements is not good for women and children, and men who are not wealthy.

[dysfunctional press]

75. no.

nt

[Peacetrain]

80. Yes!

and let me edit to add.. Just look at countries and cultures that allow polygamy, and what are happens to the civil rights of the women.

Women become objectified and become "property"..

[Dr. Strange]

94. How many countries and cultures actually "allow" polygamy?

Most countries only allow monogamy, polygyny, or (in some rare cases) polyandry. Are there any countries that allow polygamy?

[Peacetrain]

98. google is your friend.. start with Sudan

[Dr. Strange]

105. Does Sudan allow polygamy?

I've Googled and so far I've found this:

Men can marry as many women as they can afford, while women are forbidden from marrying more than one man.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/africa/articles/2005/10/02/desire_to_divorce_leads_sudan_wives_to_adultery_and_jail

Polyandry: (Women marrying more than one husband) is not practiced anywhere in Africa.
http://www.geography.ccsu.edu/kyem/GEOG466_Africa/Culture%20and%20Conflicts%20in%20Africa_Overhead.htm

It wouldn't surprise me to see "Women become objectified and become 'property'" in a society that allows polygyny but forbids other forms of polygamy.

[SweetieD]

138. The same number of countries that allow gay marraige.

[aikoaiko]

84. As long as they follow other laws (no kiddie brides, no abandonment of boys, no unlawful detention)

then I have no problem with it.

[tinrobot]

89. Here or in Arab countries?

I'm curious... if a Saudi man and his multiple wives move to the US, are all the marriages still seen as valid?

[goforit]

91. Absolutely!!!

[bobbert]

93. Yes it should

The problem is, there are a lot of people preaching African cultures around here that support polygamy so that women can choose their partner. Really, when you do any research on it, it is a lot more about the suppression of women's rights. The books that I've seen by women who support polygamy are in a mindset that the only thing women are good for is making babies, so they should be able to choose which man they want to have their babies whether he's married or not.

Historically, most cultures where polygamy exists also do not have many women's rights. I think a big reason it is illegal is to promote women's rights. I fear polygamous households would have a dominant male with a few uneducated females who couldn't leave the situation they were in if they wanted to because they have children and no way of getting a full time job.

[MedleyMisty]

99. No

People can have whatever type of relationship they want. By my personal ethics, cheating is just wrong. But as long as everyone involved knows what's up and is consenting to it, it doesn't matter to me. I personally would not choose it because I enjoy monogamy - to the point where I say I'm not hetero or homosexual, I'm monosexual. I'm only attracted to one person.

But that's me, and I don't feel a need to force everyone to be like me whether they want to or not.

[otherlander]

101. Nah.

[LaydeeBug]

104. Should people make false equations between polygamy and marriage? nt

[Occam Bandage]

107. Absolutely. nt

[NeedleCast]

109. No

Legislating that polygamy is illegal is no different than legislating that gay marriage should be illegal.

[Hepburn]

111. No....

...as long as CONSENTING ADULTS are involved. And by that I mean 18+ years of age and no parental OK in place of age of majority.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

112. Not Illegal, But Marriage/Insurance/Other Benefits Should Only Apply To One Spouse Legally.

Other than that, I have no problem with a ceremonial type marriage between however many people want to. There just shouldn't be any benefits available for more than two partners.

[zoner4]

147. really all it comes down to

[riverdeep]

196. That isn't really marriage then, is it?

That's sort of what gay people complain about toward civil unions as a kind of 'separate but equal' ghetto.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

203. Comparing The Two Is Pathetic.

Polygamy shouldn't be illegal, but to think for a second that someone should have a right to marry as many people as they want, combine as many incomes as they want for tax breaks and have as many people as they want granted their own insurance benefits; and if they aren't allowed to it's discrimination and unjust, is just plain retarded.

Do you have any idea how much such a thing would be taken advantage of? Not allowing those types of benefits to go to more than just two spouses isn't discrimination, it's just plain common sense.

No, not for a second should more than two people be allowed to marry in a way that would afford all members insurance benefits and tax benefits. And to compare that to the discrimination against gays that keep them from marrying at all is asinine.

[conscious evolution]

204. Universl health care would take care of that problem.

By the way,the poly families I know purchase group policies like employers do so that everyone is covered.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

205. Irrelevant To The Discussion.

Yes, universal health care would take care of that and I'm all for it. But we're talking about the current system and how it isn't close to being discrimination by not wanting more than 2 spouses to have those and other benefits.

And purchasing group policies is fine obviously. Having them automatically covered for free under one spouses coverage is a completely different thing.

[conscious evolution]

206. For free?What is this free coverage you speak of?

I know of few employers who offer free health insurance to traditional spouses and children.Every company insurance policy I have ever been offered reguired huge payments to cover family.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

215. You Never Heard Of Family Coverage?

Generally, after 3 people are covered, all additional people are free.

So if there's just one child, then all other spouses would be covered for free. No way that should be allowed.

Polygamy should not be illegal, but no way in hell should they be allowed to have the benefits beyond what 2 married people should have. They should be able to marry, but the benefits should be limited to only 2 people, period.

If not, the abuse could be staggering. Unlimited combining of income for tax breaks. Unlimited potential for death benefits. Unlimited ability for free health insurance.

No way should I be allowed to marry 5 women and when I die, all 5 could collect the life insurance from their jobs towards my death. Now way should I be allowed to marry 5 women and when I die, all 5 collect social security survivor benefits. No way should I be allowed to marry 5 women, and then come tax time all our income is totaled up with all 6 of us being allowed to take off the top with dependent allowances and deductions, while then being in a far lower bracket then if each of us were individually filing. No way should I be allowed to marry 5 women, and then have all the other 3 or 4 covered for free and in full from my own insurance. No way should I be allowed to marry 5 women, and all 6 of us would be able to combine into the same car insurance policy, for drastically reduced rates.

To say that polygamists should be afforded such luxury is asinine, unrealistic and highly illogical. To go a step further and make a claim that by denying such asinine luxury would be the equivalent of discrimination and similar to the discrimination against the gay community, is exponentially more asinine.

I'm not saying that you are saying such things, since you haven't. I'm just saying that anyone who would make those insane claims need to have their brains check for defects.

[conscious evolution]

217. Life insurance from their jobs?

What world do you live on?Not many employers offer life insurance for the spouse of an employee.And the companies that do probably require the employee to pay the bulk of premiums.
As for my life insurance policy I can name whomever I want as the beneficiaries in case of my death.
Family coverage?Once again,universal coverage.
Car insurance? Then families with 2 parents and 4 driving age children should not be allowed group rates.Same with businesses with motor vehicle fleets.
Taxes?Tax law can be adjusted for such families.
Same with Social Security.
Oh,by the way,who says that poly families are all one male and several wives?All of the polys that I know of have co husbands and wives.None have a a single individual calling all the shots or making all of the decisions.Decisions that effect the family are made by consensus.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

219. Oy Vey.

"What world do you live on? Not many employers offer life insurance for the spouse of an employee.And the companies that do probably require the employee to pay the bulk of premiums."

Most companies offer the option and it is VERY cheap to acquire. Like I said, If I married 5 women and then died, no way should those 5 be able to each collect life insurance for me from their companies.


"As for my life insurance policy I can name whomever I want as the beneficiaries in case of my death."

No shit watson. No one stated anything about their not being allowed to be beneficiaries. No matter who the beneficiaries are of the direct person's life insurance, the payout is still the payout. But having an unlimited amount of spouses be able to have the same exact person covered, thereby multiplying the payout by that number, is a ridiculous concept.


"Family coverage?Once again,universal coverage."

Once again, we're talking about how things exist today, in this world, the real world, reality. We're not talking about how things can be someday, we're talking about how they are now. And as they exist NOW, there is no way that polygamists should be afforded the luxury of having as many spouses covered with free and full health benefits as they want.


"Car insurance? Then families with 2 parents and 4 driving age children should not be allowed group rates."

Are you for real? Do you really not see the difference? How ignorant.


"Taxes?Tax law can be adjusted for such families."

Uhhhhhh, genius, were you trying to make a point there? Cause all you did is agree with me that they SHOULDN'T be allowed the benefits. Aren't you supposed to be arguing a position that they SHOULD?


"Same with Social Security."

Again, are you so wrapped up in your desire to argue that you've completely confused yourself as to what the point of the argument is? If the social security and tax laws are to be adjusted so as to not give any additional benefit then just a regular married couple would receive, is that not the same thing as saying "polygamy should be legal, but they shouldn't be afforded the legal benefits beyond that of a 2 person marriage"? You just agreed with me on two of the biggest points I made, yet you seem oblivious to that fact, based on your tone of debate as if you are arguing against those specific points of mine. Made you look really silly to me.


"Oh,by the way,who says that poly families are all one male and several wives?All of the polys that I know of have co husbands and wives.None have a a single individual calling all the shots or making all of the decisions.Decisions that effect the family are made by consensus."

I don't know who says that. I know I didn't. So why you felt the need to include that as a closing to your argument is a bit perplexing and highly irrelevant.

[Gwendolyn]

222. I think you're arguing with someone who's never paid into a social system. It's useless.

[conscious evolution]

227. A social system?

Could you give me your definition as to what that is.
Are you talking about Social Security?How about federal,state or local taxes?Insurance?401k?Things like that?
If so,then you are barking up the wrong tree.Many of my dollars have gone toward "paying into" the system.

[conscious evolution]

236. Still waiting for a reply

Or are you just talking out of your ass?

[conscious evolution]

229. Sorry for the delay in getting back with you.

Business to take care of.

So,lets get started.

Most companies offer the option and it is VERY cheap to acquire. Like I said, If I married 5 women and then died, no way should those 5 be able to each collect life insurance for me from their companies.

If they each paid into a life insurance fund then it is their right to collect.Its no different from one traditional couple having multiple life insurance policies or corporations insuring employees.What it is the difference between one person being beneficiaries of multiple policies and several people being beneficiaries of policies they paid for?
Or are you saying that only certain people have the right to buy life insurance?Because that is what your statement boils down too.

"Car insurance? Then families with 2 parents and 4 driving age children should not be allowed group rates."

Are you for real? Do you really not see the difference? How ignorant.

There is no difference.Both are groups of people who may own or operate several shared vehicles pooling together to cover the liability that may arise from accidents involving them.Like so many other things in life,its almost always cheaper to buy in bulk.Or pay wholesale instead of retail.Or buy group insurance.
Ignorant?I have yet to see you offer any logical reason to deny group coverage based on the form of marriage.


"Taxes?Tax law can be adjusted for such families."

Uhhhhhh, genius, were you trying to make a point there? Cause all you did is agree with me that they SHOULDN'T be allowed the benefits. Aren't you supposed to be arguing a position that they SHOULD?


"Same with Social Security."

Again, are you so wrapped up in your desire to argue that you've completely confused yourself as to what the point of the argument is? If the social security and tax laws are to be adjusted so as to not give any additional benefit then just a regular married couple would receive, is that not the same thing as saying "polygamy should be legal, but they shouldn't be afforded the legal benefits beyond that of a 2 person marriage"? You just agreed with me on two of the biggest points I made, yet you seem oblivious to that fact, based on your tone of debate as if you are arguing against those specific points of mine. Made you look really silly to me.

I was responding to your statement that poly families will "take advantage" of tax law.That "abuse would be staggering".I responded with an answer saying that could be taken care of.
No confusion on my part there.

Just to be clear.I think poly marriages should be legal and I think they should have the legal benefits of marriage.
I also recognize that poly marriage has differences from two person marriages.Differences that could allow polys to take undue advantage of social security and tax law,and others I'm sure, as it is presently written.If it ever becomes legal here the law will have to be rewritten to reflect that.

Now how that should be done is another matter.Frankly,I haven't a clue as to how to write such laws.The only thing that comes to mind would be to base taxes along the lines of an LLC.Property rights could be handled by mandatory prenuptials.(that should be mandatory for ANY marriage)As for social security I have no idea how to change it.Never really given it any thought.I do know one thing for sure.I would like ringside seats for when they hammered out such changes.You know it will be a whale of a donnybrooke.

"Oh,by the way,who says that poly families are all one male and several wives?All of the polys that I know of have co husbands and wives.None have a a single individual calling all the shots or making all of the decisions.Decisions that effect the family are made by consensus."

I don't know who says that. I know I didn't. So why you felt the need to include that as a closing to your argument is a bit perplexing and highly irrelevant.

You used the one male/five females in your examples several times.
Since most peoples only exposure or knowledge of poly marriages is based on the mormon or Islamic versions,with a one male/multiple female patriarchy being the norm in those groups,I felt it was appropriate to mention it.If your positions on the tax and insurance issues are based on knowledge derived from how these groups are seen to conduct their affairs then I can understand your position a lot more.I will be the first to admit that neither group is a sterling example of poly marriages.I suspect that we would probably agree on the reasons why also.

[unpossibles]

113. Yes, but it should be between consenting adults and more "polyamory" than "polygamy" nt

[Greyskye]

165. Polyamory should be illegal?

Is that really what you meant? :shrug:

[unpossibles]

181. oops! Not at all

I must have answered that without consuming enough coffee first.

I think I read the OP as "should polygamy be legal" or something to the opposite effect! I'm glad you caught that.

[Greyskye]

223. I thought that might be the case

:hi:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

116. No. It's a civil rights issue.

:shrug:

[Deja Q]

118. How does affect society as a whole?

Then I'd worry about its legal status.

As long as they consciously don't spread disease and think of their partners' emotions, it isn't anyone else's concern. But especially the former, nobody discusses things until afterward when the others involved say "Remember to get tested often!"...

Silly tirade aside, how does making it illegal or legal do anything to change anything? Seems a waste of the legal profession.

That's where religion may have had a point: If for no other reason, to discourage people from creating heartache and/or spreading disease. Or children nobody's going to want, which is possibly the worst aspect of the lot, especially if the child grows up rogue and antisocial. :(

[get the red out]

127. Women become NOTHING

Polygamy reduces women to nothing but slaves. I will fight to the DEATH to prevent women's rights being completely destroyed by this. The day the Democratic Party starts touting the destruction of women's rights through allowing men to own us like this is the day it dies.

[helderheid]

122. No, but marriages with children should be.

[Posteritatis]

123. Any arrangement entirely involving consenting adults should be legal (nt)

[get the red out]

125. Only if

the murder of men by women is completely legal and encouraged.

Polygamy makes women lower than dog shit. Men who want it, please refer to my first point. Polygamy should be illegal everywhere with the death penalty for the hideous men who seek to abuse women with it.

[curse of greyface]

129. So adult women can't be trusted to make their own decisions? nt

[SweetieD]

137. So polygamy would be okay with you if it involved same sex unions? no women involved?

[SweetieD]

130. no

[20score]

136. No, I believe adults should be free to make their own life decisions.

[cushla_machree]

141. ok then

Read this and see if you feel the same way:

http://www.amazon.com/Escape-Carolyn-Jessop/dp/0767927567/ref=pd_sim_b_njs_1

[SweetieD]

142. That situation involved the workings of a cult, not polygamy by itself.

[cushla_machree]

162. In this country

Thats where you will find polygamy, and thats who wants it legal.

[20score]

168. Still believe in freedom. Anyone can find anecdotal evidence for what they want to prove.

Cults do suck, but polygamy is practiced in other cultures without irreparable harm. If someone is hurt; then the state should step in, until then...

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/riverside/20081104-1744-childabuse.html

There are thousands of stories worse than this every year. This one's tame. Should we stop monogamy?

[mondo joe]

221. She was FORCED into a marriage. That can happen in monogamous marriage too.

I don't know why you'd think polygamy would negate other laws.

[zoner4]

144. lets put tha ton the ballot!

[happychatter]

149. are you trying to imply that gay marriage is a wedge that will open the door to "anything goes?" NT

[rucky]

151. No. Just hypocricy.

[AzDar]

152. Not unless the Parties are underage. I think one should be able to marry whomever, however, how many

one desires.

[jesus_of_suburbia]

153. I don't think so. I could never share MY spouse though.

I'm single... but when/if I do get married (gay marriage), I don't want to share.

But others might want to. It's none of my business.

[happychatter]

155. this place has gotten entirely too crazy, with lots of one sided and mean spirited vitriol

I have to wonder what really motivates it

I'm not an opponent of gay marriage. Neither am I a proponent. Bans on gay marriage are indeed, pogroms... purely evil.

I still can't abide the language here... it's horrific. We can win without the hateful discourse. In fact, we can't win WITH it. I won't march behind or side by side with people that are spitting in the face of potential supporters.

I'm not a bigot and the cat that top posted that "gtfo" thread can kiss my righteous ass.

Just as many gay people start out in republican households as democratic households. Later one could argue they gravitate to the party of least rejection, eh? But not ALL. There are a lot of conservatives with gay family members that are republican for other reasons.

take a lesson from the campaign of 08...

Oh, and if a bunch of folks want to live collectively and practice polygamy... eat organic or worship cucumbers... I couldn't care less. I just ain't paying survivor benefits to thirty seven women from the common treasure.

And, of course, oppression and exploitation of women and children cannot be allowed. But a full grown woman can do whatever the hell she wants. Whips and chains included.

[tunacan]

156. Yes, because...

the poor kids... can you imagine having to do something for all the moms and all the dads for Mother's and Father's Day?

[wildbilln864]

157. no! nt

[Greyskye]

164. If you call it Polyamory: No. Nein. Nyet. Never.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyamory

[LiberalPersona]

166. Yes

Legalized polygamy can easily result in increased domestic violence.
Also, one man taking more wives means less men taking wives overall. Women will tend to choose a man with more wealth over a man with less, which leads to... wealthy men will marry a disproportionate number of available women compared to everyone else leading to fewer working class families.

[LynzM]

167. All relationship structures between consenting adults should be legal.

The issue here being, consenting adults. What most people call 'polygamy' in this country tends to seem to mean one older male and a lot of brainwashed, scared, underage women. :(

Polyamory between consenting adults should be legal in whatever form the involved parties are comfortable with.

[Edweird]

169. The way *THOSE* freaks do it, yes. For 'normal' people, no.

Really. I don't care who does what as long as I can get my groove on.

[Blue-Jay]

170. Only if YOU'RE involved.

Because that would be gross.

:D

[rug]

171. .

:*

[JustAnotherGen]

172. Yep

And should remain so until all of the members at DU can marry whomever they like.

[bananas]

173. No.

You should've done this as a poll.

[dpbrown]

174. As should polyandry

Goose, gander, and all.

[sellitman]

175. Trigonometry should be illegal.

I never could figure that stuff out for the life of me.

:evilgrin:

[BrklynLiberal]

178. I prefer polyandry myself...

[dorkulon]

182. No, as long as everyone is of age and consents of free will.

Personally, I don't give a darn what people want to call married, as long as it suits them.

[Generic Brad]

184. I don't care one way or another

I really don't care how others choose to live as long as they don't force me to do the same.

[ecstatic]

186. I just googled the pros and cons. Among the cons:

According to sociologists:

1) More rivalry and aggressive behavior (since there will appear to be less women available and vice versa)
2) Rise in inbreeding

http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HI27Ak03.html

Don't know how true all of that is... :shrug:

[apocalypsehow]

190. Stercus pro cerebo habes. s/n.

[20score]

192. That wasn't nice, but you may have given a few priests a laugh.

I know what n/t means. What's s/n?

[apocalypsehow]

194. Closest I could come to approximating modern DU "no text" - "scribo nihilum." n/t.

;-)

[ArrowMan]

195. Yes. If you advocated polygamy and advocated gay marriage, you would never get anyone elected.

Maybe we should start with plural civil unions. :rofl:

Seriosly, polygamy provides a host of abuses. Just watch Big Love.

[Indenturedebtor]

198. No. Consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want

so long as no one is getting hurt.

[Jamastiene]

202. ...

:popcorn:

[renie408]

212. I don't care. But if it is made legal, there are going to be some complicated

laws that have to be created to manage the legalities of the situation. You have the issues of inheritance, who makes medical decisions, etc to deal with.

[Bryn]

216. My cousin, Tommy, has two wives and they have been married for over 25 years now

We're from big Southerner family in northern part of Florida (Tallahassee). We all accepted it. Tommy to this day is still happily married to two wives, the wives get along very well. One of wives is a nurse and another one works as court reporter and he's electrician. No children.

Just thought I'd mention this. Amazing, isn't it? We all love them (two wives) both.

on edit: they live in one same big house.

[NashVegas]

233. What State Did Tommy Get Married In?

[Bryn]

235. I just assumed they married in Tallahassee, Florida

but what you asked is a good question. They could have gotten married elsewhere at different times. I did ask..wouldn't he get in trouble for having two wives? My relatives said no...unless one of wives filed a compliant so they never did because they agreed and wanted it and they have stayed married for nearly 30 years now.

[mondo joe]

218. I don't care about polygamy, or what consenting adults choose to do. The legal aspect is

more tricky, because it really does redefine and complicate marriage from a practical standpoint.

You need a whole new set of standards regarding taxation, divorce and possibly adoption. And probably other things I'm not thinking of.

[yurbud]

225. Republicans would just use it to marry more beards

[ForrestGump]

234. Yes. So should

monogamy.