why shouldn't you have two wives or two husbands if you wanted to?

[private_ryan]

Provided that everyone involved of age. You can have as many girlfriends or boyfriends as you like, even have kids with as many as you want, regardless of means. Why shouldn't you be able to marry more than one person?

it has always been like that doesn't do it. Abortion was illegal, so was gay sex, and that's an argument the right wing uses against gay marriage.

Why does the government have the right to tell you how many people you can marry?

I will reply in a while, since I have to step out.

[arwalden]

1. As Long As All Parties Directly Involved Were In Contractual Agreement...

... sure, why not?

At first glance I have no problem with this. But I may not have considered every possibility, so I'm open to reading other perspectives that might change my mind.

-- Allen

[rbnyc]

65. I'm with you.

Some people are polyamorous. And as long as everyone involved is an adult who's made a choice, they deserve the same rights as everyone else.

But like you I can conceive of a dynamic in which it's just not right. For example, a polygamous culture that pressures young women to conform when they might not make the choice for themselves if the cultural pressures were absent.

[Democrats unite]

2. All I have to say on this subject is...

no comment.

[private_ryan]

7. because?

n/t

[aquart]

3. The exponential possibilities for homicide

Are just too much for any municipal police force to deal with?

[trof]

4. s'OK with me.

Given a choice, I guess I'd take the two wives, but that's just me.
;-)

[private_ryan]

6. nope, you can't choose

you're stuck with two husbands, and you can't get divorced for 2 years :)

[trof]

14. Well then, I'm agin it.

I've BEEN a husband for 34 years and I sure as hell don't want one, let alone TWO.
High maintenance jobs, they are.
And damn near worthless.
ALWAYS bitchin' about somethin' or other.
Sit there in front of the computer all day mindlessly noodging with all the other bums and layabouts on the web.
'Stead of gettin' outside and trimming some limbs and rakin' leaves.
Nossir.
Leave me out of this one.

[mac56]

5. The strongest argument against polygamy =

Multiple sets of in-laws.

[Nikia]

8. It could be difficult law wise

For example, some marriage groups might include everyone where as others might include only traditional polygamy. If it included a combination, things might be complicated. Things could be complicated in divorce also where one partner might remain married. There could also be different motives involved with different boundaries causing confusion. Two couples who are friends might marry to live together and take care of each other but want to remain monogamous within their original relationships, but would it really be cheating one of the halfs had an affair with the other. Would some people run small businesses this way in order to make more money and save on taxes? It could be a legalistic nightmare.

[private_ryan]

marriage was legally simpler before the women's right movement

now we have laws that govern the mess we call divorce. Also, some would use the same argument against gay marriage.

The laws can be changed to reflect the times...

[Nikia]

18. I just see this problem

A marriage group of say 6 people is married. After a time, some members of the marriage group want a divorce from some members and stay married to other members. They, of course, lived in one big house. There might be children involved. Would the rights of the biological parents come first or would everyone be considered a parent? What if one of the members of the marriage group stayed home with the kids and took care of them even though he/she was not the biological parent of any of them? Would he/she be the favored custodial parent? Do you think that they'd even consider attempting to tackle these issues when many legislators have problems with the concept to begin with.

[private_ryan]

21. Being hard to deal with it's not an excuse

especially if you think of all the complicated laws we've passed. Sexual harrasment, drug laws, Patriot Act, divorce, patent law, gay adoption, adotion, etc. etc.

I know it's hard, and I don't advocate it, but I don't see how we can logically (liberal views) support the government banning it.

[Liberal Christian]

35. Excuse me?

The divorce laws were much more stringent before the women's movement came along. You had to prove fault, which was messy and often very ugly. Women, many of whom had not worked outside the home or earned a salary, were often left with very little, even though their contributions to the household were what allowed men to bring home the paycheck.

The division of marital property is usually more even now. I'm not sure how it was simpler before the women's movement. It sure as hell was a lot less fair.

[private_ryan]

37. simpler is not neccesarly fair

we're not even discussing fairness at all.

[LanternWaste]

9. While we're at it...

While we're at it, lets go ahead and get the government to stop telling us what the age of consent is. If I wanna marry a twelve year old, seventh-grader and she's up for it, who the hell is the gov't to tell me I can't? Or that she can't take a coupla stiff drinks of Wild Turkey after a hard day in science class...

In all honesty, I don't think that it's the government *telling* us, per se. It's more the government simply passing on traditional social conventions to us that we've already decided on as a culture as a whole. When those conventions change, the laws inevitably change (although it takes a while in some cases, not so much in other cases).

In some cases, the laws change before the conventions do and that makes for a wonderful evening of watching one guy call another a fascist while the second one calls the first a degenerate.

Just part of the social contractions and expansions of cultures that's always happened.

Just my opinion, though.

[private_ryan]

11. so gays shouldn't get married or have sex because it's not traditional

and women should've stayed at home because at one point working it was not traditional.

nice try equating acts of minors with those of consenting adults.

Next...

[LanternWaste]

13. Well....

As I said, sometimes the laws change prior to the convention, sometimes they don't.

I really don't have an opinion on it one way or the other.

Yet, it does beg the question- how does one *know* (I mean *really* know) when a minor becomes a 'major'? Is there a precise date (not defined by law or social convention or religion) that dictates that? An objective measure, in other words. And if there is(puberty would be a good answer, I guess), does that mean that 18 (or 16 or 21) is just another outdated law and the government is trying to push some draconian measure on us?

Or, in other words, who defines what a minor is? And that's why I think the minor v. gay analogy is valid.

As I said, I have no opinion or agenda on this. I'm simply trying to add a few opinions to the conversation. So the "nice try" stuff is wasted on me...

Edited for clarity.

[LanternWaste]

23. Additionally

Additionally, women *did* stay at home and gays did *not* marry simply because it was not part of the social convention. Whether we like that or agree with that or not. Both of those examples we've used *have* been changing over time and women no longer stay at home as part of the social contract and I have no doubt that gay marriage will be protected by law w/in the next twenty-five years.

In thirty more generations, who's to say what social conventions will get replaced (some for good reasons, other for not so good reasons) or re-instated.

It's not that I agree or disagree with any of this. That's almost a moot point. It's simply that our government, for the most part is representative of our social conventions (whether that's for good or for ill in any given circumstance is completely different).

[private_ryan]

24. so if enough people say gays shouldn't get married

or blacks should still be slaves, it's ok for the government to legislate that?

[LanternWaste]

29. I think you're making an erroneous inference

Again, I think you're inferring that I think a law is or is not "ok". I haven't given my opinion on that one way or the other, nor have I stated that I think it's the way things should work in the perfect universe. However, it is how things are, whether we like them or not.

If enough people say that gays shouldn't marry, you can bet that there will be laws fobidding it. And when enough people think that gay marriage is a valid social contract, you can bet that gay marriage will be protected by law. And if, by some freak of culture, enough people thought that slavery should be legal again, you can safely assume that it will be made into law.

And let me state (again) that I'm *not* saying it would be o-kay on way or the other. It would simply *be*, irrespective of my (or your) opinion on it.

If enough people in our culture want a thing to happen, it will get legislated into existence sooner or later and on the other flip of the coin, if enough people didn't want a thing, it too would be legislated out of existence. And both instances would become convetional and traditional until the pedulum swung the other way.

But please, don't imply that I think one thing or another is "ok" simply because it is (or, at the very least, because I *believe* it simply is). Acknowledging a thing is very different from condoning it or tolerating it.

Edited for clarity

[private_ryan]

42. dude, relax

no one is saying whether you support x or y; personal views are not relevant.

[LanternWaste]

52. It's cool

I'm relaxed (prolly more than I should be...). Just trying to stay as morally neutral in a converstaion filled with trip-wires and land mines (in a social sense) as I can. I've offended people before by saying stupid things without thinking and then feeling like a schmuck afterwards, so I'm a little more... careful than I should.

Sorry if you thought I was getting uptight. Didn't mean for it to come across like that. It's cool. :hippie:

[private_ryan]

54. it's ok

I understand. I've seen people here being called anti-women, anti-gay /black etc because of a word or two. Sad but true.

[arcane1]

44. well if monogamy were the social convention anyway

then why make polygamy illegal? Indeed, Utah HAD TO make it illegal just to become a state!

(I mean plygamy in the consentual sense, not daughter-trading)

[KissMyAsscroft]

10. why not 1,000?

there has to be a line guess....

[private_ryan]

12. one man marries one woman

fair...or?

[patdem]

15. My thought as to why men have many wives but women do not have

many husbands is...paternaty. You can have 100 wives..if you are the only one who mates with them...using a unich (sp?) to watch over them no question who is the father...the other way around even a femal unich (sp?) cannot prove who the father is??? Why it is important WHO is the father? I guess survival of the species...and men wanting THEIR sperozoa to survive?

[patdem]

16. My thought as to why men have many wives but women do not have

many husbands is...paternaty. You can have 100 wives..if you are the only one who mates with them...using a unich (sp?) to watch over them no question who is the father...the other way around even a femal unich (sp?) cannot prove who the father is??? Why it is important WHO is the father? I guess survival of the species...and men wanting THEIR spermazoa to survive?

[aquart]

17. Then there's this:

<http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/0119coloradocity19.html>

Teens flee polygamist towns

Girls, boys leave Colorado City, Utah's Hildale

-snip-

Bob Curran, director of the St. George, Utah, group Help the Child Brides, said "a number" of both teenaged girls and boys have left the towns in the past few days and many have made contact with Utah child-protection officials.

"We had one runaway yesterday, a 16-year-old girl, whose marriage already was all planned out and we got her to the child-protective people," Curran said. "There are also a lot of young boys fleeing and they are reluctant to have contact with the state. We are encouraging the kids to get out now amidst all this turmoil."

-snip-

[private_ryan]

19. they don't seem to be willing participants

so it's irrelevant to this thread.

[sasquatch]

20. I don't think it should be illegal it's just a bad idea

You see if I say or do something to irratate my wives I'd then have 10 sets of eyes glaring at me. What do you tell them? Go play basketball, I'll sleep with the winners? What if you're a women? You'd wake up every morning with cock in your face, if you married 10 guys.

Most importantly for m/m maraige it's a health issue you see. When I'm in Las Vegas trying to pawn my wedding ring to pay off gambling debts, looking out for the pimp of the tranvestite prostitute, the last thing I need is a male spouse trying to kick my ass when I get home.:silly:

[private_ryan]

22. agree

most of us can't deal with one wife, imagine two or three. Doesn't mean it should be illegal though

[Cannikin]

27. Yeah, it would be a logistical nightmare...I'll stick to one...

If I'm allowed to, that is.

[aQuArius]

25. If you ask me, which you shouldn't right now....

Marriage is over-rated. I mean you walk down an aisle and get a piece of legal paper saying that you are married. But if being married makes you feel better and more committed, please by all means do so. Like I said, you shouldn't ask me. But also, I was raised around some polygamists and most of them seemed pretty happy with the way they lived and the government pretty much looked the other way. This is just a stcky subject in any terms.

[Cannikin]

30. Can someone post some info on the rights we are denied ..

as a same-sex couple?

It has very little to do with a piece of paper saying we've commited.

I've been with my partner for three years already. And without some hypocritical priest doing a ceremony.

[aQuArius]

33. My dad his been with his partner 6 years...

He would love to get married and I would love to see him get married because I know that would make him so happy. I'm just at a point where I see marriage for myself as a joke because I am oviously not in a great relationship. When things are done here, it will be a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG time, if ever, when I get married again. Like I said, don't ask me. But I fully support same-sex marriages because I know how much it would mean for others. I am just in a bitter place with mine right now.

[Sapphocrat]

43. ALL of them?

I don't think there's room in a single reply.

Here, these will help:

Facts on Marriage: 1,049 Federal Rights Denied

In 1997, in connection with the enactment of the Defense of Marriage Act and at the request of Rep. Henry Hyde (R-IL), the General Accounting Office (GAO) of the Federal Government prepared a report of all federal laws in which benefits, rights, and privileges are contingent on marital status. They found a total of 1,049 separate federal laws in which marital status is a factor, covering such diverse areas as Social Security, Veterans' Benefits, Immigration, Taxation and even Intellectual Property.

You can download the complete GAO report (Acrobat PDF 480k). Please read it for a throrough understanding of the scope of benefits denied to same-sex partners.

http://www.allianceforsamesexmarriage.org/facts5.htm

Because same-sex couples are unjustly denied the right to marry, same-sex couples and their families are denied access to rights including:

The right to make decisions on a partner's behalf in a medical emergency. ... The right to take up to 12 weeks of leave from work to care for a seriously ill partner or parent of a partner. ... The right to petition for same-sex partners to immigrate. ... The right to assume parenting rights and responsibilities when children are brought into a family through birth, adoption, surrogacy or other means. ... The right to share equitably all jointly held property and debt in the event of a breakup, since there are no laws that cover the dissolution of domestic partnerships. ... Family-related Social security benefits, income and estate tax benefits, disability benefits, family-related military and veterans benefits and other important benefits. ... The right to inherit property from a partner in the absence of a will. ... The right to purchase continued health coverage for a domestic partner after the loss of a job. ...

http://www.lgrl.org/marriageequality/rights/

You might wonder what rights married couples have that same sex, long term, committed couples do not have? The multitude of rights denied to this country’s gay couples is too long to list, but as a teaser, here are just a few. ...

These are extremely important fundamental rights which are denied to these gay couples simply because the state does not recognize the individuals as a unit, which is the legal status of married couples. ...

Contrary to popular belief, the institution of civil marriage in the United States was created by the government. The marriage contract exists because the government says it should exist. ...

http://www.olin.edu/franklyspeaking/civil_liberties.php


More resources for you:

Marriage Equality USA
http://www.marriageequality.org/

Partners Task Force for Gay & Lesbian Couples
http://www.buddybuddy.com/toc.html

ACLU ANSWERS Gay Marriage: Should Lesbian and Gay Couples be Allowed to Marry?
http://www.aclu.org/news/NewsPrint.cfm?ID=9210&c=101

Basic Rights Still Denied to U.S. Homosexuals
http://www.wordcraftsmen.org/mirrors/gayrights.html

Lambda Legal Marriage Project
http://www.lambdalegal.org/cgi-bin/iowa/issues/record?record=9

[Lostmessage]

26. It wouldn't matter to me

Sounds kind of nice but I need the first one to start out on before I can get a second one.

[TopesJunkie]

28. I dunno --

Are polygamists clamoring for the right to marriage? If so, perhaps we should chat about it. I do see some big problems in terms of creating an equitable tax policy.

I'm not sure if this would lead to more abuse or less, so I think we would have to study that matter. I do think it would open up a whole new population for marriage therapists. Damn. A person in that field could get rich awful quick I suspect.

[Sapphocrat]

45. TopesJunkie, YOU get it...

When polygamists begin "clamoring for the right to marriage," then take it up with polygamists.

When immediate-family members begin "clamoring for the right to marriage," then take it up with incest advocates.

When dog-lovers begin "clamoring for the right to marriage," then take it up with bestiality fans.

I AM SICK TO DEATH of the constant equivocation of same-sex marriage rights with polygamy, incest, and bestiality (not to mention child abuse, necrophilia, and any other damned thing you please).

It is a smokescreen. It is gossamer-thin in its weakness. It is a cheap shot. It is a gross insult. It is irrelevant.

All I want is to marry my partner. I have no issue with polygamy (except that it's not for me) -- and if the polygamists want to fight for their right to marry multiple partners, let 'em! But it -- along with every other "issue" named above (and plenty more I'm sure I've missed) -- it is completely irrelevant to the issue of same-sex marriage.

I-R-R-E-L-E-V-A-N-T.

[VelmaD]

55. It is not irrelevant

when you consider that in any polygamous marriage at least 2 of the people involved are going to be the same sex.

[Sapphocrat]

61. And you know what?

That's their problem, not mine.

God-darn, it feels good to say that for once. Guess all the indifference and outright hostility wears off on a person after a while.

In the words of one of my greatest adversaries: I don't care.

[lazarus]

63. In that case

Why should they, or anyone else, care about your rights?

See how it works?

[Sapphocrat]

64. Not a whole hell of a lot of people do, lazarus...

At least not enough to soften me to an issue that has been thrown in our faces repeatedly, with no basis whatsoever. Where is this "Polygamist Liberation Front" that appears to exist only as some sort of phantom issue to derail the cause of same-sex marriage? If it exists, I don't see it. If it exists, I'd like to know about it.

Until then, on what basis am I meant to care, or even form an opinion?

If polygamists are demanding marriage, I am more than willing to hear out the "platform," and form an opinion based on its merits -- apart from marriage between two persons of the same sex. Not three persons, not seven, not fifty-four; two persons.

What I resent is being lumped in with half a dozen non-issues (and until a few polygamists speak up and start demanding whatever it is they want, it is a non-issue), when the end goal of same-sex marriage rights has nothing to do with polygamy.

Am I being obtuse with this point? How many different ways can I say it before somebody hears me?

In all the thousands of hours I have spent trying to come to a meeting of the minds with people who don't give a damn about gay rights -- or who actively work to keep us down -- it hasn't done a hell of a lot of good, has it?

Yes, there are countless DUers as stymied and frustrated as I am by this push -- by both the right and the left -- to shove us as far back in the closet as we can go. I am grateful, beyond words, to these supporters -- especially our straight supporters, who don't have to care, but do, because it is the right thing to do. But all of them put together with every last queer in the world isn't going to stop this tidal wave of bigotry and fear and superiority and territorialism and whatever else it is that motivates anti-gay "sentiment."

I must be crazy! That's the only conclusion I can come to -- why in God's name do I keep trying? Every time same-sex marriage comes up, it's not a discussion. It's not even a debate -- it's an endless merry-go-round of defending ourselves, constantly, for wanting one thing everybody else has, and one thing that would make our freaking miserable lives a little easier to get through while everybody else still enjoys the luxury of hating us if that's what floats their boat.

Who else has to do that? You might think defending your choice of a candidate leaves you feeling frustrated and put-upon, but you know what? Clark and Dean and all the rest are going to be no more than a footnote in your life ten years from now. Meanwhile, queers still be hanging in there, begging, pleading, demanding the rights we deserve -- and still defending our unabashed audacity for doing so.

Why? Who else would be crazy enough to do that?

You tell me, lazarus -- and you are a smart guy (I've read your blog, I've plugged your blog, I respect you, and I respect your opinion) -- you tell me why I should give a damn anymore? I mean it: Why? I would LOVE to have something solid and real to keep me caring about anybody else when half of my own country doesn't give a damn about me.

Some time ago, I wrote here that we queers ought to adopt a new motto: You support our issues, and we'll fight for yours.

Well, damn it, I've been fighting for everybody else's issues as well as my own -- not because I expected reciprocity as some sort of "reward," but because I took it for granted -- STUPIDLY -- that we were all fighting for the same thing -- just one, simple thing I thought it all boiled down to: Working to make sure that every last human being was treated fairly and equally.

But that's not the reality of it, is it?

What a small core seems incapable of understanding is that this is not a GAME. This is not an academic exercise. This is my life we're talking about -- and the lives of dozens, scores, hundreds of queers you know in your everyday life, and here on DU.

I've made plenty of enemies here -- but if you who wish I would FOAD won't give me the time of day, then at least think about those queers you do like, admire, and respect.

In the end, being human -- a real human, with real emotions that bubble over the top when all logic fails to do any good -- I sometimes have to ask: When do I cut my losses and give up on this stupid, futile hope that the holdouts are going to understand that they're playing the cruelest kind of mind game with people who will never be "good enough" for them?

[populistmom]

31. If I had two husbands

They would spend all their time talking about baseball and further isolating me. If not baseball, they'd find something in common and there I'd be- with even more laundry to fold.

[Amaya]

32. I don't want any husbands

been there done that... no thanks :evilgrin:

[Piperay]

47. Me either...

having one would be bad enough much-less having two, bletch! x(

[Nikia]

34. Gays marrying won't change the nature of marriage, this might

What would people's motives be in entering into a multiple person marriage agreement? Financially, it would be a great idea, especially with children. Even in a simple three person polygamist relationship with one husband and two wives, this is a great arrangement financially, having one stay at home mom and two wage earners. The more people, the better. Of course some people already share living arrangements informally but this would be a legal contract making it difficult for roomates to walk out.
This could be extended to a family run business. Is there a way to prevent abuse of this. Some businesses might even require employees to marry into their family in exchange for employment. They still could remain married to their partner(s) and the business family.
If we marry multiple people, we might have different levels of committments to our partners and different feeling for them. Some people want to have some sort of family recognition for close friend (s). We don't marry our close platonic friends becuase in addition to sometimes be same sexed, we usually hold out for someone who we want a sexual relationship with or perhaps are already married. Instead of marrrying one person fullfilling most of ones needs, one might marry someone they are very sexually attracted to, a good friend, and a good provider instead of finding that in one person. Our partners may or may not want different things from us and in be married to multiple people, our feeling might switch and that might cause hurt feelings that are the same when someone is involved in an affair, but your married so it isn't an affair.
I suppose multiple people really would like to share every aspect of their lives together like marriage, but I think for the most part these emotional needs can be fullfilled other ways. Perhaps a person could have the option of including other people in certain marriage privileges like hospital visiting and social friendship ceremonies. You always can live with your friends too.

[LanternWaste]

36. So I'm getting kinda curious...

So I'm getting kinda curious...

Do you yourself think it should be legal or not and on what do you base your descision?

[private_ryan]

39. personally I don't see how it can be banned in a today's society

it's no one's business how many wives or husbands I /you have, or what kind of sex we have (consent age). Doesn't mean I'll rush to have two wives if it's legalized though...

Also, any dem opposing this is indirectly opposing gay marriage and rights, since the same "reasons" are used against them by fundies.

[LanternWaste]

40. Let me see if I have this right....

Let me ask you to rephrase that, 'cause it may end up going into one of my folders full of quotes, replies and other things that make you go, "Hmmmm"...

You're saying (in so many words) that if I oppose polygamy, I also oppose gay marriage? It's an either-or, with absolutely no wiggle room?

[LanternWaste]

41. You mentioned 'age-of-consent' again

You mentioned the age of consent again. I'm curious as to how you can allow (or at least, tolerate) the government, culture and/or religious institutions to impose a definition of 'age of consent' but not allow that same institution to impose other definitions...

Where I get fuzzy on this I guess is, "What is the precise and relevant difference between the justifications for allowing one definition as being 'valid' for the culture and the other as 'not valid'?

[TreasonousBastard]

38. Goggled around a bit...

thinking it was some European edict of the Catholic Church that got monogamy started. Somewhere along the line Yurpeens started becoming more or less monogamous long before anybody crossed the Atlantic.

Didn't get too far before I got bored, but did find out that there was no Federal law until 1856 and in 1879 the Supreme Court ruled that monogamy could be made illegal because monogamy somehow kept our values intact. Didn't see much about individual state laws.

It seems that the Federal law came about through fear of marauding Mormons wandering around picking off the local daughters to add to their harems. Mormons seem to have started it because of the severe lack of men out West in those days. Mormon men, anyway.

Also found reference to a free-market anaysis of the value of wives and husbands. In a free market without regulation, the ratio between wives and husbands would set itself. Conservatives and libertarians take note.

Right now, the biggest objection, besides some attempt at claiming morality, is that since polygamy is not recognized, all but one wife with a kid is considered a single mother and if you got a dozen wives, that's a lot of gummint checks coming in.

So, recognize it and see just how many guys can fill the clothes closets of a dozen women without help.

On the other hand, that might be cheaper than alimony or child support. As somebody once said, "No more marriage for me. Now I just find a woman I don't like, get laid a few times, and buy her a house. Works out the same with a lot less paperwork."

Which kinda brings us to ask why it's always men with a lot of wives, not the other way around.

Next question?

[Exultant Democracy]

46. Dude "wha'ever"

if any two drunken asshats can get married in vegas on whim, then if a group of people wish to get married then we might as well let them.

[MrSlayer]

48. Only a masocist would want more than one wife.

Can you imagine getting bitched at in stereo?

[camero]

51. Or, "Surround Sound".

[camero]

49. Are you kidding?

Then Bill Gates would have all the women. Leave some for the rest of us. :)

[TrogL]

50. Because the logic used to support polygamy ...

might be used to support gay marriage.

*runs for cover*

[private_ryan]

53. it's the same principal

we'd like to say equal rights, but not enough people care for that. When it comes it will be because of a court ruling, based on the fact that it's yor right to do so, and the state has no business in preventing you from doing it.

Not running for cover :)

[SOteric]

56. You don't think the courts are crowded enough?

Try sorting that mess out in Divorce and Family court.

[neebob]

57. Because

a long time ago, a bunch of people who happened to be men got together and decided men and women should pair off and later, become legally and financially entangled with one another. Actually, at the time, the intention was for the woman to become legally and financially dependent on the man. Anyway, they wrote books and made laws and built this giant self-perpetuating machine that's designed to eliminate or at least constrain those who don't feed it. I don't get why anyone wants to, but more importantly I don't get why the keepers of the machine and the majority of machine feeders have such a problem with letting non-followers of the man-woman-pairoff model feed the machine if they want to.

I should add that I have a huge problem with legitimizing religious-fundamentalist-style polygamy and basically legalizing abuse.

[private_ryan]

59. guess who still wants marriage more, men or women?

marriage can be called abusive too, no? Probably even worse because it's just the husband and wife, maybe having another women would help her.

[neebob]

60. I would guess women

because a lot of them want a financial ride, but I think a lot of men secretly like the part where they get taken care of and both sexes equally fear being "alone." I don't think marriage itself is abusive, but a lot of marriages certainly are. I didn't like it myself, and not just because I picked the wrong person. I've only ever known half a dozen couples I believe are truly happily married and have good partnerships, and one of them is getting a divorce. Guess which one already has a new squeeze?

On edit: I have to go to bed, so I'll tell you it's the man - and it only took him a couple of weeks to announce it after he announced the impending divorce, which he says was a surprise and not his idea. And I could be wrong, but I don't think he was having an affair with the new girlfriend.

My ex shacked up immediately after our divorce, too - with his mother's friend, no less - and she lasted longer than I did. He's currently putting off marrying girlfriend #6 or #9, depending on whether you count her breaking up with him for two years because he wouldn't marry her the first time. He gave her an engagement ring for Christmas 2002, and then they were supposed to get married last summer ... then in September ... then around Christmas ...

I don't expect her to last much longer. She can't be too happy about now.

[Fleshdancer]

58. I could use a second spouse...someone who really likes housework

I already married one person for love, now it's time to meet someone who's obsessively clean and likes to do the laundry, wash dishes and go in to the bathrooms to make sure husband #1 left the toilet seat down.

On second thought, I guess what I really want is maid service. never mind.

[DoNotRefill]

62. the important thing to ask....

is who would WANT more than one spouse?

I'm happily married and monogamous, unless you count my wife's sleeping with the cat...

:evilgrin: