We should allow polygamy marriages.

[ProudToBeLiberal]

I mean it's not harmful like incest. If a group of people love eachother then they should get the same right as a couple who is married.

[slinkerwink]

1. I'd have to disagree with that

[Deja Q]

72. Why?

.

[slinkerwink]

89. because incest happens much more frequently in polygamy

marriages

[seabeyond]

2. no

there is an abuse of power in this. huh uh..........imo

[wuushew]

4. You're essentially saying people are too stupid to know best

Its a risk I am willing to take to live in a more free society.

[aquart]

6. A woman who has not been allowed an education

Knows her options better than a man who has? Suuuuuuuuuuuurrrrrrrre.

I notice you say polygamy and not polyandry. Sexist, much?

[wuushew]

9. So should adult female polygamists be banned from....

owning firearms, serving on juries, serving in the military or voting?

All these activities do not benefit from gross ignorance or religious fundamentalism. Why is marriage so different mentally/legally from many other things people are considered competent to do in society?

[Sulldogg]

10. Correction

Polygamy is any marriage situation with multiple mates

Polyandry is having multiple husbands

Polygyny is having more than one wife

Link to M-W here

[Dogmudgeon]

11. Polygamy isn't a sexist term

It's gender-neutral.

I think you were confusing it with polygyny, the term symmetrical with polyandry.

Polygamy in marriage (as it exists today) is mainly a form of concubinage. Now that's sexist!

People who want to live polygamously, and who are serious about it as a progressive force, should probably consult a lawyer and expect to do a lot of social organizing. Since most of the polygamists in the country are members of religious splinter groups of the Mormons, that's not likely, either.

--bkl

[kiahzero]

26. This confusion is at least part of why "polyamory" was coined

Unfortunately, polyamorous people are often confused with the splinter Mormons you speak of.

http://www.polyamory.org/ is a good resource for those interested in learning more about polyamory.

[Dogmudgeon]

33. Modern Polyamory

The legal and social problem is simple: For thousands of years, polygamy was simply concubinage, a form of slavery for women. Polyamory is based on free and equal partners coming together in a marital relationship. This is almost unheard of in history, and may, in fact, be a strictly American innovation.

Marriage itself has changed through history, with the role of women progressing from property, to slavery, to quasi-childhood, to protection, to partnership -- and with problems along every step of the way, all because of the asymmetrical relationship of the sexes being chiseled into social and legal stone.

Advocates for poly(amor|gam)ous relationships have this as the first item on the agenda -- to create a social and legal framework that affirms and protects the individuals in any such relationship from exploitation. But they also have to realize that the social and legal support for it is nonexistent except in theocratic states.

--bkl

[robertpaulsen]

49. This is a very insightful response

I think everyone here at DU believes in equal rights. The question is whether equality can be guaranteed in a multiple partner marriage. Your response put it best: "the social and legal support for it is nonexistent except in theocratic states". I can't think of an example in history when legally sanctioned polygamy/polyamory maintained a consistent level of equality for all partners involved.

[Dogmudgeon]

60. Thanks! -- and a minor diversion with more philofosizing

People are right to be concerned, and I think that's why most poly advocates are taking it slow and doing a lot of legal and philosophical groundwork now. It's possible that we're witnessing the birth of a genuinely new social arrangement that bears only a superficial resemblance to the older forms.

"Equal justice under law" itself is a new and radical social arrangement, and it's still subject to a tremendous number of problems. This is why in 1900, it was normal for a girl to get married at 16; in 1950, it was still quite acceptable; in 1975, it started to seem a little odd, and today it's an outrage. And with an expansion of legal equality, it may become normal again in a few decades. Age of consent laws and customs seem to be the "acid test" for the conflict between sexual and power issues these days. Up until recently, it was gender.

The key to all these problems isn't the specific form of privilege (as in sexism, racism, etc.) in a society, but access to justice. Here's an example based on age issues (and I'm NOT promoting it, and let no one assume otherwise): If a 13-year-old had a truly equal voice to a 35-year-old, no one would be concerned for cases like that of Mary Kay Letorneau. But in today's world, how does one properly empower a 13-year-old in the context of a sexual relationship? And is it possible at all? There are still enormous inequities for adults of both genders in sexual relationships -- and polygamous/polyamorous relationships may have just reached the threshold of consideration.

It's a big, poorly-defined area of common law and social sense, so expecting our written laws to keep pace is impossible. As usual, it's up to the pioneers to take the risks and develop the "new lands". As gay people are doing this now, others may take the lead in the future, and no one can say for sure where it's all going. But contrary to the neo-Pharisees, we're not going to hell in a handbasket, we're learning to live well in a fast-changing world.

Again, thanks for the support ... this is, and will continue to be, a very hot area of concerns -- "The Tropic of Matrimony".

--bkl
Dismount soapbox. Dinner is ready.

[VelmaD]

43. Learn your terms

Polygamy covers both multiple wives and multiple husbands.

Polyandry is the term for more than one husband. Polygyny is the term for more than one wife.

[shimmergal]

98. Polygamy means "many marriages."

It is the overall term for an individual being married to more than one person at the same time.

Polyandry means a woman has more than one husband at a time.

Polygyny means a man has more than one wife at a time.

Polyamory means a group of three or more, all of whom consider themselves "married" to, or at least in an intimate loving relationship, with all the others in the group.

[seabeyond]

8. i am saying in a male dominated society

we are creating and allowing slavery to women. there is history. not an unknown. selling of girls at 10 12 14 years old. so when men quit being pigs, then we will open up to that free society you talk, wink and a grinnin.

[Tiberius]

47. when men quit being pigs?

Great use of language. That's an effective way to win an argument about polygamy, referring to how men enslave pre-teen girls and are pigs. Not.

[Skidmore]

20. Why assume that, if such an arrangement were sanctioned

it, both partners couldn't be engaged in multiple marriages. Serial monogamy in Western cultures is not very far from polygamy anyway. Let's be honest about it.

[KissMyAsscroft]

3. Nope...

Bad idea.

[Rowdyboy]

5. What better way to discredit the idea of validating gay relationships

than by advocating polygamy.

[aquart]

7. Yup.

[outinforce]

16. I Hope I am Wrong Here, BUT

I sincerely hope I am wrong here, but I think what I hear you saying is that it is just fine for us gay folks to get the rights that the Constitution guarantees for us, but it would be terrible if other people, whose affections are slightly different from our own, we granted the rights that the Constitution guarantees us.

Two gay men that want to get married is fine with you, I think. But three gay men -- or one straight man, on bi-sexual woman, and one straight woman who are all in love and want to get married -- why, that's just terrible, especially since it would "discredit" the idea of validating what YOU consider to be important.

[Vladimir]

88. I actually think

the only thing it discredits is the notion of marriage as some sacred institution, and that in my view is well overdue. Its a social construct, hence its for the society of the day to decide what it means. Note that I am passing no comment as such on polygamy - its a complicated issue that would be open to a hell of a lot of abuse.

V

[burrowowl]

12. You'd be surprised

at how much incest exists in polygamic marriages, as well as monogamous hetersexual ones. Daddy gets to have sex with the whole family, not to mention the dog.

[mobuto]

44. Not to mention the dog?

I'm sorry, but incest and bestiality are not victimless crimes. Polgyamy is, although I offer my deepest sympathies to the husband of multiple wives.

[muriel_volestrangler]

13. Why does love confer rights?

Or sex?

Which rights are you concerned about?

[cap]

14. if you favor polygamy then look at rural Utah and Arizona

it exists there and it is not a pretty sight. There's a lot of child abuse and child marriages. There are a number of non profits that help women trying to escape from these situations.

One man can't support one woman with kids these days on one income. How can he support a many women with kids?

[mobuto]

40. Then crack down on child abuse and child marriages

Nobody's saying those should be legal.

[OKNancy]

15. Actually it is harmful

especially for women.

Also it is un-democratic. For sake of argument, I will assume that most polygamist marriages would be one man with more than one wife.
Women outnumber men in our society. Right there it would be an unequitable form of society. Many men could not have even one wife.
Also only the more well-to-do could support such a family.

If you have a few elite men who benefit, and a bunch of single men roaming around......what do you have? Afghanistan.

Look at the world. Who still has polygamy? Are they healthy societies?

No thanks.

[outinforce]

17. It's a Question of RIGHTS

All those single men roaming around. That would be awful, wouldn't it? We all know, don't we, that it is so much better for society, and for men, if men are married. Right?

If the Constitution guarantees equal protection, then it guarantees equal protection. If a straight man and a straight woman have the right, under the Constitution, to be married, then so do a gay man and another gay man.

But then so do a straight man, a bi-sexual woman, and a bi-sexual man who want to get married.

I think what you are saying is that there ought to be limits in conferring these rights. And I believe that is much the same argument that those who oppose gay marriages use.

They would prefer to draw the line at straight couples. You appear to want to draw the line at straight and gay couples.

It appears that you think that those who experience a different kind of love and affection should be denied their rights, because if we give them their rights, we might have a society that is not healthy.

[OKNancy]

28. I think the polygamy argument is the exact opposite of

the argument for gay marriage...which I strongly support.
Gay and lesbian couples want to have their relationship honored the same as we do married couples. They want to make vows to each other and have a commitment. A monogamous relationship.

I am arguing against polygamy...not gay marriage and how you read that into what I wrote is beyond me.

[outinforce]

30. I Understand Perfectly

I understand that you are in favor of gay marriage.

You apparently think that only relationships involving two people -- of whatever gender -- are the ones that should be honored.

You apparently think that mongamy is the ideal form of relationship.

But you seem to think that a different kind of relationship -- a relationship in which more than two people make vows to each other and have commitments to each oterh -- is somehow unworthy of the same sort of honor we now give to couples who get married.

You apparently think only "couples" should have rights.

Because it appears you want to deny rights to people who want to live in polygamous marriages.

[OKNancy]

36. Whatever

Right now, my only frame of reference is the Morman cults in Utah and Arizona, and what I know of those relationships makes me know that it is sexist and is a repressive style of living.

If you want to fuck a lot of women and have them be bound to you in marriage....go right ahead. I'm sure there are places in the US you could get away with it. Don't give me this bullshit argument that it is about rights. We deny "rights" all the time. Some people would like to have the right to own people, but that's against the law too.

Oh, and when people say "it's not about sex" It's about sex.

[outinforce]

45. I Have Absolutely No Desire

I have absolutely no desire, let me assure you, to fuck a lot of women -- or even one woman. The whole idea fills me with disgust. I'm a gay man.

You're certainly entitled to think that arguments about the rights of polygamous people are "bullshit". I know that, back in the 1950's and 1960's, there were plenty of people who said that arguments saying that Blakc folks were entitled to the same rights are white folks were mere "bull shit". You seem to be perfectly comfortable with laws that discriminate against people based on the number of people a person happens to be in love with.

[OKNancy]

53. See post number 37

ZZZZZZZ

[outinforce]

55. Post Number 37?

What is that, some Army Base?

I guess when a person runs out of arguments to support his/her own position, it can get rather boring.

[OKNancy]

59. No, I just had a light come on

I remember your posting history. You think it is just fine for the government to regulate women's bodies and choices. Government regulation is fine in that case.

Bye

[wuushew]

51. What I find amusing is the defense of mainstream religions....

at the expense of Mormonism. Why are splinter groups of the LDS any less fruity than Southern Baptists, Jehovah's witnesses, Scientologists, fundamental Islam etc? Judging cultural and religious values is completely inappropriate for people claiming to be liberals. In my view there is no absolute correct path of morality. It is an absurd notion completely out of sync with any concept of cultural relativism. Taking to an extreme it could justify western interference ala "white man's burden" in the middle east.

There are some here who have said that the women victims here are unable to make informed decisions due to indoctrination and general lack of education. Is this lack of education any worse than much found in much of the developing world? I think we must assume that an adult brain regardless of culture is capable of making choices without the interference of righteous cultural nannies.

Our duty in America is to maintain the wall between state and church and concern solely with the intersection and conflict of unique cultural ideas with the overall goals and laws of the secular society. The usefulness of this approach is to route out hypocrisy by which public laws are applied. Childless married coupes afforded tax breaks that two co-habituating individuals are denied? Seems wrong to me.

If we view what ultimately the purpose of marriage is in a legal sense it is the states role in clarifying the distribution of property, dependents and the sharing of legal responsibility. Opponents to polygamy claim that legally and financially all forms of polygamy place strains on the mechanisms that have dealt with the same problems in traditional marriage. Why would these mechanisms not work in the same degree to prevent gross abuses of polygamy?

Health care afforded spouses still depends on premiums, which undoubtedly would be higher given a greater number of spouses. The IRS would still audit families to detect and punish tax evasion. Childwelfare agencies still would maintain there right to safeguard the wellbeing of children. In short numerous disincentives exist to curb what would be seen as failings in stereotypical polygamous unions. However I have a real problem with the state out and out prohibition on expressions of personal liberty.


People usually view their own society in positive terms, an individual of free will is always capable of not associating or disavowing the views of the culture in which they live.

[OKNancy]

52. My sister is a Mormon

and I have defended Mormons many times on DU. I'm an atheist myself.
All I know is, as a feminist, the idea of polygamy seems to be exploitive.

[kiahzero]

56. Mmmm... I love it when people talk about that which they know nothing

http://www.polyamory.org

It's not about sex.

[shimmergal]

99. Outinforce, polygamy does not necessarily mean

that more than two people make vows TO EACH OTHER.

It would more likely be one person who makes vows to several other people, but those others don't necesarily have any vows to, or even relationship with, each other.

Of course the fundie Mormons have the concept of "sister wives" but that certainly doesn't have to be the case. Sharing living quarters all together is probably just asking for trouble in a polygamous marriage.

[Toucano]

38. It has nothing to do with rights.

I've heard nothing about a polygamist gene.

I've never heard of the polygamist being beaten up in the school yard.

The issue is equal protection under the law. The state treats all persons equally with regard to polygamy: no multi-partner marriages are recognized regardless of race, class, religion, gender, or sexual orientation.

This issue has nothing to do with same-sex marriages.

Maybe the state has no compelling reason to ban polygamy (I think it does), but it does so without discrimination. The polygamists are welcome to start their own movement.

[outinforce]

46. Excuse Me?

What in the world does the existence (or non-existence) of a polygamous gene have to do with whether polgamous people should or should not have the same rights as mongamous people? Are you attempting to draw a comparison to gay people? If so, might I suggest that you do two things. First, check to see if there really is something called a "gay gene". Second, consider the possibility that I, a gay man, just might be entitled to the same rights as everyone else -- even if there were no gay gene.

And what does being beaten up in the school yard have to do with anything? You've just lost me on that one.

"The issue is equal protection under the law. The state treats all persons equally with regard to polygamy: no multi-partner marriages are recognized regardless of race, class, religion, gender, or sexual orientation."

You might just consider the fact that the state treats all persons equally with regard to same-sex marriages, too: no same-sex marriages are yet recognized regardless of race, class, religion, gender, color,or sexual orientation. In every state except Massachusetts, it does not matter whether two straight men or two gay men wish to marry. They cannot.

For a very long time society has defined marriage as one man/one woman. You seem to want to change it -- but ever so slightly. You seem to want to change it to two people. That's fine, but iot still discriminates against people who form loving and satisfying relationships with more than one person.

[Toucano]

65. Not quite

You might just consider the fact that the state treats all persons equally with regard to same-sex marriages, too: no same-sex marriages are yet recognized regardless of race, class, religion, gender, color,or sexual orientation. In every state except Massachusetts, it does not matter whether two straight men or two gay men wish to marry. They cannot.

Why does the state not let two heterosexual men marry? Because of their gender. Barring same-sex marriages is a discrimination against the gender of the participants, as you aptly point out. When heterosexual men seek the right to marry one another, we can address that issue and determine if there is any compelling reason why the state should restrict them from doing so. Those heterosexual men seeking to break free from the bondage that prohibits them from marrying another man will surely benefit from the current efforts of gays and lesbians since I doubt the state will devise a queer quotient test before issuing licenses to same-sex couples. If the state does devise such a test, the heterosexual males seeking the right to marry another heterosexual male will have to challenge that on the basis that it discriminates against their sexual orientation.

What your missing regarding my school yard statement is the "suspect class" component regarding discrimination. No fault to you for missing it, since I was being rather flippant. The four indicia of suspect class are:

1. History of Purposeful Discrimination
2. Political Powerlessness
3. Immutable Trait
4. Grossly Unfair - the discrimination or disparate effect of a
is so egregious as to offend common precepts of decency.

I will concede your point regarding the gay gene, which I was simply substituting for "immutable trait". My school yard beating reference was simply one example of the history of purposeful discrimination gays and lesbians have suffered.

Polygamists fit none of these requirements, chiefly because they cannot be identified by an immutable trait.

Polygamists already have the same rights as monogamous people. They have the right to marry one person of their choosing. Gays and lesbians do not have the right to marry one person of their choosing (except as adjudicated in the state of MA). There's the inequity in the matter.

That's fine, but it still discriminates against people who form loving and satisfying relationships with more than one person.

Marriage is not about love and satisfaction. It is about commitment (I'm using the "state of being obligated or emotionally impelled" definition of commitment). It isn't possible to commit oneself to two people simultaneously for the simple fact that the two people one tries to commit to can conflict. Where then does one's true commitment lie? One cannot serve an obligation to opposing forces and be truly committed to both.

If there is a genuine movement in favor of polygamy in the United States, I would appreciate you sharing any links you may have. I am only aware of wacko religious groups and groups opposed to same-sex unions who are advocating polygamy as part of an effort to discredit the same-sex unions movement with fallacy. Thanks in advance.

[PVnRT]

18. We have a bunch of single men roaming around as is

Exactly how would it be any different?

I love how people assume that if polygymy is allowed, then all of a sudden there is going to be this sudden rush of people marrying 14 others. That's just plain ridiculous.

[OKNancy]

29. What is ridiculous if for anyone

to think that a Western society would ever adopt such a backward, repressive type of society.

[outinforce]

32. Backward, Repressive Societies?

My, how tolerant of you. The West is so far ahead of those "backward, repressive societies", is that it?

And I suppose The West will be a little less repressive when the USA alows gay couples to become married.

But let's not bother with the repression of people who want society to honor their polygamous relationships by allowing them to get married.

It's only couples who really count, isn't it?

It's fine to repressive polygamous people by not giving them the same rights we give couples.

I think I understand.

[noiretextatique]

37. per usual, your faux outrage induces

:boring:

[Triana]

90. the 'conventional wisdom' is...

...that men like and use polyamory as a way to avoid committments in relationships - since it *seems* to be mostly men who are resistant to that.

Poly is (supposed to be) a way that they can avoid serious committments.

I'm *not* saying I agree with this belief, but just stating that this is what I hear a lot of people saying about poly(whatever) - both male and female.

Personally, I could care less, as long as everyone is happy, agreed, and has their basic relationship needs met (whether by one person or more than one - if they're honest and safe about it, doesn't matter to me).

[Muddleoftheroad]

19. OK

Your arguments are OK by me. Yes to gay marriage. No to polygamy or incest.

[YNGW]

21. I agree.

Just like same-sex marriage was once spoken in quite corners, this is the new frontier. People must be free to join in marriage with whoever they wish and with as many as they wish. Seperate but equal must apply to all relationships, even those of whom we regard as being different or not the normal. Without this basic of all freedoms, to love and be in a committed relationship with the one or the several who share that committment, is to deny individuals the right to be who they are. Just because three or more people married seems strange to some, in the same manner that same-sex marriage seems strange to some, is no reason to prohibit them from happening. I'll say it again: People must be free to join in marriage with those they wish.

[emad]

22. Polyandry: 1 woman + lots of men. Polygamy: 1 man + lots of

trouble.....

[BlueEyedSon]

25. Wrong, see above

[Festivito]

23. Some assertions, but, very poor arguments above.

If we were to allow polygamy, I would think it good to raise the bar high. Any divorce would be extremely costly to the inviters, especially where the invited was young or uneducated. All would have to agree seperately to any entrant. There may need to be special rules about entering under the age of consent or even the age of majority.

Only someone able to support the spouses, even in case of dissolution, would be able to enter such a contract. It would not be egalitarian. It should not be a right, but a privilege of the heart, to go beyond one spouse.

It does raise some disconcerting situations, however, would it be as bad as serial monogamy, currently allowed, which can be even more devistating to children and spouses, leaving them without a support system while the slow wheels of justice grind.

I don't know if polygamy would work well, but it does have some positive attributes. It deserves more than a simple no.

[Muddleoftheroad]

24. Serial monogomy

At least is simpler from a legal standpoint. All parties entering into a contract would, in theory, be equal and dividing assets or child issues would be complex.

[Festivito]

31. Simpler, but, you omit meaner. Lacking compassion?

As though I should be more concerned over those poor lawyers and poor judges having to decide difficult issues having to use numbers other than one-half. Instead I'm concerned about children caught in the middle, and spouses being cruelly treated by their divorcing spouse and by a slow judicial system that leaves the abused in limbo.

I did not think through this issue completely, but, the response you gave here is not good. Putting simplicity of judiciousness over the safety and protection of children and the mistreated abused sickens me.

[Muddleoftheroad]

34. Not meaner

Not sure how you can get that. Most people don't enter into marriage with the goal of dissolving it -- outside of Hollywood at least.

So each marriage is entered into with the goal that it would be the last.

Children caught in the middle of a polygamous divorce could conceivably be spending time at numerous different households. That sounds pretty "mean" to me.

[Festivito]

42. Is too!

Dissolving marriage should not be a goal of entering marriage, I don't think I said it was or indicated that in any way. I don't know why you made the statement you made about "Most" people. Hopefully all people, monogamous or polygamous want relationships that last until death, at least.

In the sad case of divorce of polygamists, children having more than one parent have continuity, can live in the same house (or houses should the family own a summer home or such). The same set of parents, minus one that would be leaving, can continue to offer the child a secure familiar home while a divorce proceeds.

In the sad case of divorce of monogamists, children are stuck with one parent or the other, perhaps while both take jobs to earn the divorce money leaving the child with strangers in day care, unfamiliar environs.

The monogamists case seems meaner by this scenario.

The case of divorce, death, or other calamity all leave polygamists' children in safer care.

The polygamists case seems less mean by these real-life scenarios.

[Nikia]

63. What if they all divorce?

What if a large group splits into a few different new couples/groups? If all members entered freely into the agreement together, this could very well happen. I don't know who the law would favor. Traditionally, it favors birth parents, but in polygamy, this may not be who the children were closest with. For example, one spouse who is not the birth parent of some or any of the childre, might take primary responsibility for staying home with the young children. Also, siblings with different parents would be more likely to be split up. If all divorced spouses do have visitation/custody rights, this could be very difficult on the child.

[Muddleoftheroad]

67. Also, what about serial divorce in the polygamy community

Why would it be excluded from this. So a child could be raised by five parents -- in the FIRST marriage. And another five or 50 in the second and so on.

That's chaos.

[Festivito]

70. If chaos is better, then its better.

I think your use of chaos is hyperbole, but, as you've used it, if chaos is better for the family members, then chaos is better for the family.

Serial divorce under polygamy, one divorce after another, would be less rough on a child since there would be others around to help, others that would not be there in a monogamist's divorce.

And, yes that child could have a lot of parental support. I grew up in a neighborhood and had a lot of parental support. If that was chaos, I rather think it grand.

[Muddleoftheroad]

71. Not for the kids

We will just have to agree to disagree. And I will continue to vote my way and you yours.

Fortunately, I don't think either of us will live to see the day polygamy is legal in the U.S.

[Festivito]

76. I doubt you know where we disagree.

There's no vote to be taken here. I have not presented this as a prospect for the US.

It's not time yet. Especially judging by the discourse I've seen in this thread.

The lessons of a hard hearted Pharaoh are lost on today's Christians attempting to take twig after twig after twig out of their brother's eye. A logger should plague them.

[Muddleoftheroad]

77. It would seem we disagree on polygamy

I think it is a bad idea for any modern society, not just the U.S.

[Festivito]

85. The depth of your understanding is too much for me.

Well, at least our discussion was not about the definition.

Good luck.

[Muddleoftheroad]

93. I understand, you just don't like my conclusions

Fortunately, this is as much of a theoretical debate as we ever encounter here at DU. None of us will live to see polygamy legal in the U.S.

[Festivito]

68. What if three bolts of lighting hit from three clouds.

at the same time.

Think.

How does the child going with the parent known less well from a polygamous marriage compare to a child going with a less known spouse in in Monogamous marriage, and the polygamist is then, somehow, lesser known than the monogamist who didn't know their child. Your thinking seems so pathetic here. It's like you are trying tp present something that simply distracts from the discussion.

Under polygamy, breakups will be hard on the child. The question is not can you give a scenario that sounds awful under polygamy. The question should be how would the child, and how would the parent be more or less better off during a break under polygamy or monogamy. How would the two cases contrast EACH COMPARED TO THE OTHER.

Your statements have nothing to do with how well similar situations would affect the involved between the two types of marriage.

[outinforce]

50. A Question

"Only someone able to support the spouses, even in case of dissolution, would be able to enter such a contract. It would not be egalitarian. It should not be a right, but a privilege of the heart, to go beyond one spouse."

I'm not sure what you mean by a "privilege of the heart". Is it something different from the right that men and women now have to marry one another? Is it different from the right that two gay people ought to enjoy?

And I'm not sure why you would insist that only someone able to support the spouses would be able to marry into a polygamous marriage. We don't require a "proof-of-ablity to support" certificate in order to get a marriage license now.

[Festivito]

74. One marriage to one spouse should be a right.

Adding another spouse should be a privilege, well documented, legally contracted, thoroughly vetted.

Gay marriages would fall under the same rules.

I have not thought this out completely, but, so far, I've seen no fault in my arguments. (That's unusual.)

[northernsoul]

27. no, it's unworkable

The reason the government grants marriage licenses in the first place is for the ease of administering certain property and liability laws. For instance, in most states, if Spouse 1 dies without a will (intestate) Spouse 2 gets the entire estate. In that situation, it will be exceedingly difficult for a court to determine who gets the house in a polygamous marriage - should it be Spouse 2, 3, or 4?
Similarly, if life-impacting medical decisions need to be made and spouse 1 does not leave any directives on when life support should be ended, spouse 2 makes the decision. Once again, what if we have a polygamous union and spouse 2 and spouse 3 disagree on when to pull the plug? Who decides then?
Similarly, I could see polygamy being used to implement massive tax fraud.
My position is that the legal incidents of marriage require that the union be between 2 consenting adults, but does not need to heterosexual in nature at all (the plumbing really doesn't matter as far as the law is concerned).

[Llewlladdwr]

82. Unworkable? How?

In the case you described, Spouse 2, 3, and 4 would all get the house. After all, they're all still married and are all surviving spouses of the deceased. In the case of medical decisions, let the spouses decide as a group. If they can't, then they can go to court. Child custody? The kids stay with the larger part of the family. I don't see how this is complicated at all.

[ArkDem]

35. and their pets, as well

.

[w4rma]

39. No. We shouldn't. (n/t)

[rucky]

41. Yep...but I won't march in the streets over it.

unlike the current marriage rights fight. I'm for personal freedom between consenting adults, but discussion like this just feeds the prejudice we're seeing in the debate over gay marriage. until we decide to change our approach to wedge issues, we can't talk about stuff like this.

But what we should be saying is: The government has no right to make laws controlling the behavior of over consenting adults, if all parties are mutually consenting & no damages can be proven. This covers guns, drugs, abortion, and gay marriage.

[PatGund]

48. Well, as a Polyamorist myself.....

.....I would obviously agree with that idea. If a MMF or MFF, (or even a MMM or FFF) triad want to marry, let them. Same goes for group or line marriages. If all the people involved are consenting adults, let them.

Note, this is *not* condoning the actions of the quasi-mormon splinter groups in Utah and Arizona, where the male is the supreme and paramount authority. I'm talking an equal partnership among all spouses (spice) of legal, consenting age, where all partners wish to work together to build a home, a family, and a life together.

Also, please note that polygamy doesn't automatically equal 1 husband/many wives. I know quite a few poly relationships that are 1 wife/mulitple husbands, 2 wives/2 husbands, etc.

[Triana]

91. I know of a few myself...

1 hub, 2 wives (spice). And, two hubs, one wife (sometimes one partner is bisexual). Anyway, if they're all happy and in agreement - and they're all adults, doesn't bother me. The legal issues are what is sticky, and the child issues. I even know of some who are successfully dealing with that, too.

[stanwyck]

54. Polygamy is condoned by The Bible

II Sam 5:13, I Kings 11:3, II Chron 11:21. So are many loathsome practices. Yet only the fundamentalists get to select which Biblical abominations shall apply in our society. Doesn't seem fair, does it? This is what happens when you let a desert survival guide determine how you're going to live your life.

[outinforce]

57. Can't Keep Yourself From Insulting People, Can You?

It never cease to amaze me how some folks can make perfectly good sense when it comes to discussions about religion, and how they are able to dd so without insulting people or demeaning deeply-held beliefs.

You were doing a good job, it seems to me, stanwyck, of making a perfectly good observation about the Bible and what it says, and how it is applied by some people.

But then you had to say this: "This is what happens when you let a desert survival guide determine how you're going to live your life."

Why?

Why did you feel it so necessary to demean a book that many folks feel is sacred? You and I may agree that it is not, but there are many folks -- including many who post regularly here on DU -- who do.

For them, it is more than just a "desert survival guide". And I would guess that for many of them, you have not only hurt them, but yourself. For I think that people who believe in the Bible and who think it more than a mere desert survival guide will be less inclined to listen to a person who makes a point of demeaning a book that is important to them.

[stanwyck]

58. I'm sorry if I offended you and others

I agree with the philosophy of the New Testament.(recycled Eastern philosophy). However, I do not believe in much of the Old Testament. I don't believe non-virgins should be executed. (Deut 22:13-21). I believe a non-believer should be able to marry a believer. (Gen 24:3, Num 25: 1-9, Ezra 9:12, Neh 10:30). I believe divorce is not an abomination (though I've been married -- only once -- for 25 years). (Deut 22:19, Mark 10:9). I don't believe a father has a right to rape his daughters. (Gen 19:31-36). Yes, to me, the Old Testament is a survival guide for tribal people. Hence, all the dietary restrictions. (Do you follow those?) By the way, if you're a woman and you're having your period, stay home from work. You can't be in the presence of men.

[LDS Jock]

64. so true

about the selectivity of which parts of the OT are still in effect. Homosexuality is an abomination. However, so is working on the Sabbath, to be punished by death. Just one of MANY examples of selective verse quoting. In the end, the bible says whatever the fundementalists want it to say to justify their own beliefs.

[Deja Q]

73. Very true, thanks for pointing that out!

All the Bible statements need to be brought out of the closet the 'conservatives' have quietly kept them buried in.

[arewethereyet]

75. thats nice but it's not condoned by the state and this IS a legal matter

moreso than a religious one

[Nikia]

61. Current marriage laws in the U.S. are written for two

For same sex partners to marry, the law does not have to be changed extensively, only in allowing the partners to marry regardless of sex.
The law would have be to changes to accomodate group marriage. Perhaps, this could be done. As far as I know, there have never been legally sanctioned egalitarian group marriages. This would be new territory.
I know this might sound like the religious right but when we have multiple people involved, we're redefining marriage.
If I may ask an ignorant question of polyamorists wishing to marry multiple people, What do you hope to gain by legally marrying both/all your partners rather than marrying one and living with and acknowledging your love for one another? Do you want all of your spouses to be co parents, your spouses to vote on whether they pull the plug or not if you were in a coma, and all have a right to your property if you die or divorce?

[sweetheart]

62. Economic units of habitation should be flexible

Any form of cooperative property or child raising unit should be
supported by the law, that this "family", of whichever tradition
have legal rights similar in spirit to the others. That is the
way to respect reality given the massive flexibility in life, time,
genetic tastes and evolution.

[Triana]

66. it's called polyamory...

...and I agree - they should!

[arewethereyet]

79. its called illegal and for good reason

[Selwynn]

81. I clicked to see what the good reason was....

...and there was nothing.

[Fescue4u]

69. Absolutely.

And to those that say that this discredits gay marriage, well that opinion is as bigoted as those who oppose gay marriage.

Furthermore, this could be very very empowering for men and women and could resolve things such as healthcare for those who cannot afford it now.

For instance, you could have multiple partners (or any sex of course) marry, and then gain the healthcare benefits of one of the spouses. In effect, people could create this own "group policys" (no pun intended)

Of course the freepers are going to oppose this, because they oppose any form of civil rights (except for the gun civil rights, which I support).

Now having said this, Id go crazy with more than one wife, but I wouldnt deny this to those who choose this path.

[leesa]

78. As long as the children are protected, who cares?

[messiah]

80. Yes we should!

[Llewlladdwr]

83. I take exception to your statement...

that incest is harmful. That's just not necessarily the case. For example, I'm 42, and my sister is 40. If we chose to marry exactly who would we be harming?

[BradCKY]

86. I'll tell you who

Your kids from inbreeding.

[BBradley]

84. I agree, but now's not the time

Your religion can choose to accept any marriage it wants. The government, however, shouldn't care whether 2, 3, or 50 people want to enter a union. All that really matters is how they feel about it. If it's a stable family, even if a bit wierd, I'm not going to judge them. Neither should anyone else.

Also, wouldn't this kind of relationship be legal, if say, they never actually got married?(not a rhetorical question, I actually don't know)

[BradCKY]

87. No we shouldn't

It makes one person more important than the other(s), plus the divorce(s) would be horrible for the legal system.

[cap]

92. go look at the number of polygamists on welfare...

these people are not supporting themselves. All the secondary wives go on welfare. The culture of these people does not lead them to developing women's careers such that they can support themselves and their children.

Remember the Muslims permit polygamy only if the man can support his wives, love them and treat them equally.

[Undemcided]

94. So your point is?

n/t

[SarahB]

95. Too dangerous

Many of the women who enter in these "marriages" are really children or very young women (like 18) and may often feel as if they have little choice in the matter. The men are often much older. It's just smells bad to me.

[Dr Fate]

96. There is no demand for it.

Too many property & alimony issues as well. I vote: NO.

[Nikia]

97. Thinking about this more. Marriage=mutual committment

In marriage, two people pledge themselves to one another. Marriage has evolved to be between equals who share their lives and possibly, but not necessarily children together. They both committ the same things to one another. Under this thinking, it makes sense that we include same sex couples. They are pledging the same thing as straight couples. Marriage laws have eliminated prefering one sex over the other (theoretically at least).
Polygamist marriages of the past have not involved equality at all. Usually, the man is that head of the family and the wives are subservient with the wife he likes most, the most senior wife, or the wife that has bore him the most sons as next in the hierarchy. Tibetan polyandry involves brothers married to one woman with the oldest brother as head of household.
In some cultures, there may be what some consider polyamorory. There is a traditional marriage which involves sex and living together and also a committed emotional relationship that also involves a ceremony but usually not sex, rather a close friendship. Both the spouse and the committed friend have different roles in those socieites.
If three people marry, can they all mutually pledge the same things to one another? Will one prefer one over their other spouse. Will they fullfill different roles? Even if it is your intention to love them both equally in the same way, what will you do if your spouses at some point no longer love one another but both love you? To have either one, you may have to pick one over the other. In patriarchal polygamy, there is no problem in the head of household picking one over the other. In mutually committed marriage, there is a problem.