Should polygamy be legal?

[Razefan]

Well should it? Think about it.

Gay rights is a huge movement and it's pretty clear gay marriage will be legal soon enough.

Polygamy may not be a huge subject now, but gay marriage wasn't years ago.

The whole argument is that America isn't meant to be a christian country and laws shouldn't be governed to a certain group.

If a man wants to marry a man and they're both okay with it, let them do it. Who am I to push my beliefs onto someone else?

What about polygamy, if a girl wants to marry 5 guys, or a guy wants to marry 5 girls, and all of them are into it and doing it by free will, who are we to stop them?

What do you think?

[NeonSpider]

Yes it should be legal, but then again I don't think government should be in the marriage business.

I look at it like I look at a lot of things. If it's not hurting anyone who doesn't want to participate, and it's entirely voluntary, then legalize it already. Victimless crimes shouldn't be crimes.

[Light]

I have no problem with polygamy, but we all know that won't be legalized in the U.S. any time soon. It can't really be framed as a civil rights issue the same way that gay marriage can be. It sucks for those people who want to enter in to group marriages recognized by the state, but oh well.

Now, if polygamous marriage was the law of the land but only if people could marry members of the opposite sex, I'd have a problem because it'd treat one class of citizens differently from the other for no good reason. But that wouldn't be the case. If polygamous marriage could only be between members of the same race, I'd have a problem for the same reasons I mentioned earlier. But since polygamy is illegal everywhere and for everyone, it is, in a way, more fair. There also obviously aren't many people fighting for the right to marry multiple people; activism for the legalization of polygamy is almost nonexistent. This indicates to me that American society is collectively okay with polygamy being illegal. If polygamous activism ever becomes a significant force in American politics(It probably won't) as activism for gay marriage has, then we should legalize it. Until then, polygamy will always be illegal. Just my two cents.

[Warforger]

On the contrary gay rights have been an issue since the 70's. Otherwise if you oppose Gay Marriage because the Bible is against Gay people, you should support Polygamy because the Bible supports it. At least for males.

[Ericho]

I'm wondering if that would be bad for relationships. I mean, in theory, if a person could have as many wives (or husbands, I suppose) than wouldn't that take spouses away from other people? Well, I guess by definition, a woman could also be married to different men while having one man who has multiple wives. I guess that's fair.

[Korriken]

I would love to see how Polygamy would work out if anyone could marry anyone and someone dies, especially if 2 members of the "family" didn't like each other.

sounds like one clusterfuck of a legal battle.

[Camarohusky]

I see absolutely no reason to keep it illegal. All of the exact same arguments for gay marriage apply just as much to polygamy. Polyamorous is a sexual orientation, and therefore if discriminating against homosexuals is illegal, discriminating against polyamorous people should be to.

My guess is that polgamy will be legal around the same time gay marriage is (plus or minus a few years). Either the laws that allow gay marriage will soon be used to allow polygamy, or some conservative trying to sour the public on gay marriage will try to throw a wrench in the process by including polygamy to the issue. What this person won't realize, is that the gay marriage crowd is more fine with that.

There is one big issue with polygamy that could sink the whole process. That is intertwining marriages. By this I mean a man who has three wives, one of which has two other husbands, one of which, has 4 other wives (and so on). There are numerous reasons the government is is involved in marriage, and such groupings make the administration of the civil portions of marriage (children, property, healthcare, etc.) extremely difficult and almost defeats the purpose.

On a personal note, the mere form of a polygamous mariage does seem more conducive to domestic violence. When you have one spouse married to 4 others, that person gains a VERY strong position of control. That could easily boil over into domestic violence and other controlling behaviors. This isn't a prohibitive problem though.

[WallofYawn]

sure why not? the idea itself is a non issue. what i'm curious about tho is how widespread polygamy would affect population control, and how do you pass down your will to your heir, and which air. also how does alimony work? could you imagine paying alimony to seven different people. I already know dudes that owe back child support on like 7 of their bastard children they never see.(said I knew them, not that were friends so keep that in mind.)

[Razefan]

Well apparently it's unanimous

but yeah the truth is our country (or whatever country you live in probably) has too many bigots in government and people who still refuse to believe in a truly free place.

[leanlifter1]

At 1/18/14 02:22 AM, Razefan wrote: Well should it? Think about it.

Gay rights is a huge movement

Gay's right's is not a big movement it's a very very very minute minority. That said if Gays were actually cool and not all about creating un due drama and acting like a bunch of bitches then they would understand that a piece of paper means nothing cause it's all about the love. If a couple Homo's are truly in love even though it is quasi and against the laws of nature then let it be imo so long as they are not hurting others. It's their asses they hurt not ours so just let it be. Fuck the Government you Homo's don't need Government recognition. Keep it underground.

[leanlifter1]

Don't get law mixed up with personal opinion.

[NeonSpider]

At 1/18/14 11:44 AM, WallofYawn wrote: sure why not? the idea itself is a non issue. what i'm curious about tho is how widespread polygamy would affect population control, and how do you pass down your will to your heir, and which air. also how does alimony work? could you imagine paying alimony to seven different people. I already know dudes that owe back child support on like 7 of their bastard children they never see.(said I knew them, not that were friends so keep that in mind.)

Well see, I don't think alimony should exist at all. Child support definitely should exist because if you spawn a child you at the very least should provide for that child. But I see no reason alimony should exist and pretty much it only exists because of sexist cultural mores.

Alimony exists because there is an assumption that the man is the "breadwinner" of the family while the woman stays at home and is a homemaker/housekeeper. This is straight up sexism and there's no reason the woman couldn't be the "breadwinner" or, more commonly nowadays, both spouses work.

If there is to be true sexual equality, as well there should, then alimony must go. It has no place in a non-sexist society.

[Razefan]

At 1/18/14 01:48 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

At 1/18/14 02:22 AM, Razefan wrote: Well should it? Think about it.

Gay rights is a huge movement

Gay's right's is not a big movement it's a very very very minute minority. That said if Gays were actually cool and not all about creating un due drama and acting like a bunch of bitches then they would understand that a piece of paper means nothing cause it's all about the love. If a couple Homo's are truly in love even though it is quasi and against the laws of nature then let it be imo so long as they are not hurting others. It's their asses they hurt not ours so just let it be. Fuck the Government you Homo's don't need Government recognition. Keep it underground.

What does this even mean…?
People want to get married because they either want the financial benefits of it or they feel like its a needed bonding and final step for a relationship. Whether you like marriage or not it's a given that a lot of people are going to go for this idea.
People don't like to live under a government that is against there civil rights. It's barely against the laws of nature in that plenty of animals engage in homosexual actions, just because you can't create a child doesn't make it wrong.

[Camarohusky]

At 1/18/14 02:06 PM, NeonSpider wrote: If there is to be true sexual equality, as well there should, then alimony must go. It has no place in a non-sexist society.

Most current alimony has been made gender neutral, meaning if the husband stays at home and gets divorced he will recieve alimony from his wife.

[Entice]

At 1/18/14 06:05 AM, Light wrote: But since polygamy is illegal everywhere and for everyone, it is, in a way, more fair.

...but only polygamous people will ever want to be in polygamous relationships.

It's kind of like saying that illegalizing homosexuality is fair because it's illegal for everyone, not just gay people. There's still a specific group of people who will be needlessly punished. They're just not distinctive from everyone else in a way that's obvious.

[Kwing]

I'm polyamorous but I honestly think the idea of marriage is stupid. Trying to put a static label on a dynamic relationship between two dynamic people is just asking for trouble.

At 1/18/14 11:04 AM, Camarohusky wrote: On a personal note, the mere form of a polygamous mariage does seem more conducive to domestic violence. When you have one spouse married to 4 others, that person gains a VERY strong position of control. That could easily boil over into domestic violence and other controlling behaviors. This isn't a prohibitive problem though.

This is the first issue that comes to mind. For whoever may want to marry, this could be a huge issue. Mormonism in Utah is the first major issue that comes to mind. I have absolutely no idea how marital affairs are handled now, and nobody knows how they would be if polygamy were legalized, but it's something that must be handled very carefully.

[Light]

At 1/18/14 04:31 PM, Entice wrote:

At 1/18/14 06:05 AM, Light wrote: But since polygamy is illegal everywhere and for everyone, it is, in a way, more fair.

...but only polygamous people will ever want to be in polygamous relationships.

It's kind of like saying that illegalizing homosexuality is fair because it's illegal for everyone, not just gay people. There's still a specific group of people who will be needlessly punished. They're just not distinctive from everyone else in a way that's obvious.

That is a good point. My argument is flawed so I'll abandon it.

Still, it seems people in polygamous relationships aren't fighting for a right to have their relationships recognized as marriages by American society. I can only assume that most of them don't really mind not being able to enjoy such a benefit.

[Camarohusky]

The more I think about the logistics of it, the more I think legalizing polygamy may not happen.

The current rules and motivations for state involvement in marriage work for a single polygamous grouping (i.e. 1 man with 4 wives). However, once you get into chains of polygamous marriage or webs of it, the whole concept beings to break down. In such cases you could theoritically have a group of people polygamously married that numbers above 100. How does child custody fit into that? The benefits and reasons for state marriage become either too complex or too muddled to function.

The end result in such a case would pretty much be the granting of the name of marriage without any of the governmental benefits functioning as they are supposed to.

[Razefan]

At 1/18/14 11:21 PM, Camarohusky wrote: The more I think about the logistics of it, the more I think legalizing polygamy may not happen.

The current rules and motivations for state involvement in marriage work for a single polygamous grouping (i.e. 1 man with 4 wives). However, once you get into chains of polygamous marriage or webs of it, the whole concept beings to break down. In such cases you could theoritically have a group of people polygamously married that numbers above 100. How does child custody fit into that? The benefits and reasons for state marriage become either too complex or too muddled to function.

The end result in such a case would pretty much be the granting of the name of marriage without any of the governmental benefits functioning as they are supposed to.

Than possibly limit it to 4 wives or less, or create specific courts for an issue derived in that
I don't know, maybe you have a point but it would be sad to see the way people want to live taken out because of legal conundrums.

[NightmareWitch]

Polygamy is already legal.. you can sleep with any number of people..

[Ericho]

I'm thinking that it might be bad for being raised. Wouldn't having so many women around the house be bad for a kid? With gay marriage, it isn't a big deal because what goes on in the bedroom isn't observed, but multiple women around the house is something that affects kids on a daily basis and could mess with their lives. I heard everyone say how awful Mormons are because they have multiple wives, but now it's okay for some reason?

[Camarohusky]

At 1/19/14 02:04 AM, NightmareWitch wrote: Polygamy is already legal.. you can sleep with any number of people..

Ploygamy is the act of having mutliple wives, not multiple partners. Ployamorism is the act of having multiple partners. Ployamorism is legal, polygamy is not.

At 1/19/14 09:39 AM, Ericho wrote: I'm thinking that it might be bad for being raised. Wouldn't having so many women around the house be bad for a kid?

So you're saying extended families are bad for raising children? In those cases there are numerous women around the house.

With gay marriage, it isn't a big deal because what goes on in the bedroom isn't observed, but multiple women around the house is something that affects kids on a daily basis and could mess with their lives.

When two homosexuals get married the child will either have two mother or two fathers. That is a very observable effect of gay marriage.

I heard everyone say how awful Mormons are because they have multiple wives, but now it's okay for some reason?

There are lots of reasons people dislike Mormons. The thing is about Mormon polygamy is that they haven't condoned polygamy for a very long time. This is more eople tihe rpoking fun at them, or using the ld ploygamy excuse to put them down because they dislike them for other reasons.

[X-Gary-Gigax-X]

At 1/18/14 11:38 PM, Razefan wrote: Than possibly limit it to 4 wives or less, or create specific courts for an issue derived in that

Believe it or not, that is the limit in Sharia law. You can have 3 or 4 wives, but you cannot go past 5.

Why would you have more than 1 wife to begin with? Yack, yack, yack...

[Razefan]

At 1/19/14 02:04 AM, NightmareWitch wrote: Polygamy is already legal.. you can sleep with any number of people..

Can you marry them?

[Razefan]

At 1/19/14 11:55 AM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote:

At 1/18/14 11:38 PM, Razefan wrote: Than possibly limit it to 4 wives or less, or create specific courts for an issue derived in that

Believe it or not, that is the limit in Sharia law. You can have 3 or 4 wives, but you cannot go past 5.

Why would you have more than 1 wife to begin with? Yack, yack, yack...

I know that is the limit in sharian law, remember that there is no limit in any other abrahamic religion mind you

well it was a different time than, thousands of years ago in a completely different social aspect.
I guess it was to keep people from committing adultery or for people who loved more than one person

that question is the same as "why would you want to marry another guy" Because it's there orientation, having a free country should mean being able to do what you want as it won't harm others right?

[Saen]

All I can say it when it comes time when a polygamist marriage divorces, there's going to be a huge shit storm on who gets what, where alimony and child support goes and how much, and just how long and expensive the legal process will be as a result.

It's easy to say sure legalize polygamy on the face of it, however this issue goes far beyond our country defining marriage in the typical Christian way.

[Camarohusky]

At 1/19/14 03:04 PM, Saen wrote: All I can say it when it comes time when a polygamist marriage divorces, there's going to be a huge shit storm on who gets what, where alimony and child support goes and how much, and just how long and expensive the legal process will be as a result.

It's easy to say sure legalize polygamy on the face of it, however this issue goes far beyond our country defining marriage in the typical Christian way.

Exactly. With the possibility of a huge chain of family by marriage, these issues could become extremely muddled, extremely quick. Essentially, an entirely new set of marriage law specific to polygamy would need to be created for it to work properly.

[Razefan]

At 1/19/14 11:12 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 1/19/14 03:04 PM, Saen wrote: All I can say it when it comes time when a polygamist marriage divorces, there's going to be a huge shit storm on who gets what, where alimony and child support goes and how much, and just how long and expensive the legal process will be as a result.

It's easy to say sure legalize polygamy on the face of it, however this issue goes far beyond our country defining marriage in the typical Christian way.

Exactly. With the possibility of a huge chain of family by marriage, these issues could become extremely muddled, extremely quick. Essentially, an entirely new set of marriage law specific to polygamy would need to be created for it to work properly.

Maybe all marriages after the first don't split monetary assets?
Idk, if polygamy ever becomes a popular enough movement than I guess laws like these would be created

[Camarohusky]

At 1/20/14 12:44 PM, Razefan wrote: Maybe all marriages after the first don't split monetary assets?
Idk, if polygamy ever becomes a popular enough movement than I guess laws like these would be created

Marriges between one spouse and his/her numerous spouses are relatively simple to handle. Though some decision making would be eeded (half to the single, and the other half split by the group, or equal split to all?)

The more difficult scenario is when you have a man with three wives, one of which is married to two other husbands, one of which is married to three other wives. The current nature of marriage law would give those three other wives a portion of the original man's property (through the chain of marriages) even though they may have never even met.

[NightmareWitch]

At 1/19/14 12:48 PM, Razefan wrote:

At 1/19/14 02:04 AM, NightmareWitch wrote: Polygamy is already legal.. you can sleep with any number of people..

Can you marry them?

Yeah the government just won't see it as marriage.