Do you support legalizing polygamous marriage?

[cali]

[uppityperson]

1. thanks for the poll

[medeak]

2. if legalized

would make it less transparent to support families on welfare as listed as unmarried women now

[mondo joe]

3. No answer. I don't know much of the argument for it legally.

I'm not personally opposed to it in the abstract.

[Fumesucker]

92. In my view there should only be arguments against things legally..

Is the default of human behavior legality or illegality?

Should things be illegal unless arguments can be found to make them legal or vice versa?

[rucky]

4. I'm not going to go out of my way to oppose it.

eom

[orestes]

5. I'm not sure I would be against it per se

I mean, why can't a woman have 2 or 3 husbands? Certainly, if such a group of individuals wanted to live such a life, it should be their right, as it doesn't seem to harm anyone. Well, doesn't harm anyone except the folks who would have to put in the time writing some new tax code, I guess. Unfortunately, the problem arises when certain segments of the population have a decidedly exploitative view of polygamy, such as Mormons.

[cali]

9. they can do it. why should it be considered legal marriage?

[NeedleCast]

6. Yes

I think if you're going to support same-gender marriage, you've got to support this too. Legislating who can get married to who and who can't is wrong.

[WolverineDG]

7. Between consenting adults, yes nt

[SOS]

8. Given the cost of living and declining wages

we may soon need a three income family just to remain indoors.

[bunnies]

10. Yes. As long as its between consenting adults.

I dont see the problem.

[annabanana]

11. It sure as hell would support a new generation of lawers

Alimoney. . child support & custody..

Hoo-EE

[Mme. Defarge]

33. Indeed!

[ecstatic]

12. The cons, according to an article I read

(don't have the link handy) are:

1) Increased aggression/rivalry (particularly among men) and competition as a select few take up all the desirable/eligible options
2) Inbreeding :shrug:

[Bobbieo]

40. The only reason for polygamy is to repopulate an endangered species

and that sure as hell ain't us as human beings. There are too many of us on earth right now. Rescind the Global Gag Order please, President Obama

[GirlinContempt]

74. Why would there be increased rivalry?

And, why moreso among men?

[Gwendolyn]

93. Basic biology + human population.

I isn't rocket science.

:)

[peacebird]

13. between consenting adults, sure. Frankly Scarlett I don't give a damn who gets married

men, women, any combination of the above. As long as it's between consenting adults, why would I care?

[Iggo]

14. Not yet.

:patriot:

[Idealism]

15. For gay rights, against polygamy

Polygamy is a choice, being gay isn't. And its a nice twist to those Mormon churches who supported Yes on H8 to get screwed with in return

[bunnies]

16. Getting married is a choice.

Why do you care how many people one chooses to marry??

[Idealism]

17. Its a matter of civil rights

If Mormons want to take away gay rights, they sure as hell shouldn't be allowed to have several teenage wives. Homosexuality isn't a disease, its not something learned. Its a natural occurance in the world that you can't help. You can be married to 5 women, but a gay couple can't wed is just outrageous

[bunnies]

19. Oh I see. They 'took away' gay rights - so now its time for some revenge.

Oh and btw... nobody said anything about teenage wives OR homosexuality as a disease.

My point is that consenting adults should have the choice to be married. You disagree.

[Idealism]

21. I am saying an eye for an eye

Neither should be illegal, but if one is so should the other. They shouldn't get preferential treatment just because they have money to throw around, which is what this comes down to.

[bunnies]

27. An eye for an eye leaves the world blind.

Its not a competition.

[Idealism]

30. So half-blind is acceptable?

Not to me its not

[bunnies]

32. I never said that.

It seems that you, for some reason, want to pretend that I am against same-sex marriage. Well, I'm not. I dont know why you're having such a hard time understanding that.

Never did I say that one should be legal and the other shouldnt. Nor are they mutually exclusive. Think about it.

[Idealism]

35. Well lets take a step back

Personally I dont know any gay people, nor polygamists. From a strict law stance, something that the majority believes should not determine how a minority group must live. If the supreme court rules any form of marriage inequality as unconstitutional, all should be declared the same.

[bunnies]

36. "something that the majority believes should not determine how a minority group must live"

We are in absolute, 100% agreement. :hi:

[RichardRay]

52. A Greek friend of mine tells this story

to illustrate a certain attitude; it seems to apply here.

A man went to the well in his village to draw water. When he pulled up the bucket he had captured a water sprite. The sprite offered to fulfill a single wish for him if released; the man readily agreed. The sprite than noted that the man should remember that, whatever he wished for, his neighbor would receive twice. The man went away to think about what he really wanted. He returned to the well the next day and drew up the sprite again.

"Well," asked the sprite "have you figured out what you want?"

The main nodded.

"Don't forget," the sprite warned him "that whatever you ask for I shall do twice for your neighbor!"

The man nodded again, and said "I wish that you should put out one of my eyes."

[mondo joe]

20. Legal same sex marriage would mean equality - all people would be equally

able to participate in the same form of contract.

Polygamy is a different form of contract. That doesn't mean it should or shouldn't be legal. But it is a different CASE than exists for same sex marriage.

[bunnies]

23. I dont disagree with you.

They are definitely separate issues. And I believe everyone should have the choice.

[Fearless]

45. But is falls under the same premise... seperate but equal vs. equality and justice for all.

[mondo joe]

50. No, it doesn't. Equal protection says we must all have access to the same

rights, privileges, accommodations.

Polygamous marriage is a different contract than currently exists, and the proof is that new statutes would have to be created to address it.

I'm still not saying I'm opposed to polygamy - it's just a different beast.

[Fearless]

59. All I'm saying is that is the exact argument made against same-sex marriage for generations.

[mondo joe]

62. It's really not. Polygamy is a different model, with a different set of statutes.

Same sex marriage is not - no substantive change to statute.

[Fearless]

67. Explain.

[mondo joe]

72. Certainly. If you look at marriage law as it stands, the only reasons same sex couples

are prevented from partaking are purely arbitrary. As the law goes, whether it's a man and woman, two women or two men makes no difference. When two men, lets say, marry, it doesn't require any different set of legal practices - not in joint property, inheritance, custody, divorce or anything else.

Polygamy is a different sort of contractual arrangement. There are no statutes or guidance to address how to handle any of those matters I described up above. They would need to be developed from scratch.

The difference between a man and a woman and two men marrying is arbitrary. The difference between a man and a woman and a man and 5 women is structurally different.

[Fearless]

73. I suppose I can agree in theory... although I don't have a problem with them changing the frameworks

[mondo joe]

75. I didn't say I'm opposed to changing the framework. I'm only saying it IS a different

framework, whereas including same sex marriage is not. It's a different issue.

[Fearless]

77. ...

:P

[mondo joe]

51. No, it doesn't. Equal protection says we must all have access to the same

rights, privileges, accommodations.

Polygamous marriage is a different contract than currently exists, and the proof is that new statutes would have to be created to address it.

I'm still not saying I'm opposed to polygamy - it's just a different beast.

[mopinko]

46. i would have to argue that polygamy is a part of the human genetic code.

i am a believer in understanding the extent to which human behavior is genetic. which, imho, is hugely extensive.
so, i think that some people are genetically programmed to be gay. how this "gay gene" is expressed and passed on is an extremely interesting study in the complexity of it all. like- lesbians are more frequent late in the birth order of large families.

so, i also believe that polygamy is a part of our heritage. just look at our primate cousins. gorilla troops are polygamous.
i also think that involved fathers was a huge leap. i think monogamy follows that. polygamy is useful when you need warriors. it makes for many loose men, and we know that these bachelor troops are the cause of much trouble.

so, i would rather that polygamy does not exist. i would like to wave my magic wand and make every father bond to and raise his offspring. and be a good husband, too. but our genetic heritage is complex, and unlikely to be stripped of less attractive patterns. the laws will do nothing as long as the genes are there. i am against prohibition in general because it only makes things taboo. and therefore more attractive, and fraught with perverse incentives.

(and please do not infer that i lump being gay in with being polygamous. i think the gay gene was there for a good reason, and a part of the very progressive development of child centered small family units. i think polygamy is a holdover from earlier times, and a part of a warrior culture that i would like to see fade away.)

[GirlinContempt]

78. That's assuming that each man marrys many women.

I have polygamous friends who had a relationship that included 2 women and like, 5 men. It doesn't have to be one man to ten women.

[shadowknows69]

76. Marriage is a choice

Even Gay marriage is a choice. There are plenty of people who don't feel the need to be married. Everyone should have that choice.

[Mme. Defarge]

18. I fear it would be the end

of real social protection and status for women. I fear it would utterly tear apart the fabric of our society and lead to social chaos. I believe that the notion that this would simply allow for more in the way of equally desirable lifestyle choices for consenting adults is naive. Rather, because of the extreme seriousness of the possible negative consequences -- especially for children trying to cope with the inevitable family jealousies and dramatic increase in family instability -- and the fact that once it happens we're not going to be able to put the toothpaste back in the tube, we need to step back from the brink of social catastrophe.

So, flame away -- but you asked.

[Runcible Spoon]

25. no flames but a question,,,

how many women in a traditional marriage are beaten, neglected, raped and otherwise abused versus women in polygamous marriages? I don't think laws can really change social patterns, at best they can reinforce already existing ones and provide a means to punish violators and protect those who are vulnerable. I don't think legalizing polygamy would lead to a huge rush of new marriages; religious sects who embrace that already live like that with their marriages codified under their own religious laws if not necessarily under the state laws. And then there are alternative marriages among non religious folks. One man one woman is not some sort of default arrangement. As far as children are concerned, there are many many examples of different marital arrangements around the world, and the most important thing is that a child has love, structure, and guidance from at least one, and preferably two heads of a household. That could mean mother, father, grandparents, aunts, uncles...there are many configurations. It's not the family arrangement that deems a family pattern successful or not, it is the dominant cultural values which tend to punish and reward certain patterns.

[aquart]

22. Wait. Would women be able to have more than one husband?

[bunnies]

24. Of course!

:evilgrin: Maybe the yardwork would get done. :rofl:

[mondo joe]

26. Most of the hetero women I know find one husband to be enough work. NT

[dana_b]

101. two guys sitting around on the couch?

ugh. ;-)

[frebrd]

28. Yes, but only if it applies equally to both genders. n/t

[mondo joe]

29. I might be more supportive if polygamy advocates could explain how it would legally work.

How would community property work? Who counts as legal parents? How does divorce work?

[WolverineDG]

34. Property--probably would have to be done by contract

(not all states have community property, btw)

Legal parents--The same people who are legal parents now, the biological mother & father.

Divorce--how it's handled now is the 2 parties separate (usually H with multiple Ws; if W4 wants to split, she does, taking her children with her; could work the other way around)

dg

[mondo joe]

79. What about a marriage of 3 men and 2 women?

Are they all married to each other equally?

[WolverineDG]

81. If they want to be nt

[mondo joe]

83. I thought part of marriage, as a state recognized contract, is standardized

rights and responsibilities.

If 3 men and two women are married, and one man wants to divorce the other man but not the women how does that work?

Can they all adopt the total number of children they produce children as a 5some? If so, if one of the women divorces all the rest and wants to sue for support, does she sue them all?

If one member of the 5 dies, do the surviving spouses have equal claim to the his or her inheritance?

[Xenotime]

102. Yes.

[Ian David]

31. I oppose it mostly because my wife gets mad every time I suggest it.

No matter how many times I let laundry pile-up, leave dishes in the sink, and say, "Gee, if only we could have another wife to help-out around the house..."

Actually, in all seriousness, while I have no moral objection to polygamy as such, I see several problems with it:

1) Marriage is meant to be an institution that protects the rights of the parties involved. Polygamy has often become an institution of exploitation where marriage becomes a contract of servitude, rather than of protecting legal rights.

2) Even if it were legal to have two or more wives, OR to have two or more husbands, since males are disproportionately the primary wage earners, polygamy would almost certainly end up mostly being men with multiple wives. Also, since women are often rendered very vulnerable by economic hardship in other countries, it would create a black market of refugee women being bought and sold to American men.

3) Again, since it would mostly be men with multiple wives, even if somehow all the issues of exploitation were to be somehow resolved, it would still create the problem of "wife hoarding" that has destabilized the Mormon Polygamous community. A handful of powerful men "hoard" all the available women, leaving young men lonely, childless and desperate until they are expelled from their communities and their families to try and find women elsewhere. Like by ringing your doorbell at 9 AM on a Saturday morning.

3B) Wife-hoarding. Imagine if men like Hugh Heffner, Larry King, George Clooney, Sean Connery, Dennis Kucinich, Flavr Flav, Charlie Sheen, Alec Baldwin and Bill Gates could all have all the wives they wanted. Imagine coming of age as a young man in a world where the super-attractive, the super-rich, or the super-powerful are able to have as many wives as they want. Imagine trying to find a wife in Silcon Valley when every woman with larger than a B-Cup is already married to Bill Gates.


In short, my objections to polygamy can probably be summarized as "Assholes will abuse it and polygamy would create civil unrest by creating a shortage of women available to marry."

[dysfunctional press]

37. "marriage" should be reserved for two people...

more than two should be the domain of 'civil unions'.

just my opinion.

[Confusious]

38. I don't think most ( 95% ) of people

Are emotionally secure enough to deal with that sort of situation without a strong authoritarian figure in the household which usually leads to physical, emotional and verbal abuse. Not to mention the kids. two is hard enough these days, what about 4 or 8 or more?

[Starry Messenger]

39. I support what the Constitution says.

And I don't believe the majority should vote on the rights of the minority. That said, I don't care who or how many folk marry personally as long as all parties are capable of consent.

[cali]

41. I don't see how you find constitutional support for polygamous marriage

[Starry Messenger]

42. I didn't say if I did or didn't. I'm not a Supreme Court Justice.

I will leave it to them.

[RichardRay]

49. I don't see how it prohibits it, either. If someone got

a case on the subject on the docket it would be interesting to see how it got handled. It seems to me it would be easier to find constitutional grounds for refusing to prohibit than it would be to find grounds to refuse to allow. I think saying that there's nothing in the constitution to support polygamy/polyandry goes in the direction of the ant colony in The Once and Future King where Everything Not Allowed Is Prohibited.

[WolverineDG]

63. Freedom of religion, freedom of association

from wiki:

While the United States Constitution's First Amendment identifies the rights to assemble and to petition the government, the text of the First Amendment does not make specific mention of a right to association. Nevertheless, the United States Supreme Court has held that the freedom of association is an essential part of the Freedom of Speech because, in many cases, people can engage in effective speech only when they join with others. The Supreme Court has found the Constitution to protect the freedom of association in two cases:

1. Intimate Associations. A fundamental element of personal liberty is the right to choose to enter into and maintain certain intimate human relationships. These intimate human relationships are known as "intimate associations." The paradigmatic "intimate association" is the family.
2. Expressive Associations. Expressive associations are groups that engage in activities protected by the First Amendment—speech, assembly, petitioning government for a redress of grievances, and the free exercise of religion.

dg

[Fearless]

43. As with all marriage...

Do what you want so long as you don't hurt others or yourself. You can't ban something because of the actions of a group in the population. That's using... I believe the phrase is... a hatchet instead of a scalpel.

:evilgrin:

[thingy]

44. I can't see why it shoudn't be allowed.

I don't believe the government should have a say in who people are allowed to love, or how many people they love, or how many legal contracts they have with the people they love. It all boils down to people being squeamish about sex, anyway. Two men, two woman, man and woman, two men and a woman, two women and a man, etc. - as long as you have those two magic words (consenting adults) attached, I say allow it all. May as well be more progressive than other nations for a change.

[ulysses]

47. apples & oranges, but better that than not legalizing gay marriage.

:shrug:

[LWolf]

48. Sure, in the right circumstances.

If you:

1. Allow women to have multiple husbands and/or wives, as well as men to have multiple husbands and/or wives.

2. Restrict marriage licenses to age 21 and over, to those individuals who have completed a 4 year degree or equivalent trade school. From accredited schools.

[WolverineDG]

64. Are those restrictions for everyone?

If not, they're unconstitutional.

dg

[LWolf]

66. Sure.

I don't see any reason not to insist on some maturity, education, and job training before engaging in supposedly life-long legal contracts.

[WolverineDG]

86. What other restrictions do you want to put

on how other people run their lives?

dg

[LWolf]

87. I don't see it as a restriction in running personal lives.

I see it as part of a legal contract.

That's what marriage is, right? A legal contract?

Those requirements for the legal contract don't have to stop people from saying and doing what they want in a place of worship. Or making any kind of personal vow or promise to one another. Or living how they choose.

It just restricts them from a valid marriage license, and restricts their legal rights and privileges, like tax benefits, joint property ownership, etc. to those with a legal contract.

I don't think requiring maturity and a completed education before entering into a legally binding, supposedly life-long contract, is out of line.

[WolverineDG]

91. I'm glad you're not in charge then nt

[LWolf]

97. Is marriage a legal contract, or is it something else?

What do you have against standards for entering into legal contracts?

[WolverineDG]

98. What business is it of yours to decide how other people live their lives? nt

[LWolf]

99. What does that have to do with a contract of marriage?

There is nothing that dictates how people live their lives; just whether or not they do it within a legal contract, or outside that contract.

What, exactly, do you think I'm trying to decide? That people should be fully adult before they can enter into a supposed life-long contract?

What is your issue with that?

What, exactly, is the point you are trying to make?

[pitohui]

53. it would be the end of the civil benefits of marriage so obviously not

i don't care how many people you sleep with, as long as we're all adults here and you're all consenting BUT marriage is something different -- it's a "macro" -- it's a quick cheap way for two adults to get a whole slew of legal rights and social benefits, such as if one partner is out of work, he can still be covered on his spouse's health insurance, the "team" or "couple" is protected -- similarly, you don't have to pay thousands of dollars to write a trust or will, for most people of modest income, if you die, you can be secure knowing that your money, your house, your pension automatically goes to your spouse

all that goes out the window when there is more than one spouse to fight over the $$$ -- no one wins with legal polygamy except the lawyers and those perverts (sadly, yes, usually mormon) who seem to thrive on collecting teen girls

once marriage becomes a chaotic compact between an unknown number of people, businesses will no longer provide health benefit for spouses and their children because god knows how many spouses and children you'd end up providing for, you would have to buy a will or trust from a lawyer no matter how little money you had or risk, if one of your spouses die, having the most sociopathic steal everything because there would be no simple automatic way to inherit and pass along property

polygamy is more than a shitty deal for women (altho it is certainly a shitty deal for women in every society i've ever heard about where it is practiced), it would also be a shitty deal for couples

unlike gay marriage, which is a matter of simple fairness, to allow the gay partnership the same benefits as the straight partnership -- polygamy is just a different "thing" because "two" is NOT the same as "three" or "six" or "n = unknown number of individuals"

in practice, in the usa, those who practice "polygamy" tend to be perverts who don't want an equal relationship but rather collectors of teens, who use the teens for sex while they're still young and attractive, and once they're fat and ugly and used-up from multiple pregnancies, they use them for welfare fraud -- that shouldn't be legal and those who do this need to be in jail

if fundamentalist mormons perceive this as "tit for tat," too damn bad, they are the ones who hate and fear anyone who is free and different, they are the ones who decided to attack gay couples who did nothing to harm them, and if some smart gay lawyer or prosecutor finds a way to get some revenge, well, in some situations another word for revenge is justice

to a certain extent the argument seems as trollish as the dude who pretended to believe that gay marriage would lead to box turtle sex, sorry, the math is clear, two people is not the same x number of people

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

54. Just quickly, on one of your points. If there was Universal Single Payer Health Care,health benefits

wouldn't be an issue.

[pitohui]

55. yes but there isn't, is there? and there is still inheritance and other money issues

have you ever been involved in a situation where multiple siblings fought over an inheritance?

now create a world where there are multiple spouses doing the same thing

only the sociopaths and the lawyers win, the decent people will end up beggared

[LisaL]

56. All of that aside, why should people be charged with bigamy

when they are not legally married to more than one person?
Basically why is it a crime when more than 2 people want to form some sort of family unit, if they are above the age of consent?

[uppityperson]

69. Who has been charged with bigamy under those conditions?

It isn't a crime "when more than 2 people want to form some sort of family unit, if they are above the age of consent".

When is it?

[LisaL]

82. Read up on TX bigamy laws.

You don't have to be legally married to more than one person to be charged with bigamy.
In fact if you just purport to be married to more than one person you can be charged with bigamy.
Or if you are living with someone other than your legal spouse you can be charged with bigamy.
http://law.onecle.com/texas/penal/25.01.00.html

[uppityperson]

89. Have people there been charged with bigamy under those conditions?

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

60. It would be a property rights nightmare.

[LeftishBrit]

65. Even in countries with National Health Services, there would be big problems over various

forms of family-related benefits.

In fact, my view that polygamy is intrinsically incompatible with a welfare state, is one of my main reasons for opposing formal legalization of polygamy.

I don't think that people should be punished legally for having multiple partners; but I don't think that polygamous relationships should be given the status and formal benefits of marriage.

[uppityperson]

68. Go pithoui! Good post.

"i don't care how many people you sleep with, as long as we're all adults here and you're all consenting BUT marriage is something different"...

Good post. Thank you.

[MrSlayer]

57. Sure. As long as it's not forced and the willing participants are adults.

Go for it.

[booley]

58. It's about the consent

As long as it's adults and they can leave just like in any other marriage, I have no problem with that they do in the privacy of their own lives.

My only real concern beyond that is how the law would handle it. The benefits of marriage are set up for two people. There are a lot of questions that are unresolved.

[cwydro]

61. No. nt

[PBS Poll-435]

70. Nope

The IRC is complicated enough without introducing multiple spouses.

[Xenotime]

103. Your views are not progressive enough.

[NC_Nurse]

71. I don't give a shit. As long as the folks involved are consenting adults.

I prefer to mind my own business. I wish more people did.

[AntiFascist]

80. Cali, why are drawing attention to this right now?

[LisaL]

84. Is there a special time when one should be allowed to draw

attention to something? :eyes:

[AntiFascist]

88. I was just asking a question, has there been media coverage on this issue lately?

Seriously, I'd like to know if certain cable news is bringing up this issue.

[Cerridwen]

90. Yes. When that attention is being drawn to a r/w talking point

that has been debunked and which might be used to create division and ill-will.

Are we responding to issues or creating issues that didn't exist?

Not terribly difficult to see the difference. Should we allow "fair and balanced" discussion about lies? Or is "fair and balanced" presumed to occur when dealing with facts?

Please define if you see this issue is lie or fact.

[Truth Teller]

94. But why now?

I don't think it's unreasonable to suspect this is related to recent events regarding marriage.

I guess I'm curious as to your thought process in asking this, and please don't take this as accusatory - it isn't meant to be.

:hi:

[fascisthunter]

85. Seriously... playing gotcha right now is bad timing

but I will state that I have no problem with polygamy, as long as it's between consenting adults.

[noonwitch]

95. Yes, as long as only one wife and family get IRS status

If the husband (or wife, in a reverse of the usual scenario) can afford the multiple spouses and children, fine.

[cwydro]

96. dupe.

[Toasterlad]

100. I Would, But It Would Make the Mormons Happy. So, No.