Polygamy yes Polyandry no
Polygamy is fine as long as the male loves each one equally, however polyandry is just a women giving herself to multiple men (which is disgusting). Legalize polygamy but definitely not polyandry. The bible is fine with it since its not cheating since they are both your wives. Raising children would be easier and household income would go up and we would need less houses as well.
Love is limitless!
Just like the title said, Love IS limitless! You shouldn't put any strict on who's in love with who! I don't care about religious purposes, 'cause it's only a book, and it may or may not be true to what their "God" says! If the group that wants to get married all together, knows each other, and knows that they can support to each other, and work together as one HUGE family, LET 'EM BE! Don't use crime cases as an excuse to outlaw it because of the people that didn't do anything good to the family, IT HAPPENS TO ANY KIND OF FAMILY! Not just a polygamy family, ANY KIND OF!
Just think about it. Let's put a good nice gentleman between 2 sweet girls, and within the law that says that you can't marry more than one at a time, you're just ending up with a choice of making one happy, and the other sad and lonely! I DON'T WANT THAT! In fact, I HATE MAKING ONE DECISION OR THE OTHER! I HATE seeing one person or the other sad! I want everyone I know to be happy! BUT NO! THE LAW SAYS THAT YOU'RE FORCED TO BREAK SOMEONE'S HEART IF YOU HAVE A CHOICE OF 2 OR MORE!
If I was to marry 2 or more wives, I'd be their servant!
Let's treat everyone EQUALLY!
Population trends, human genetics and the Constitution all support polygamy.
The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America requires that freedom of lifestyle choice not be infringed upon by the Federal Government. Polygamy is a lifestyle choice. This has been upheld by a Utah Supreme Court ruling recently which struck down a provision of Utah's cohabitation law which prohibited cohabitation by poly-amorous families.
Contrary to popular belief, polygamy is usually NOT about sexual experience and it is not a sexual practice or orientation. It is a lifestyle in which multiple partners enter into an arrangement of marriage. Most polygamist families consist of one man and multiple wives. Those wives are almost always prohibited from engaging in sexual activity with each other.
But, religious concerns aside, this is something which should be legalized simply because the numbers make it a necessity. One hundred years ago, sociologists noticed a population trend worldwide. It seems that women outnumbered men by 1.3 to one. In other words, for every hundred men on the planet, there were 130 women. Today, that number has increased to 1.75 to one. For every 100 men there are now 175 women.
Because of human genetics, this is a trend that is never going to change. In fact, it is estimated that, assuming the human species survives, in less than one million years, there will no longer be males of our species on the planet. Women will have to figure out how to reproduce either asexually or through some medical procedure.
The point is, if we limit marriage to one man and one woman, there will be a lot of women who will NEVER have the opportunity to experience marriage. Marriage is about mutual love for one another. Every woman deserves to have the opportunity to experience love (and, yes, sexual pleasure) from a man.
No matter how we look at it, the definition of marriage is going to have to change one way or another. If we don't allow for polygamy, then we are going to HAVE to allow for homosexual marriages. All those women who will not have the opportunity to have a "legally sanctioned" marriage because of the lack of men will be forced into a lesbian relationship as that is all that will be available to them. This then raises the concerns of the religious right concerning the morality of same sex marriages.
In other words, this problem is NOT going to go away. In fact, it is only going to get worse over time. We need to have real debate and discussion over this issue in the United States and see if we truly believe in equality for everyone or if we only pay lip service to that concept.
Why not do it?
We are about to legalize within a decade, gay marriage in this nation. Who are we to say what is and is not a "family" after that? One man, multiple women, one woman multiple men? What does it matter any longer? I'd prefer that government be completely marriage neutral, just get out of it, it's none of the government's business but since they refuse to mind their business, equal protection is law. Any couple or more should be able to get married and I don't even just support polygamy for religious people, it should be for all, religious or atheist.
God allows it!
No Explicit Condemnation: Nowhere in the Bible does God explicitly condemn polygamy, the only "condemnation" being implicit and by example. In fact marriages to additional spouses are considered valid in the Scriptures (Jesus’ lineage did not always go through the first wife). - See more at: http://www.Inplainsite.Org/html/polygamy_in_the_bible.Html#sthash.B1D0aB8f.Dpuf
Regulation of Polygamy: Some laws in the Pentateuch do appear to place God’s stamp of approval on polygamy. For example note the rules and guidelines concerning the treatment of multiple wives (specifically prohibiting ill-treatment of the first wife after a second marriage) and the inheritance of the first born, if he happened to be the son of a less favored, wife.
"If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights, [Exodus 21:10]
If a man have two wives, the one beloved, and the other hated, and they have borne him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the first-born son be hers that was hated;
then it shall be, in the day that he causeth his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved the first-born before the son of the hated, who is the first-born: [Deuteronomy 21:15-17]
It was an obligation for men to marry their widowed sisters in law and support her family. [Deuteronomy 25:5-10] The point that has to be considered is that the brother could very well already have been married.
When a man married a woman all her relatives became his kinsfolk. The only passages in the OT laws that prohibit polygamous marriages are those that would constitute incest. For example, a man could not marry a woman and her daughter or granddaughter (Leviticus 18:17), a woman and her sister as a rival (v. 18), or a woman and her mother (20:14).
- See more at: http://www.Inplainsite.Org/html/polygamy_in_the_bible.Html#sthash.B1D0aB8f.Dpuf
Polygamy should be legal.
The western culture has always had a bad reputation for not wanting to take responsibility for their relational commitments. How is it that it is okay to have multiple affairs and children without being held responsible for them financially, emotionally, and physically? We must make these men and women responsible for their actions. You have a wife and get another woman pregnant. The wife and the other women should rally behind each other and make him step up to the plate and take care of everybody! The women shouldn't fight each other. They should join forces with each other and make him accountable...
This is just my view. By the way, I'm a man who has always believed in this. Man.... Handle your business.
Marriage is a union between people who love each other.
With all the changes of what marriage is, if same sex partners believe that they should be allowed because it's a union between people who love each other then why should it stop there? A union does not have to be between two, it can be between multiple partners that feel the same way
Polygamy is logical if done for the right reasons...
My reasoning is actually quite simple. I'm not interested in a polygamous relationship for my own selfish gain. I am in fact a man who's deeply in love with his wife. My wife happens to be bisexual, it was some time ago that I realized that I simply couldn't give her everything that she desired out of me, for example the love and affection that really only a "WOMAN" can give. That's actually when I decided that I'd allow her to find a woman who she could be with, as long as I like the other woman, of course. As time progressed we found a beautiful and loving young woman who herself had a child. Now she was living at home with an abusive mother and piece of crap stepfather for lack of a better term, but I didn't like her circumstances. Then I began to think, my wife has become less interested in me (this started before the idea of the other woman came up) both physically and sexually; I desire things she simply will not give for whatever her reasons may be. My wife loves this girl, this girl loves her, and I love them both. I am not a selfish person so, my proposal was simply for all of us to be together to introduce something we all needed and wanted. I wanted everyone to be happy, my wife wanted the love from a woman, and the other woman wanted my wife and needed a happy loving home for her and her child. All of these things could be easily provided if we were together. Now, do not misunderstand me, I love both of them, but if they were against the idea of me being involved in this relationship, I wouldn't. So, all in all, I suppose it isn't really a polygamous relationship in the least bit, but they want to get married, and my wife still loves me and wants to be married to me, and we have a child together. So things are only slightly complicated. Oh, and the other girl is open to the idea of us all being together. So it's either I divorce my wife and hope she could forgive me and let them get married, or try to find a way for us to legally coincide together and be a happy family. I want only what's best for all participants.
Same sex marriage
Will end healthcare problems. By allowing large families of hundreds or thousands of spouses in one family, all will be entitled to benefits. Since it is proven that we can print money for prosperity, the future is limitless! Utopia is here! We have finally solved all the problems. People are euphoric over the Obama economy. At least no one is complaining like the prior Bush economy which was worse than the Great Depression. Even though total employment is lower than before, the stock market is booming. Eventually the only thing we will have to worry about will be the garbage avalanches because everybody will be so busy buying things that the garbage will pile up.
Polygamy should be legalized.
It's freedom, end of story. It's not right or constitutional to stop people from being married if they are all consenting. As we all know, the supreme court has ruled that homosexuals can now legally be married. So then it is unfair and unconstitutional to tell anyone else that they cannot be married to as many people as they want. It's only right. With polygamy, as least that's in the bible.
MCN’s Contribution: I’m not making one. At least not one on the merits.
Throughout these long, drawn out and ultimately fruitless debates on homosexual marriage and polygamy, the homosexual caucus has consistently accused my team of making arguments in bad faith, esp the polygamy argument. Pan, for example has asserted so on this very thread.
The cry of “you’re bigots” has also been a constant theme.
From the start, it’s difficult to argue with people like this, except to reply in kind.
More importantly, our moderator himself (who to his long-delayed credit recently and grudgingly stated he will no longer raise the bloody flag of “you’re bigots”, although I cannot help but think he kept his fingers crossed) has not exercised good faith in asking for “essays” on this subject, vide his snide and sneering introduction above and his similar language on the Thomas More Society thread below.
He’s already concluded that any arguments contra are, well, what he said they were. That is not an invitation to civil debate.
The fact is that the homosexual caucus has no interest in treating in good faith any arguments submitted by my team on this subject. As is clear, the caucus considers those arguments as void ab initio, a position further amplified with the cries that “it’s a denial of civil rights” and “you’re bigots”(homosexual marriage) and “it’s a red herring made in bad faith” (homosexual marriage as a slippery slope to polygamy).
While I personally find that caucus’s arguments on both these subjects to be, putting it generously, incoherent and ad hominem, I see no reason to make any arguments on this particular thread (except to thrown in the occasion hand grenade when someone says something egregiously stupid, which I expect to be often) because a) I have already made them extensively on other threads, b) the moderator himself has not made an invitation in good faith to discuss them, and c) they will merely invite imprecations of “bad faith” and “you’re bigots”.
We’ve heard plenty on this board of both, especially that last, and it’s way past the point at which it sounds like “two legs good, four legs better”. Or, perhaps more to the point, “Ignorance is Strength”.
Don’t give me any grief about chickening out. You people know my views, I’ve stated them enough times. When you want to deal with them rationally, we can. This isn’t the occasion, as our moderator has made clear.
Posted by: MCN | Wednesday, January 09, 2013 at 02:03 PM
The main argument against polygamy is that it is associated with the subjugation of women -- pretty much always and everywhere it is practiced. It is associated with cultish or morally primitive behavior among insular sects or like environments that reduces the status of women to that of servants or slaves, which is offensive to our modern cultural ethos of sex equality (which is not merely a Western cultural preference but a strong unviersal moral concern about the rights of individuals we feel justified in insisting upon) and damaging to the dignity of the women involved. Within certain communities, women may feel pressure to submit to such relationships, and legalization would only encourage that pressure rather than discourage it, which is what we should do by culturally and legally marginalizing it. (Secondary arguments have to do with legal practicalities, as mentioned by many above, but such concerns could probably be dealt with if we really wanted to legally recognize polygamous marriages. I'm not convinced that they alone justify the policy. Ambiguities concerning settling rights and duties upon divorce, for example, already exist, and there's no reason to think that they couldn't be addressed in the case of multiple spouses. The law routinely deals with multi-party legal arrangements.)
The counterarguments are several: First, it is not *necessarily* associated with the subjugation of women. Second, absent another crime such as domestic violence, illegal already, the state is not generally empowered to prevent the subjugation of women, any more than it is empowered to outlaw misogynistic speech or otherwise intervene in the psychological, emotional, and social dynamics of intimate human relationships. Third, whatever problems are associated with polygamy are present anyway among those who practice an informal version of it, which is not illegal and can't be made illegal. Fourth, it is connected for some with the practice of their religion such that outlawing it comes close to religious discrimination, or, at the very least, a heavy-handed imposition of a cultural/moral norm to prevent legal recognition of conduct that is *in itself* harmless.
To which the responses are: No, it is not *necessarily* associated with the subjugation of women, but it is correlated, and the state is not generally obligated to address concerns with perfect precision -- unless, that is, important individual rights are at stake. Are such important individual rights at stake here? There are three possible contenders for a rights argument for polygamy I can see -- that it violates the "harm principle," that it discriminates on the basis of religion, or that it impairs a fundamental right to marriage.
First, this is pure morals legislation, and we disfavor pure morals legislation. This position rests on J.S. Mill's "harm principle" -- the idea that people have the right to do what they want absent concrete harm to others, and it is that harm to others alone that justifies state intervention. A few problems with this: First, the Constitution, though inspired by Mill's philosophy, does not actually adopt a harm principle as a hard restriction on state action. Morals legislation is not automatically prohibited. Indeed, the default rule is that democratically elected legislatures can do what they want absent a strong reason grounded in the Constitution's guarantees of individual rights. Second, the state isn't, strictly speaking, prohibiting polygamy. That is, it's not saying that you can't cohabit as a polygamous family and hold informal marriage ceremonies. You can still do what you want; the state is merely withholding official legal recognition of the arrangement. Third, there *is* a harm involved, as discussed above, concerning the women who enter into these relationships, such that the law is, in a sense, meant to protect and not restrict liberty rights. Yes, the law is paternalistic in that regard, but paternalism is not automatically out of bounds. Yes, as noted, the law is not narrowly tailored to address that harm. Such narrow tailoring, though, is generally only demanded when the law violates an *equality* norm -- that is, where it engages in some sort of impermissible discrimination against a protected class of individuals -- or impairs a fundamental right. Otherwise, the legislature is permitted to address problems with a blunderbuss -- hitting its target only sometimes, and missing it entirely in other cases. So, does the polygamy law discriminate or impair a fundamental right?
All laws discriminate in some fashion, but, to be imperssible discrimination, the law has to discriminate on the basis of a suspect classification, such as race, ethnicity, sex, age, or sexual orientation. The polygamy law doesn't discriminate on the basis of any of those characteristics. Some argue, though, that it discriminates on the basis of religion, which is a suspect classification. The problems with this argument are: (1) It restricts only an arguably religious practice, and does not restrict that practice on the basis of religion. It's not directed at religion, but rather at certain conduct deemed potentially harmful. In the vast majority of cases, a religious practice that violates an otherwise valid law of general applicability will have to cede to the law in order to achieve the government's legitimate objectives. (2) It would only be religious discrimination for, at most, a handful of people who would have to demonstrate a bona fide religious requirement. LDS no longer sanctions polygamy, and I'm aware of no religion that truly *requires* it. Some engage in polygamy as a matter of tradition or culture, but these are not suspect classifications and such commitments must give way to otherwise valid laws.
Does the polygamy deny a fundamental right? There is a fundamental right to marriage, yes, but, obviously, the law permits would-be bigamists to get married -- just to one person at a time. They are not excluded from marriage, either as a matter of technical law or as a matter of practical reality. Unenumerated fundamental rights gain their recognition from historical practice, and there is no historical practice in favor of polygamy -- indeed, the historical practice has been to outlaw it. Historical practice alone, perhaps, does not decide the issue, because historical practice can be blind to its discriminatory or prejudiced character. But even where we look beyond the historical practice to the *reasons* for conferring upon marriage the status of a fundamental right, we do not see those reasons supporting plural marriage. Marriage is seen as a basic civil right because it is "fundamental to our very existence and surivival." (So said the Surpeme Court in Loving v. Virginia, the case that struck down miscegenation laws.) One can argue with that rationale, of course -- the stronger argument against miscegenation laws is that they discriminate on the basis of race -- but it certainly doesn't extend to polygamy.
Posted by: JakeH | Wednesday, January 09, 2013 at 03:43 PM
Not so fast, bucko. I agree that polygamy does not complicate child custody decisions, but strongly believe that it's reasonable for the state to refuse to recognize polygamous marriage on complexity grounds.
Let me make the complexity argument another way. Civil marriage is, among other things, a set of default choices. Getting married is like entering into a bunch of legally enforceable arrangements governing, for example, who will inherit your property if you die without a will, who will make medical decisions for you in the event you are incapable of doing so. Now, not everyone wants all of those things, so it's perfectly legal for a husband to, say, write a document naming his brother as the individual who will make medical decisions for him. But in general, most people who get married want to enter into most of the legally-binding arrangements that come along with marriage.
I doubt there is any similar consensus among would-be polygamists about what the default arrangements should be in relationships among three or more people. I mean, is it really the case that all (or nearly all) women married to two or more men would want their first husbands to make medical decisions for them?
Or say a man is married to three wives who don't work, whom he married years apart, and that he and his middle wife decide to divorce. What is the best default rule governing the percentage of the family's assets that she should get? And, more to the point, is there any reason to think that all, or nearly all, families consisting of one husband and three wives would want the same default rule?
Without consensus, or near-consensus, on the part of polygamists and would-be polygamists, the state has no reason to set up a bunch of default rules that would govern polygamous marriages, and indeed, no way of reasonably choosing among the sets of default rules that might be set up.
Posted by: Taxpayer | Wednesday, January 09, 2013 at 06:25 PM