Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 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.