I'm waiting for the Polygamists to start pushing for full legalization, and I don't say this jokingly. My daughter and nephew are good friends with children of polygamists and the kids from these arrangements don't see anything wrong with it and were quite open about the set up.
Any thoughts on this?

If people are happy in polygamous relationships then why not, it isn't hurting anyone else.

I don't think so, especially since they don't have the "equality" clause to get behind.

Two people have always been able to get married.

40 years ago I wouldn't have been able to marry my wife for the same arguments that are used today. "Interracial marriage is not biblical, it will ruin the children, society will crash and burn." But two people have been able to get married, so why shouldn't two different colored people?

Same-sex marriage is still about two people getting married, the basic structure remains the same and it is still just a question of "if those two, then why not those two?"

Maybe I am wrong, but that's why I don't see polygamy becomming a cause.

Personal anecdote about the DOMA ruling though (sorry if it is off-topic). I am personally in the "gay is a sin" camp, and fully in the "God is personal and not politics. For law Constitution trumps Bible" camp for my political and societal outlook.

I have a friend that I work with (Federal government job) who was happy about the ruling but still reserved about what it actually would mean in practice. He has been with his partner for many years, they wear wedding bands but have never married because there is no point to that in Oklahoma, own their house together. About a week after the ruling we got the email from the Office of Personal Management saying that the repeal of the DOMA means that all employees affected have X month to put their spouse on all their federal benefits.

I printed out the memo and handed it to him. And aside all the equality talk, and rights talk, and don't treat people like outlasts talk that was a focus for many, the look on his face when he realized that he can now actually provide health insurance to his partner (after they get married) and that they as a couple can now afford healthcare if something were to happen to him made me fully realize that it was the right decision beyond any doubt.

Polygamy would also be a legal nightmare for courts in case of dissolution. And child custody. *Shutters*

Also would be interesting in health care situation where the spouse often becomes the decision maker if no advance directives were filed.

Yeah. I mean I could see polygamy working but we'd have to rewrite so many laws to make it work in our system today, and I just don't see that many people wanting it right now.

Gay marriage was a comparatively simple legal fix. The laws on marriage haven't really changed, just who they're applied to.

 LordofHats wrote:
Polygamy would also be a legal nightmare for courts in case of dissolution. And child custody. *Shutters*

Not as much as you might think. The girl across the street my daughter plays with has a divorced mother. The split gave her custody, and the daughter goes every couple of weeks to stay with her dad a week. It seems like a smooth set up.

I dont see it either. Polygamy has plenty of issues to work through. The fact that the reason many polygamist marriage jut relegate women to breeding stock in the marriage for a man. The fact that it is many times more damaging for a women. Many of the religions that do advocate polygamy also relegate women to a subservient role. It would require severe re-working of laws.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
Polygamy would also be a legal nightmare for courts in case of dissolution. And child custody. *Shutters*

Not as much as you might think. The girl across the street my daughter plays with has a divorced mother. The split gave her custody, and the daughter goes every couple of weeks to stay with her dad a week. It seems like a smooth set up.

Think of it this way. A mother splits off from the marriage with her two daughters. But she actually went to work, leaving another mother ro raise her kid in the marriage. Who should gt custody? The mother, or the person the child thinks as a mother? Or what if the mother considers another child hers because she raised him/her?

I hope they do legalize it. I don't see how anyone who is pro-gay marriage could be against polygamy.

Yes, the legal issues would have to be cleared up, but it still boils down to the same thing as gay marriage: is it hurting anyone else? No, it is not.

It may actually hurt someone else. Many polygamist marriages are just male power houses where a man gets to control many women for the purpose of making babies, and unshamlessly bedding a younger women when he feels like it

Think of it this way. A mother splits off from the marriage with her two daughters. But she actually went to work, leaving another mother ro raise her kid in the marriage. Who should gt custody? The mother, or the person the child thinks as a mother? Or what if the mother considers another child hers because she raised him/her?

It's not really any different than a "normal" couple getting divorced I would think. If either spouse remarries (or stays married in this case) it would result in a non-biological parent raising the child at least part time. But step-mom doesn't get custody just because she married dad and cooks dinner, so I don't see an issue with another wife already present when it comes to custody.

Once you change the definition of marriage from one man and one woman together for life, then pretty much whatever you can think of is open to be made "legal." All it takes is long enough arguing for your "rights" to be "equal," and the good Ole US of A will give up and fold....

blah

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
It may actually hurt someone else. Many polygamist marriages are just male power houses where a man gets to control many women for the purpose of making babies, and unshamlessly bedding a younger women when he feels like it

You might want to watch the stereotyping and attacks against polygamy before there is a red text...

Relapse wrote:
Not as much as you might think. The girl across the street my daughter plays with has a divorced mother. The split gave her custody, and the daughter goes every couple of weeks to stay with her dad a week. It seems like a smooth set up.

Now imagine that previous marriage involved two men and one women. Now you'd think the biological standard we currently use could easily be applied over but what if the mother doesn't know which of her husbands is the father? Do both have a responsibility or just the biological father? You could test them but what if one really doesn't want to pay child support and blocks any attempts to do any tests? What if all three parents want custody and constantly accuse each other of being unable to care for the child? Polygamy is like taking already contentious and vicious legal proceedings and turning them up to eleven.

Do we really want a child to be in shared custody with five different 'parents?' That's kind of ridiculous. Having split parents with just two is chaotic enough.

It's not that simple. We'd need all new case law, all new procedures, all new everything.

 LordofHats wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Not as much as you might think. The girl across the street my daughter plays with has a divorced mother. The split gave her custody, and the daughter goes every couple of weeks to stay with her dad a week. It seems like a smooth set up.

Now imagine that previous marriage involved two men and one women. Now you'd think the biological standard we currently use could easily be applied over but what if the mother doesn't know which of her husbands is the father? Do both have a responsibility or just the biological father? You could test them but what if one really doesn't want to pay child support and blocks any attempts to do any tests? What if all three parents want custody and constantly accuse each other of being unable to care for the child? Polygamy is like taking already contentious and vicious legal proceedings and turning them up to eleven.

Do we really want a child to be in shared custody with five different 'parents?' That's kind of ridiculous. Having split parents with just two is chaotic enough.

It's not that simple. We'd need all new case law, all new procedures, all new everything.

The way it usually works here is that the child goes with the biological mother unless she is proven unfit.

 d-usa wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
It may actually hurt someone else. Many polygamist marriages are just male power houses where a man gets to control many women for the purpose of making babies, and unshamlessly bedding a younger women when he feels like it

You might want to watch the stereotyping and attacks against polygamy before there is a red text...

In my research during my time studying it for my marriage and family class this typically is how polygamy works. I rarely see it the other way in the modern world. The only time a marriage involved 2 men/1 women was in india where brothers shared a wife because that is how it is.

That's how a lot of famous polygamy is showcased in the media but honestly I'm not sure enough research has been done to really predict the effects of polygamy in a modern society in that sense. It fills vital roles in many tribal societies due to the interconnecting of families for mutual support, but that's a benefit largely rendered moot when you're not a tribal society.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I dont see it either. Polygamy has plenty of issues to work through. The fact that the reason many polygamist marriage jut relegate women to breeding stock in the marriage for a man. The fact that it is many times more damaging for a women. Many of the religions that do advocate polygamy also relegate women to a subservient role. It would require severe re-working of laws.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
Polygamy would also be a legal nightmare for courts in case of dissolution. And child custody. *Shutters*

Not as much as you might think. The girl across the street my daughter plays with has a divorced mother. The split gave her custody, and the daughter goes every couple of weeks to stay with her dad a week. It seems like a smooth set up.

Think of it this way. A mother splits off from the marriage with her two daughters. But she actually went to work, leaving another mother ro raise her kid in the marriage. Who should gt custody? The mother, or the person the child thinks as a mother? Or what if the mother considers another child hers because she raised him/her?

You don't really have a good understanding of the majority of polygamist unions when you say it is a male power trip. I live right across the street from people involved in polygamy and the 11 year old daughter comes into my house and tells us all about it in the way an unguarded child talks about things. As my nephew discovered on the compound he used to go visit and we have learned, the media likes to sensationalize isolated occurances as compared to the general norm of a situation.

I think that is the reason it is dying. It really is a damaging system for many involved.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I think that is the reason it is dying. It really is a damaging system for many involved.

The marriage rate overall is dropping, is it a damaging system to those involved as well?

*no smart comments from the divorced guys in here!

 LordofHats wrote:

Do we really want a child to be in shared custody with five different 'parents?'

King Solomon would need to spend some time working at a Japanese steakhouse first.

I can give my own reason why the marriage rate is dropping.

 d-usa wrote:
The marriage rate overall is dropping, is it a damaging system to those involved as well?

I'd actually propose that once we get to polygamy marriage as a concept becomes somewhat useless. Might just be simpler to do away with it all together or completely reinvent it.

*no smart comments from the divorced guys in here!

Let's legalize polygamy. After all, misery loves company

 dogma wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

Do we really want a child to be in shared custody with five different 'parents?'

King Solomon would need to spend some time working at a Japanese steakhouse first.

I've played Fruit Ninja, I got this.

 dogma wrote:
King Solomon would need to spend some time working at a Japanese steakhouse first.

There is no barrier now to legal polygamy. It is a matter of time before it is brought before the courts and it must be legalized now.

 SickSix wrote:
There is no barrier now to legal polygamy. It is a matter of time before it is brought before the courts and it must be legalized now.

Under what claim though?

Especially when socially I'm pretty sure there's still mass opposition to the idea. Things don't get legalized just because there's no legal barrier (especially since legal barriers tend to get thrown up ). Honestly you wiper snappers should have been there when gay marriage was illegal

 d-usa wrote:

 SickSix wrote:
There is no barrier now to legal polygamy. It is a matter of time before it is brought before the courts and it must be legalized now.

Under what claim though?

Tell me how you would stop it?

To stop polygamy you have to define marriage. Well where are you going to get your definition from? Can't use religion.

Polygamy has to be legal. You cannot logically deny it now that there is same sex marriage.

(Personally I believe government has no place in defining/regulating/legislating marriage.)

From the current laws on marriage that deal with marriage solely as monogamous and the numerous laws banning someone from being married to multiple people at once? Most states have a law against polygamy.

.

 SickSix wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 SickSix wrote:
There is no barrier now to legal polygamy. It is a matter of time before it is brought before the courts and it must be legalized now.

Under what claim though?

Tell me how you would stop it?

To stop polygamy you have to define marriage. Well where are you going to get your definition from? Can't use religion.

Polygamy has to be legal. You cannot logically deny it now that there is same sex marriage.

(Personally I believe government has no place in defining/regulating/legislating marriage.)

No, please say what claim of discrimatiom polygamy has under current laws.

"Person marries person = marriage"

Interracial marriage went to the Supreme Court under discrimination because they could claim "I can marry a white person, but get discriminated against if I marry a black person.

Same sex marriage can show discrimination because they can show "I can marry a male person, but I get discriminated against if I want to marry a female person" (reverse at will)

Polygamist can marry a person, same as everyone else. They can't marry more than one, same as everyone else.

The state has always had it be a union of two. The makeup of the two has been challenged in many ways because the makeup of the two partners has been subject to unequal laws. So what legal argument is there to "it's unfair that I can't marry more people than everybody else"?

I'm not arguing against it as much as I am trying to get an actual compelling case for why it should be legal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Random Dude wrote:
Polygamy goes against many people's faith.

Faith has absolutely feth all to do with law though, and this is coming from a very religious person here.

And some religions allow polygamy (see Islam second largest religion on the planet accounting for 1/5 of its population). Hinduism and Buddhism have also recognized it (or still do). Also: Old school Mormons. EDIT: And of course, early Christians were divided on the issue of polygamy. The early church didn't mandate monogamy until Synod of Hertford in 673 and that consensus was not universally accepted until the 11th century.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
It may actually hurt someone else. Many polygamist marriages are just male power houses where a man gets to control many women for the purpose of making babies, and unshamlessly bedding a younger women when he feels like it

You could make the same stereotypical claim about monogamous heterosexual marriage as well. You could say something similar about gay marriage too, just minus the baby-making part.

That doesn't mean any of it is true. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but when it does it's because of people doing crappy things in their relationships, it's not because the nature of the relationship itself requires that abuse like that must happen.

 Hordini wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
It may actually hurt someone else. Many polygamist marriages are just male power houses where a man gets to control many women for the purpose of making babies, and unshamlessly bedding a younger women when he feels like it

You could make the same stereotypical claim about monogamous heterosexual marriage as well. You could say something similar about gay marriage too, just minus the baby-making part.

That doesn't mean any of it is true. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but when it does it's because of people doing crappy things in their relationships, it's not because the nature of the relationship itself requires that abuse like that must happen.

I agree. Just ask any woman that has spent the better part of their marriage getting the gak beat out of them, along with the kids, by some donkey-cave of a husband.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just for the record, I am not for Polygamy and think it is wrong on religious grounds, but I think a lot of change is in the wind this next decade.

 Random Dude wrote:
Polygamy goes against many people's faith.

So?
What does your faith have to do with how I live my life?

OT:
Go for it I say, but before actually going for it, step back a bit and plan out as many little details as you can think of so you don't have to take more time than necessary.

 SickSix wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 SickSix wrote:
There is no barrier now to legal polygamy. It is a matter of time before it is brought before the courts and it must be legalized now.

Under what claim though?

Tell me how you would stop it?

To stop polygamy you have to define marriage. Well where are you going to get your definition from? Can't use religion.

Polygamy has to be legal. You cannot logically deny it now that there is same sex marriage.

(Personally I believe government has no place in defining/regulating/legislating marriage.)

So there should be absolutely no legal benefit from being married either in your mind then. No getting your wife/husband on your health insurance, no benefits for your dole (or whatever it is called over there, social security maybe? Unemployment benefits?), none of that. Because if the government can't define or regulate it, or legislate on it, then none of those things can happen.

I don't care if people want to be polygamous; the private living and loving arrangements that are formed between consenting adults are none of my business.

My bottom line, as always, is that the state has no role in the marrying business, period.

 motyak wrote:
So there should be absolutely no legal benefit from being married either in your mind then.

Yes. In my opinion, there should be no tax benefit or penalty for being married, or not.

 motyak wrote:
No getting your wife/husband on your health insurance, no benefits for your dole (or whatever it is called over there, social security maybe? Unemployment benefits?), none of that. Because if the government can't define or regulate it, or legislate on it, then none of those things can happen.

Well, I also don't think that your health insurance should be tied to your employment; I think our current status quo is bizarre but that's another thread. As is, I think that private health\life insurers can provide insurance under whatever guidelines they choose so long as it's not discriminating against a protected class and that's their call, and you always have the right to pick a competing insurance who does cater to your situation. I don't think wee need government to define or regulate marriage for those things to happen.

inb4 marrying animals or buiildings afterwards

 Sigvatr wrote:
inb4 marrying animals or buiildings afterwards

However, not between being intentionally obtuse with a puerile argument that requires you to not-read everyone saying these laws should apply to consenting adults.

An animal cannot consent to a legal arrangement.

A building cannot consent to a legal arrangement.

So thanks for "contributing" on that front, someone sure had to.

 Ouze wrote:

My bottom line, as always, is that the state has no role in the marrying business, period.

Pretty much, I definitely agree with this sentiment in an ideal setting, but while the state gives benefits for being married, they are forced to be involved. Unless they find a way to completely cut all ties between marriage and any and all benefits, they need to be a part of it to try and stop discrimination which would otherwise be present (and is).

 Ouze wrote:

 motyak wrote:
So there should be absolutely no legal benefit from being married either in your mind then.

Yes. In my opinion, there should be no tax benefit or penalty for being married, or not.

 motyak wrote:
No getting your wife/husband on your health insurance, no benefits for your dole (or whatever it is called over there, social security maybe? Unemployment benefits?), none of that. Because if the government can't define or regulate it, or legislate on it, then none of those things can happen.

Well, I also don't think that your health insurance should be tied to your employment; I think our current status quo is bizarre but that's another thread. As is, I think that private health\life insurers can provide insurance under whatever guidelines they choose so long as it's not discriminating against a protected class and that's their call, and you always have the right to pick a competing insurance who does cater to your situation. I don't think wee need government to define or regulate marriage for those things to happen.

To be honest my understanding of how insurance works in your country is about as limited as it can possible get, I'm just aware that marriage can get your spouse the benefit while others haven't been able to in the past in certain states. That is it. And as I said above, we shouldn't need government to define or regulate it for that to happen, but they are, for the foreseeable future, linked far too thoroughly for it to be changed on a whim

I support polyamoury, as long as all parties involved are legitimately in favour of the arrangement. I would also support polygamy as a legal construct if I was convinced the inherent complications of the higher order handshake problem had been resolved:

- If your spouse wanted your marriage to expand, you must have absolute confidence in your ability to refuse consent without repercussions.
- If a polygamous marriage breaks up, it should be known in advance how to do so in a reasonably equitable manner. This is already a problem in monogamous marriages, but as the number of members increases, so does the chance of catastrophic failure.

I also see nothing inherently wrong with polygamous or polyamorous relationships, so long as everyone is content with that.

As for the subject of marriage, that becomes a little difficult. Various benefits that are shared between spouses become difficult to manage once you include more than two parties into the group.
Reducing the legal benefits of marriage solely to next-of-kin status might be in order to support it, but that would require some restructuring of how various benefits work the country over.

The difference between gay marriage and polygamy is that polygamy is specifically against the law in most western countries.

The "two consenting adults" model of marriage is well defined and easily extended to situations in which the adults are not different sexes.

It is not as simple to extend the definition to multiple partners since things like health insurance and pension benefits are all on the basis of two partners rather than three or seven.

This could be tackled in law, if it is thought desirable to give married people special benefits compared to un-married people.

I wonder, though, how widespread polygamy and the desire for polygamy really is.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The difference between gay marriage and polygamy is that polygamy is specifically against the law in most western countries.

The "two consenting adults" model of marriage is well defined and easily extended to situations in which the adults are not different sexes.

It is not as simple to extend the definition to multiple partners since things like health insurance and pension benefits are all on the basis of two partners rather than three or seven.

This could be tackled in law, if it is thought desirable to give married people special benefits compared to un-married people.

I wonder, though, how widespread polygamy and the desire for polygamy really is.

Gay marriage was illegal and unthinkable also.

Relapse wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The difference between gay marriage and polygamy is that polygamy is specifically against the law in most western countries.

The "two consenting adults" model of marriage is well defined and easily extended to situations in which the adults are not different sexes.

It is not as simple to extend the definition to multiple partners since things like health insurance and pension benefits are all on the basis of two partners rather than three or seven.

This could be tackled in law, if it is thought desirable to give married people special benefits compared to un-married people.

I wonder, though, how widespread polygamy and the desire for polygamy really is.

Gay marriage was illegal and unthinkable also.

I don't believe it was illegal, it just wasn't possible. That is an important distinction I think. If a man tried to marry a man in America you just get told 'no'. If you marry several partners, you are actually breaking the law, right? At least that is my understanding of Kilkrazy's post. That polygamy is in direct violation of the law, and if just randomly legalised will cause significant problems with many laws and practices, problems that gay marriage won't.

Note: The above talk about law is just my understanding of your country, I could be off and gay marriage could have been actually illegal.

There is a difference between polygamy, which is one man having many wives. That's more or less several different marriages, and cultures have handled that throughout history without a lot of complications. I think a brief tour of the child support records for any large city would show that our system can handle men that have children with multiple women.

What would be more complicated would be group marriage, where instead of several people marrying one person (like spokes on a wheel), multiple people all wish to marry each other (forming a net). Polygamy (and it's female equivilent of polyandry) is very different from modern polyamory. You also have very different people interested in each (polygamy is super traditional/conservative, polyamory is super hippie/liberal).

I don't see a huge issue with legalizing either. I think polyagmy/andry is reasonably simple to implement and dissolve, and would legitimize no small number of de facto arrangements.

As for what claim? the same one they've had for 150 years: freedom to practice religion. It's been a non-starter, and especially since the mainstream LDS has disavowed polygamy, I doubt we'll see a concentrated push on it. There are also more convincing state arguments for not allowing polygamy: payment of benefits to multiple spouses, next of kin decisions, inheritience rights, etc. Basically all the stuff that marriage is supposed to simplify becomes more complicated again.

The problem with it, at least in the US, is that the few who do practice it, practice it in an abusive manner. If you want to look it up, check out the Lost Boys of Mormonism. Basically, if you are born male into a polygamist clan, more than likely you'll be booted out into the world, orphaned.

In those same instances, you get rumors (and occasionally actual evidence and court cases) that the "patriarch" of the polygamist household has married an underage girl.

Which is why, I think, the US government will never accept polygamy in any form.

 Polonius wrote:
There is a difference between polygamy, which is one man having many wives.

Sorry, but you start off wrong and continue from there. Polygyny is one man having many wives. Polyandry is one woman having many husbands. Polygamy is any combination of three or more people being married.

 motyak wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The difference between gay marriage and polygamy is that polygamy is specifically against the law in most western countries.

The "two consenting adults" model of marriage is well defined and easily extended to situations in which the adults are not different sexes.

It is not as simple to extend the definition to multiple partners since things like health insurance and pension benefits are all on the basis of two partners rather than three or seven.

This could be tackled in law, if it is thought desirable to give married people special benefits compared to un-married people.

I wonder, though, how widespread polygamy and the desire for polygamy really is.

Gay marriage was illegal and unthinkable also.

I don't believe it was illegal, it just wasn't possible. That is an important distinction I think. If a man tried to marry a man in America you just get told 'no'. If you marry several partners, you are actually breaking the law, right? At least that is my understanding of Kilkrazy's post. That polygamy is in direct violation of the law, and if just randomly legalised will cause significant problems with many laws and practices, problems that gay marriage won't.

Note: The above talk about law is just my understanding of your country, I could be off and gay marriage could have been actually illegal.

Not that long ago in this country just being gay was illegal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
The problem with it, at least in the US, is that the few who do practice it, practice it in an abusive manner. If you want to look it up, check out the Lost Boys of Mormonism. Basically, if you are born male into a polygamist clan, more than likely you'll be booted out into the world, orphaned.

In those same instances, you get rumors (and occasionally actual evidence and court cases) that the "patriarch" of the polygamist household has married an underage girl.

Which is why, I think, the US government will never accept polygamy in any form.

The same thing has been said of gay marraige, and gays adopting children with facts and figures brought forward. I am not defending Polygamy here, mind you, and I think it is wrong.
I am just looking down the road envisioning a push for polygamy. I have known people that practiced it or are related to those that do and really don't believe it is a great stretch.

There are American judges taking Sharia Law into consideration when making judicial decisions.

Islam is the second largest religion. If you don't think there wont be a polygamy movement soon, you need to open your eyes.

 SickSix wrote:
There are American judges taking Sharia Law into consideration when making judicial decisions.

Oh look, it's this old gem.

 SickSix wrote:
There are American judges taking Sharia Law into consideration when making judicial decisions.

Islam is the second largest religion. If you don't think there wont be a polygamy movement soon, you need to open your eyes.

Most muslims aren't polygamous. Why would they push for the right to a practice they generally don't practice?

I couldn't care less about polygamy... if they want to marry let them! if they want to marrry 2 people? let them! if they want 2 people in a relationship to marry another each... let them...

Being difficult to sort out in a court is no reason to ban it lol. If thats the case ALL marriages should be banned.

I personally feel all marriages of any time should be required by law to have a prenuptial agreement that explicitly states the end result of a break up or death in the marriage. There complicated problems fixed before the marriage.

However... i have to add this in. I don't think anytime in the next 20 years this will become an issue. There simply are not enough polygamists to start the necessary movement in this country at this time. If that changes... good for them!

Relapse wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The difference between gay marriage and polygamy is that polygamy is specifically against the law in most western countries.

The "two consenting adults" model of marriage is well defined and easily extended to situations in which the adults are not different sexes.

It is not as simple to extend the definition to multiple partners since things like health insurance and pension benefits are all on the basis of two partners rather than three or seven.

This could be tackled in law, if it is thought desirable to give married people special benefits compared to un-married people.

I wonder, though, how widespread polygamy and the desire for polygamy really is.

Gay marriage was illegal and unthinkable also.

Gay marriage wasn't illegal, it simply wasn't called marriage in most legal codes.

The war on women continues. We can't let them have sister wives. Oh the humanity.

 LordofHats wrote:
Polygamy would also be a legal nightmare for courts in case of dissolution. And child custody. *Shutters*

Yes divorces could be potentially very messy.

What if it is the wife that wants to marry a wife in addition to her husband?

Homosexual polygamy?

We are not ready for this!

Some people might say that one spouse was bad enough.

And that's why we have hitmen.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
And that's why we have hitmen.

Hitmencops. Hitcops...

Relapse wrote:
I'm waiting for the Polygamists to start pushing for full legalization, and I don't say this jokingly. My daughter and nephew are good friends with children of polygamists and the kids from these arrangements don't see anything wrong with it and were quite open about the set up.
Any thoughts on this?

Doubtful, but I'm not against prostitution and weed getting legalization.

There are some deliciously ironic quotes in here.

I will be assigning any argument against polygamy a label of "bigotry".

 Monster Rain wrote:

I will be assigning any argument against polygamy a label of "bigotry".

How so?

It's what we do here.

I'd say there is more cultural and historical precedent for polygamy to be legal then there is for homosexual marriage.

If you can redefine what the gender makeup of marriage consists of, you can't honestly protest against what number makeup marriage consists of.

Get ready for it:

If you are against polygamy, why are you Anti-Muslim? Its a part of their religion. Why do you get to decide what they do with their lives? You're a bigot! Why are you oppressing them? Its about equality!

If you are against polygamy, why do you hold tribal African cultures in contempt? Polygamy has been around in Africa since forever. Are you racist?

 SickSix wrote:
There are American judges taking Sharia Law into consideration when making judicial decisions.

Can I please get a source for this? I'd love to read more about it.

I have nothing against this. It is harder than with the gay marriage, as it needs adapting of laws that were originally designed for unions of two people, but I'm sure someone can figure that out.

 Ouze wrote:
I don't care if people want to be polygamous; the private living and loving arrangements that are formed between consenting adults are none of my business.

My bottom line, as always, is that the state has no role in the marrying business, period.

My thoughts too, if you want to marry a multitude of people then that is between you and those involved. Just please don't use my tax dollars to fund your lifestyle

 d-usa wrote:
What if it is the wife that wants to marry a wife in addition to her husband?

Good for them, still none of my business nor concern.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
And that's why we have hitmen.

It is always the Police pretending to be a hitman. Except Agent 47

NELS1031 wrote:I'd say there is more cultural and historical precedent for polygamy to be legal then there is for homosexual marriage.

If you can redefine what the gender makeup of marriage consists of, you can't honestly protest against what number makeup marriage consists of.

Get ready for it:

If you are against polygamy, why are you Anti-Muslim? Its a part of their religion. Why do you get to decide what they do with their lives? You're a bigot! Why are you oppressing them? Its about equality!

If you are against polygamy, why do you hold tribal African cultures in contempt? Polygamy has been around in Africa since forever. Are you racist?

I am against polygamy on a moral ground simply because of the rampant social problems associated with polygamous communes. However, I am opposed to polygamy on legal grounds because of spousal transfers and exemptions within the tax code, which should not be legally allowed to apply to more than a two-person partnership.

And if you really want to equate polygamy with being Muslim, then yes, I am anti-Muslim. I am also anti-Catholic, Mormon, Zoroastrian and any other belief structure that involves magic. However, I feel people are free to believe as they wish, and that element doesn't actually matter to this discussion.

What I find to be somewhat troubling is that marriage appears to be defined by some as a binary between either "Christian fundamentalist", or "not Christian Fundamentalist", which is a silly stance to take, and I suspect the root of the argument that says if LGBTQ marriage is allowed, then so too should polygamy. However, that reasoning is fundamentally flawed.

 azazel the cat wrote:
I am against polygamy on a moral ground simply because of the rampant social problems associated with polygamous communes.

Those conmunes are only a small part of polygamy, though. Why do you get to pass judgement on the rest because of them? Justice Elena Kagan said while deliberating on whether to hear the Prop 8 case and DOMA, that whenever she hears a moral argument, she says it raises a red flag of discrimination in her view. Why do you get to impose your morals on polygamists and discriminate against them?

 azazel the cat wrote:
However, I am opposed to polygamy on legal grounds because of spousal transfers and exemptions within the tax code, which should not be legally allowed to apply to more than a two-person partnership.

Tax codes and spousal laws can be adjusted to better accomodate polygamists so that there is equity between them and monogamists.

 azazel the cat wrote:
And if you really want to equate polygamy with being Muslim, then yes, I am anti-Muslim. I am also anti-Catholic, Mormon, Zoroastrian and any other belief structure that involves magic.

And you're allowed to say that and no one bats an eye, but if someone is against gay marriage, they're called bigots. Their businesses are boycotted, sometimes vandalized and sued. All because they live by the morals they believe in.

 azazel the cat wrote:
However, I feel people are free to believe as they wish, and that element doesn't actually matter to this discussion.

People are to free believe as they wish, but you started off with a moral argument to sate you are against something that a minority of others morally accept. Again, why do your morals get to supercede theirs? Because its in the majority?

 azazel the cat wrote:
If LGBTQ marriage is allowed, then so too should polygamy. However, that reasoning is fundamentally flawed.

Why is it flawed? They can use the same arguments that were made by the LGBT community to advance gay marriage.

It's interesting to note at this point how we found out my daughter's friend has a polygamous father. She was just visiting and my son was joking with me about becoming a polygamist.
She then said that she wants to be married to a polygamist because her dad is and it's a great way to live. Her father currently lives in a 4 plex with all of his, I believe 3, wives.
One of my fathers friends had a polygamist uncle with wives that lived in multiple separate houses he built for them. Each wife and her children that could work had a job to help him in supporting them.

NELS1031 wrote: blah blah blah blah

If you want to dissect my statement, then either have the courtesy to use the entirety of each of my statements. Every question you asked in response was answered pre-emptively, from which you selectively omitted in quoting me.

If you want to use your hack job to set the precedent for any discussion with you, then you are most likely trolling, or else not worthy of my time for other reasons. In any case, we're done here.

From what I've been learning by association, it wouldn't surprise me to find out a lot of posters here already know polygamists but just don't realize it.
There are a lot of closet types out there, just like the gays used to be.

ranted I can't really remember post to specific names. I do remember some advice giving to those asking about on how to deal with the sig other/spouse/wife...perception I have some are having a bit of a problem dealing with one female.....now some are willing to add a second female into the mix....Some thinking they will be the dominate role in this setup...well...one of the females probably going to challenge that from the get go

 azazel the cat wrote:

NELS1031 wrote: blah blah blah blah

If you want to dissect my statement, then either have the courtesy to use the entirety of each of my statements. Every question you asked in response was answered pre-emptively, from which you selectively omitted in quoting me.

If you want to use your hack job to set the precedent for any discussion with you, then you are most likely trolling, or else not worthy of my time for other reasons. In any case, we're done here.

I only omitted a very large sentence that was all over the place.

I'll admit to playing devils advocate in support of why polygamy should be legal, but not trolling.

But since we're done here, good night sweet prince.

As long as the rules for marrying more than one person are well thought out and fair for each person in the group I see no real problem here...

Relapse wrote:
From what I've been learning by association, it wouldn't surprise me to find out a lot of posters here already know polygamists but just don't realize it.
There are a lot of closet types out there, just like the gays used to be.

If I found out that there were polygamists that I knew, I would be freaking astounded. I'm not saying there aren't polygamists in America, but I think the number is probably extremely small. Outside of fringe Mormons (polygamy isn't, I believe, officially recognized by the church any longer) and a few cases of some guy leading a bizarre double life (two totally separate identities, family and all) I've never heard of polygamy in America.

I don't think polygamy is healthy for the relationships involved, or the development of any children involved, but I also don't think my opinion should count towards what is legal and what is not. There's plenty of unhealthy things that are quite legal, and if there is significant enough support for polygamy to be legalized, then have at it, I say.

NELS1031 wrote:I only omitted a very large sentence that was all over the place.

I'll admit to playing devils advocate in support of why polygamy should be legal, but not trolling.

Read it again. It's quite concise and focused.

And your actions contradict your admission. I suspect you do not understand exactly what it means to play the devil's advocate

purplefood wrote:As long as the rules for marrying more than one person are well thought out and fair for each person in the group I see no real problem here...

And what do you propose when divorce and tax issues come into play?

 azazel the cat wrote:

purplefood wrote:As long as the rules for marrying more than one person are well thought out and fair for each person in the group I see no real problem here...

And what do you propose when divorce and tax issues come into play?

Not being either a lawmaker or well versed in tax code or divorce law I can safely say I have no idea.
I'm not saying I support his wholeheartedly, I think it's a good idea if there is a fair way to deal with the consequences, those primarily being of divorce and tax.
I also don't make laws or study them for a living so there is no way I can make an educated answer to your question concerning what a good way to deal with divorce or tax would be.

 d-usa wrote:
...I am personally in the "gay is a sin" camp...

To be fair, if no one sins then Jesus died for nothing (Theoretically speaking).

But Polygamy, why not.

If women can vote, and two men can get married why shouldn't we allow a man to marry more than one woman? (Or vice versa).

After all he is only hurting himself, as he has to deal with many wives... (I just because I love).

what sort of polygamy?
man and several wives?

how about man with several husbands and wives, of whom are married to eachother, like one giant cluster chain

I'd sign up for that.

That would confuse the feth out of me.

It's been said before but I'll also chime in that in would be hell to deal with in court cases and what not.

 Shadowbrand wrote:
That would confuse the feth out of me.

It's been said before but I'll also chime in that in would be hell to deal with in court cases and what not.

Its simple, say there are 5 people, lets call them
Jon
Frank
Lisa
Mary
Susan

Jon is married to all of them, but down the line, Frank married the 3 women as well, then Mary and Lisa got married, as well as Mary and Susan and Susan and Lisa.
Then comes along another chain of, lets say 7 people, and Jon decides to marry one of them, lets call her Tara, who is married to the 7 people in her chain...
And it goes like that until, most likely you'll run into someone that is now related to you by marriage...

Take that sanctity of marriage!

It certainly defiles a holy agreeement which makes the angsty teenager in me cackle in delight.

But still fething confusing system you got goin' on there. I'll stick to having a girl that makes me smile. That takes care of me. That's good in bed. and hoping these 3 women don't meet.

If people are happier together that way then I don't see a reason they shouldn't be together...
Even better if we have provision vie law to make sure that any separation is fair.

I'm just confused about whether d-usa was being facetious when he said

 d-usa wrote:
Polygamist can marry a person, same as everyone else. They can't marry more than one, same as everyone else.

which is an argument that people are using against gay marriage right now.

 Shadowbrand wrote:
It certainly defiles a holy agreeement which makes the angsty teenager in me cackle in delight.

But still fething confusing system you got goin' on there. I'll stick to having a girl that makes me smile. That takes care of me. That's good in bed. and hoping these 3 women don't meet.

in this day and age you're lucky if you get one person that does anything lol

 NELS1031 wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
I am against polygamy on a moral ground simply because of the rampant social problems associated with polygamous communes.

Those conmunes are only a small part of polygamy, though. Why do you get to pass judgement on the rest because of them? Justice Elena Kagan said while deliberating on whether to hear the Prop 8 case and DOMA, that whenever she hears a moral argument, she says it raises a red flag of discrimination in her view. Why do you get to impose your morals on polygamists and discriminate against them?

If you base your morals in today's legal code, then child abuse is wrong. The State defines a child as one who is under 18. Many states allow marriages with parental consent at 16 however. If you follow that reasoning, and look at many of the abusive communes, they are marrying at 14 and 15, or at least under the legal age of consent for the state they are located in.

Relapse wrote:
I'm waiting for the Polygamists to start pushing for full legalization, and I don't say this jokingly. My daughter and nephew are good friends with children of polygamists and the kids from these arrangements don't see anything wrong with it and were quite open about the set up.
Any thoughts on this?

Fifteen years. The gay marriage thing still is percolating through, so the seeds will start now but take time.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
I'm just confused about whether d-usa was being facetious when he said

 d-usa wrote:
Polygamist can marry a person, same as everyone else. They can't marry more than one, same as everyone else.

which is an argument that people are using against gay marriage right now.

People are using the argument that you cannot marry multiple people at once against gay marriage?

I want to see the first case of polygamist interracial gay marriage. That should blow so many minds it'll be like a nuke strike. Make the Gitmo detainees watch the wedding. Yes!

I could be wrong on this, but is not polygamy legal in the states with very high mormon(I think its mormon anyways) populations?

Mormon's today generally don't practice polygamy and haven't for some time baring a few fringe groups. It's been this way for over a century I think.

 dogma wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

Do we really want a child to be in shared custody with five different 'parents?'

King Solomon would need to spend some time working at a Japanese steakhouse first.

...Wait, what?

 Squigsquasher wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

Do we really want a child to be in shared custody with five different 'parents?'

King Solomon would need to spend some time working at a Japanese steakhouse first.

...Wait, what?

I feel terrible you can't appreciate this awesome joke so I'll give you a hint: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgment_of_Solomon

 LordofHats wrote:

 Squigsquasher wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

Do we really want a child to be in shared custody with five different 'parents?'

King Solomon would need to spend some time working at a Japanese steakhouse first.

...Wait, what?

I feel terrible you can't appreciate this awesome joke so I'll give you a hint: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgment_of_Solomon

...Ah, now I get it.

I was looking for the relevance of a Japanese steak house, and then it clicked. Goddamnit I'm dim. All the more unforgivable considering I'm learning Kendo...

 d-usa wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
I'm just confused about whether d-usa was being facetious when he said

 d-usa wrote:
Polygamist can marry a person, same as everyone else. They can't marry more than one, same as everyone else.

which is an argument that people are using against gay marriage right now.

People are using the argument that you cannot marry multiple people at once against gay marriage?

"Gay people can marry someone of the opposite sex, same as everyone else."

Why do bigots want to deny someone the right to marry a person whom they love?

angsty teenager

You think its bloody jail time with just one wife.......you thinking 14 wives or something silly......you be hanging yourself in a closet....after you make room/hangar space from all your wives cloths and shoes...

 LordofHats wrote:
Mormon's today generally don't practice polygamy and haven't for some time baring a few fringe groups. It's been this way for over a century I think.

That is correct. Any Mormon that practices polygamy gets excommunicated.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
I'm just confused about whether d-usa was being facetious when he said

 d-usa wrote:
Polygamist can marry a person, same as everyone else. They can't marry more than one, same as everyone else.

which is an argument that people are using against gay marriage right now.

People are using the argument that you cannot marry multiple people at once against gay marriage?

"Gay people can marry someone of the opposite sex, same as everyone else."

So you didn't really read, or make a rebuttal to, the argument that I actually made.

Which man is insane enough to want legal polygamy?

Unless you are part of the 0.01% of the population who could attract multiple good looking mates AND provide them enough material wealth that they would be willing to all marry you, the logical choice is to go for monogamous marriages. In a population where sexes are divided amongst the middle, every women that decides to marry an already married man 'condemns' a single man to celibacy. Allow a man to marry a limitless amount of time, and you'll soon have everyone trying to emulate Ismail ibn Sharif. Which leaves a few thousand men to plot your bloody murder.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Which man is insane enough to want legal polygamy?

Unless you are part of the 0.01% of the population who could attract multiple good looking mates AND provide them enough material wealth that they would be willing to all marry you, the logical choice is to go for monogamous marriages. In a population where sexes are divided amongst the middle, every women that decides to marry is an already married man 'condemns' a single man to celibacy. Allow a man to marry a limitless amount of time, and you'll soon have everyone trying to emulate Ismail ibn Sharif. Which leaves a few thousand men to plot your bloody murder.

As a balance, if they completely legalized polygamy, they could make to where if you wanted a divorce from one, you got a divorce from all!

Re: OP

Not going to happen in the foreseeable future. Religious polygamy has way too much abuse to ever get widespread support, and the average person isn't really aware that there's any other kind of multi-person marriage. So, regardless of how fair it is, I don't expect anything to change.

The idea that we can't possibly adapt the legal structure of marriage, however, is complete nonsense. We have no problems making vastly more complicated legal agreements in the business world, making a multi-person marriage contract would be easy. And we even have a lot of the work done already. For example, let's look at medical decisions, which would supposedly become too complicated if you have multiple spouses getting the default right to make decisions for you if you are unable to. That's only a problem if you forget that we already have similar cases where, for example, a person's spouse is dead already and their two surviving children have to make the end-of-life decisions for them. If we can handle that we can handle a case where it's two spouses instead of two children.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Unless you are part of the 0.01% of the population who could attract multiple good looking mates AND provide them enough material wealth that they would be willing to all marry you, the logical choice is to go for monogamous marriages.

Take a look at the average people involved in secular polyamory sometime, I think you'll find that "top 0.01% of the population" isn't really an accurate description. They're just average people with average looks and financial status. The whole "the elites of society get all the wives" thing is only a problem if you limit the discussion to extremist religious polygamy where multiple wives is done for status, not out of two-way love.

In a population where sexes are divided amongst the middle, every women that decides to marry is an already married man 'condemns' a single man to celibacy.

Only if you only consider religious polygamy. If you take a broader view of multi-person marriage then men with multiple wives can be balanced out by women with multiple husbands (or more complicated arrangements), and the "condemned" men are still free to be one of those multiple husbands. The "availability" problem is based entirely on religious beliefs that the only acceptable multi-person marriage is one where a high-status man collects multiple wives.

 Peregrine wrote:
Only if you only consider religious polygamy. If you take a broader view of multi-person marriage then men with multiple wives can be balanced out by women with multiple husbands (or more complicated arrangements), and the "condemned" men are still free to be one of those multiple husbands. The "availability" problem is based entirely on religious beliefs that the only acceptable multi-person marriage is one where a high-status man collects multiple wives.

It can also be historically attested to in several cultures. Ironically for your post, one of them is pre-Islam Arabia. Islam instituted rules on polygamy in part to deal with problems their culture was experiencing with large numbers of unemployed unwed men (they had a tendency to get into trouble XD). EDIT: Primarily this was in Medina. I'm actually not sure if the problem pervaded the whole region. It's also not hard to realized that 'marriage monopolization' (something not unheard of in pre-Colonial Africa) would result in an higher class gaining a great deal of control over marriage by the virtue of having more offspring, resulting in both social and economic advantages over others. Modern anthropology has also identified this problem in some contemporary cultures, and even modern states (Kenya).

Granted I'm unaware of any culture that practiced both polygymy and polyandry (usually its one or the other for whatever reason they have to practice it) and cultures with group marriage are exceedingly rare.

 Peregrine wrote:


Take a look at the average people involved in secular polyamory sometime, I think you'll find that "top 0.01% of the population" isn't really an accurate description. They're just average people with average looks and financial status.

I find doubtful that the secular polyamory population represents properly the potential population of secular polygamous relationships.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
I find doubtful that the secular polyamory population represents properly the potential population of secular polygamous relationships.

Why doesn't it? The idea of having large numbers of people getting into multi-person relationships* just because they get format legal recognition makes about as much sense as the conservative paranoia that large numbers of people will abandon their straight marriages and turn gay just because gay marriage is officially recognized by the government. The more likely answer is that most people who would be interested in those relationships are already in them without government recognition and changing the marriage laws would primarily be a matter of granting the formal benefits to those existing relationships.


*Let's exclude ridiculous "relationships" like manipulation of the tax laws or criminals marrying each other so they can't testify against each other in court, since they aren't relevant to the point being discussed.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
I find doubtful that the secular polyamory population represents properly the potential population of secular polygamous relationships.

Why doesn't it? The idea of having large numbers of people getting into multi-person relationships* just because they get format legal recognition makes about as much sense as the conservative paranoia that large numbers of people will abandon their straight marriages and turn gay just because gay marriage is officially recognized by the government. The more likely answer is that most people who would be interested in those relationships are already in them without government recognition and changing the marriage laws would primarily be a matter of granting the formal benefits to those existing relationships.


*Let's exclude ridiculous "relationships" like manipulation of the tax laws or criminals marrying each other so they can't testify against each other in court, since they aren't relevant to the point being discussed.

Ah, but I'm not saying there's no cross-over between the two populations. I'm saying that the majority of people involved in relationships that allow libertinage are either young 20-30s currently uninterested in marriage, or already married swingers, or something else. Hence why it makes a bad example, and why I think secular polygamy remains a minuscule fringe phenomenon. That and the fact that sexual jealousy is a likely a cognitive feature.

The bigger phenomenon seems to be sectarian and religious polygamy, and if anything else, laws against polygamy protects from those which are abusive relationships.

Now I'm confused. When you said "I find doubtful that the secular polyamory population represents properly the potential population of secular polygamous relationships" was the second "secular" a typo?

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Ah, but I'm not saying there's no cross-over between the two populations. I'm saying that the majority of people involved in relationships that allow libertinage are either young 20-30s currently uninterested in marriage, or already married swingers, or something else. Hence why it makes a bad example, and why I think secular polygamy remains a minuscule fringe phenomenon. That and the fact that sexual jealousy is a likely a cognitive feature.

And definitely confused. The comment that started this was your statement that multi-person marriage would be limited to the 0.01% of the population with the wealth and status to attract multiple spouses, and my response that the people who are currently involved in secular multi-person relationships are not that elite 0.01%. I don't see how any of what you just said has any relevance to the statement you quoted.

The bigger phenomenon seems to be sectarian and religious polygamy, and if anything else, laws against polygamy protects from those which are abusive relationships.

But do they really? Is a law against polygamy really doing much when a religious extremist can marry one wife and keep several other "wives" that are just roommates legally? And does a blanket ban on polygamy really do a better job of preventing abusive relationships than laws specifically aimed at the abusive acts which can occur in any marriage, monogamous or polygamous? After all, I think you'd have a hard time arguing that women in a religious polygamous marriage are really much worse off than women in monogamous quiverfull/christian patriarchy marriages.

Polygamy is not, in fact, at the top of my list of things I hope are legalized next.

I'm not personally convinced that the move to accept polygamy is going to come as quickly as gay marriage. And I think this is for the simple reason that there just aren't that many polygamous marriages out there. Acceptance of homosexuality started moving really fast when people felt comfortable coming out - and then once people could see these people were just like everyone else a lot of the bigotry just dropped away.

With polygamy I can't see the same effect. Sure, it might become socially acceptable for people to say they're in a polygamous relationship, but that doesn't mean that many people are every going to meet someone in an open polygamous relationship, because they're just not that common. Maybe I'm wrong, though, maybe they are a lot more common than I'm aware.

As for whether it should be legal, well I've got to say that the legal problems seem pretty considerable to me. Though the other side of that legal issue is that polygamous relationships are happening already, whether legally sanctioned or not. So perhaps some kind of legal recognition might actually be needed to bring some kind of legal clarity to the situation.

 Ouze wrote:
Yes. In my opinion, there should be no tax benefit or penalty for being married, or not.

While I agree with the general principle, how this works in practice becomes a lot trickier.

Consider, for instance, a woman with earnings in the year of $0 and three kids. Society is absolutely going to help that woman, if not for her sake then certainly for her children. But now consider that same lady, $0 income and three kids, married to a guy who makes $150,000. It doesn't make any sense to send her aid, because with her husband's income she's she's living as well or better than most of us. So, for fairly logical reasons, we consider the husband's income in determining the wealth of the wife.

And while that causes some problems (such as some people not getting married so one partner can keep claiming welfare) we haven't really thought of a better way of sorting this stuff out.

Add in the possibility of polygamous marriage, and it gets to be a nightmare pretty quickly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I wonder, though, how widespread polygamy and the desire for polygamy really is.

This is a big part of the issue, yeah. I mean, it will take many, many hours of legal study and much of parliament's time to produce a bill that might properly treat polygamous relationships, and is that necessary when the reforms will benefit very few people?

 Peregrine wrote:
Now I'm confused.

Well, I wasn't clear, and come to think of it, probably wrong. Having a minority of males holding on to a majority of the available females works when there's a ridiculous disproportion of wealth between the individuals in a society, and while there's a disproportion right now, only a very small portion of the male population cannot hope to provide and support for one female and a few children. And women have about the same capacity of males to provide and support for their children. The logic I was refering to was probably valid in pre-modern times, but a lot has changed since then.

But do they really? Is a law against polygamy really doing much when a religious extremist can marry one wife and keep several other "wives" that are just roommates legally? And does a blanket ban on polygamy really do a better job of preventing abusive relationships than laws specifically aimed at the abusive acts which can occur in any marriage, monogamous or polygamous? After all, I think you'd have a hard time arguing that women in a religious polygamous marriage are really much worse off than women in monogamous quiverfull/christian patriarchy marriages.

Well, a quick search for 'polygamy lawsuits' only comes up with that 'Sister wives' show, which, since its a reality show, can probably be dismissed as a example since it has nothing to do with reality. It's probably as you say, and nothing more than an additional charge to stick on someone. A nice thing to have, but not reason enough to deny someone marriage rights.

As for the danger, step-parenthood is the greatest risk factor for domestic abuse. The dynamic might be different in polygamist families, but wouldn't each additional spouse be an additional step-parent? I imagine there's also forms of favoritism at play, sometimes.

 Ouze wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
inb4 marrying animals or buiildings afterwards

However, not between being intentionally obtuse with a puerile argument that requires you to not-read everyone saying these laws should apply to consenting adults.

An animal cannot consent to a legal arrangement.

A building cannot consent to a legal arrangement.

So thanks for "contributing" on that front, someone sure had to.

That's what happens when you don't re-check twice before posting -_-. My bad.

I did not want to express any opposition to gay relationships, let alone even trashtalk them. I am very much in favor of same-sex lifelong relationships (but oppose financial support by the government for those) - I don't think anyone should be punished if he, or she, choose a path of life (or sexuality) if he / she does not directly violate other person's rights.

I made that comment because said kind of "marriage" is a point often brought up by...certain people. What bothers me, personally, right now is that "Why not?" attitude (mostly) leftists spread. Mind you, I am a very conservative person and that laisser-faire attidude is something I really detest and would like to see getting rid off.

This goes for polygamy as well - what's the point? What actual benefit is there to polygamy? Is it worth breaking with your (previous) culture, upsetting others?

So sorry, that really came off as rude and not what I wanted to say. It was late :(

 Sigvatr wrote:
I made that comment because said kind of "marriage" is a point often brought up by...certain people. What bothers me, personally, right now is that "Why not?" attitude (mostly) leftists spread.

And where exactly do you find these straw man "leftists" that think you should be able to marry animals or buildings? If there's anyone arguing that marriage should cover more than consenting adults (a pretty obvious limit given that marriage is a legal contract and your pet dog can't sign those) they're a tiny and irrelevant minority.

Mind you, I am a very conservative person and that laisser-faire attidude is something I really detest and would like to see getting rid off.

Don't you have that kind of backwards? Aren't conservatives supposed to be in favor of a hands-off attitude and allowing people to live their lives with as little interference from others as possible?

This goes for polygamy as well - what's the point? What actual benefit is there to polygamy? Is it worth breaking with your (previous) culture, upsetting others?

Just to state the obvious, what if you happen to love two (or more) people and don't want to be forced to make an unnecessary choice between them just because someone else thinks marriage should only be between two people?

Also, who gives a if it upsets others. If someone is upset because you're in a relationship with more than one other person they need to learn how to mind their own business.

 Rainbow Dash wrote:

 Shadowbrand wrote:
That would confuse the feth out of me.

It's been said before but I'll also chime in that in would be hell to deal with in court cases and what not.

Its simple, say there are 5 people, lets call them
Jon
Frank
Lisa
Mary
Susan

Jon is married to all of them, but down the line, Frank married the 3 women as well, then Mary and Lisa got married, as well as Mary and Susan and Susan and Lisa.
Then comes along another chain of, lets say 7 people, and Jon decides to marry one of them, lets call her Tara, who is married to the 7 people in her chain...

We're gonna need a bigger bed.

Well - if you're looking at a polyamorous marriage and the composition of partners looks challenging; just remember the golden rule and you'll be OK.

 Ouze wrote:
Well - if you're looking at a polyamorous marriage and the composition of partners looks challenging; just remember the golden rule and you'll be OK.

Spoiler:

PG-13 language

Just like the Dutch Rudder!

Oh wait...

I find, in my legal mind, that the prior basis for a 'marriage' to be between two consenting adults to be too large an obstacle to be overcome by any generation that has lived while interacial marriage was banned. Precendence is only as strong as the era in which is was created (for the most part).

In my philosophical mind, I see marriage being less of a rock solid concept and more of a fluid legal partnership that will will make such decisions unneccessary.

So... does that mean swinging would be more socially acceptable?

(not that I'm advocating this)

Perhaps a polyamorous marriage could be structured something like a limited liability company. The minimum number of people required is two, but more "directors" can be added and given shares in the company. The "profits" of the company are any legal privileges that the state establishes, plus the employment benefits offered by private companies, and would be pooled for distribution among the partners according to their share allotments.

 whembly wrote:
So... does that mean swinging would be more socially acceptable?

That's getting cause and effect kind of backwards. Swinging will inevitably become more socially acceptable (that's just how things work), and the changes in attitudes that make it acceptable will also make the idea of government-recognized polygamy more acceptable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Perhaps a polyamorous marriage could be structured something like a limited liability company. The minimum number of people required is two, but more "directors" can be added and given shares in the company. The "profits" of the company are any legal privileges that the state establishes, plus the employment benefits offered by private companies, and would be pooled for distribution among the partners according to their share allotments.

That kind of works for the most basic case of {n >= 2} people all forming a single group marriage, but doesn't really cover a case where A marries B and C, and then C marries D but A and D don't have any kind of relationship. I guess you could in theory argue that the financial issues should all be handled jointly just to simplify things for the IRS, but you get into problems with things like child custody and medical decisions. For example, if A is in the hospital and unable to make their own decisions you want that responsibility to automatically go to B and C but not to D (unless no "higher priority" decision-maker is available).

So it might be a possible starting point, but IMO it's probably going to take a pretty major re-write of the marriage laws to make it work for more than two people.

It could work if A, B and C hold shares in the XX marriage and C and D hold shares in the YY marriage. The 'share' brought to the marriages by each individual would be divided by the number of marriages the individual was engaged in.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Perhaps a polyamorous marriage could be structured something like a limited liability company. The minimum number of people required is two, but more "directors" can be added and given shares in the company. The "profits" of the company are any legal privileges that the state establishes, plus the employment benefits offered by private companies, and would be pooled for distribution among the partners according to their share allotments.

Great, we're turning my sex life into a business proposal!

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Perhaps a polyamorous marriage could be structured something like a limited liability company. The minimum number of people required is two, but more "directors" can be added and given shares in the company. The "profits" of the company are any legal privileges that the state establishes, plus the employment benefits offered by private companies, and would be pooled for distribution among the partners according to their share allotments.

Great, we're turning my sex life into a business proposal!

It wasn't already?