NationStates Jolt Archive

Please answer the poll.

I'm just curious. Homosexual marriage is a big debate right now. But I never here any debate about polygamy. I'm just wondering why those campaigning for homosexual marriages aren't also campaigning for the rights of polygamists.

Please answer the poll.

I'm just curious. Homosexual marriage is a big debate right now. But I never here any debate about polygamy. I'm just wondering why those campaigning for homosexual marriages aren't also campaigning for the rights of polygamists.

Polygamy in private lives should be allowed.

As for whether or not the government should recognize it, this is up for debate - but would require a whole new legal construct that is not currently in place.

Please answer the poll.

I'm just curious. Homosexual marriage is a big debate right now. But I never here any debate about polygamy. I'm just wondering why those campaigning for homosexual marriages aren't also campaigning for the rights of polygamists.
Its because the ban on Polygamy is unconstitutional but religious right won't adfmit it.
The ban was enacted when the news that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints( known by public was Mormons) started the practice. There were exceptions: Only if you could afford to have two women could you have one.
Basically it was only for the rich.

So since the Constitutional says you can't do a law against or for a religion it was unconstitutional.

The religious right do not want to admit that they cheapened the constution when they banned it and to hide their shame they keep it banned.

Plus the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints had to give up the practice to join the country. So asking Heavenly Father he saw that the world was not yet ready for the practice and repealed it. So its effectively banned by God now till the laws change.

Also how many people can say Polygamy is natural. The gay rights people have all the best slogans. :P

Polygamy in private lives should be allowed.

As for whether or not the government should recognize it, this is up for debate - but would require a whole new legal construct that is not currently in place.

The same could be said for homosexual marriages; although, it would take less retooling to add homosexual marriage than polygamy.

But why is it any of the government's business at all?

A lot of people have difficulty with legalizing polygamy because, in general, it seems to lead to the exploitation of young women. While the term 'polygamy' does allow for polyandry (multiple husbands), in practice, it generally refers to men with multiple wives. In North America, the fundamentalist mormon church (a small break-off sect of the Church of Latterday Saints) do quietly practice polygamy. Two notable towns are Bountiful, BC, Canada, and Colorado Springs (the town that straddles the border between Utah and Arizona).

The primary complaint about these communities is that young women are not permitted any choice in their husband and co-wives. Men get some choice, but with the latest leader, they are not necessarily asked. For example, women in some marriages have found themselves and their children arbitrarily reassigned to a new male.

In other religions that permit polygamy, it is a sign of wealth to be able to support multiple wives. Older men, who tend to have more wealth than young men starting out, negotiate with the families of young women before marriage. Again, the females have little choice in the matter.

In both examples, the women are being treated as objects without choices or rights. Granted, women in both examples, having been brought up thinking that their way of life is normal, accept their social position. Isolation from the rest of the world is typically crucial in maintaining these sorts of societies.

Until women view polygamy as a viable marriage situation in which they can choose their mates and retain their individuality and freedom, they are unlikely to campaign for polygamy to be legal in North America and Europe.

And for that matter - one battle at a time. People didn't fight for homosexual marriage rights while battling for the right to have mixed racial marriages. As they say in politics right now "You have to stay on message."

Its because the ban on Polygamy is unconstitutional but religious right won't adfmit it.
The ban was enacted when the news that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints( known by public was Mormons) started the practice. There were exceptions: Only if you could afford to have two women could you have one.
Basically it was only for the rich.

So since the Constitutional says you can't do a law against or for a religion it was unconstitutional.

The religious right do not want to admit that they cheapened the constution when they banned it and to hide their shame they keep it banned.

Plus the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints had to give up the practice to join the country. So asking Heavenly Father he saw that the world was not yet ready for the practice and repealed it. So its effectively banned by God now till the laws change.

Also how many people can say Polygamy is natural. The gay rights people have all the best slogans. :P

But it is also argued by some that the ban on homosexual marriages is unconstitutional (at least here in Canada). But that hasn't prevented the debate from taking place. So why are those same people advocating homosexual marriage not also advocating polygamous marriages?

The only answer I can come up with is that those advocating homosexual marriages, don't care about marriage rights at all, only their rights: and screw the polygamists. Either that ot they have the opinion that homosexual marriages are right, polygamy isn't, which seems sort of hypocritical to me.

...doublestandards

But it is also argued by some that the ban on homosexual marriages is unconstitutional (at least here in Canada). But that hasn't prevented the debate from taking place. So why are those same people advocating homosexual marriage not also advocating polygamous marriages?

The only answer I can come up with is that those advocating homosexual marriages, don't care about marriage rights at all, only their rights: and screw the polygamists. Either that ot they have the opinion that homosexual marriages are right, polygamy isn't, which seems sort of hypocritical to me.

Or maybe they're too busy trying to get their own rights, and will work with someone else after that?

One battle at a time, Hitler taught us that :p

**coughsGodwin'sLawhadtoshowupsonerorlateratleastnowit'sharmless coughs**

Wheh, better stay hom, that's one nasty cough :p

Saying one is ok and the other is wrong is just a double standard. This is why I am opposed to gay marriage. It's a slippery slope because once we start redefining marriage, where do we draw the line? I say leave it alone to protect not only the sanctity of marriage but also to make sure the gov't doesn't redefine marriage later on once we're all dead. Marriage = 1 man + 1 woman. Period.

If polygamy was alowed then what would the point of marriage be? It is suppossed to be a man and woman commiting to each other. Besides, if people agreed to this just think of the paperwork with marriges, divorces, child custody and figure out what the tax forms would look like. "Please list
# of wives." he he he.

Or maybe they're too busy trying to get their own rights, and will work with someone else after that?

One battle at a time, Hitler taught us that :p

**coughsGodwin'sLawhadtoshowupsonerorlateratleastnowit'sharmless coughs**

Wheh, better stay hom, that's one nasty cough :p

But seen as both are pretty near the same and both are the same type of fight, why not just add a few words to propaganda and proposals to include bigamy? It wouldn't be that hard to add just a little bit more on to the fight.

We had to fight Mussolini at the same time as we fought Hitler.

By the way, what's Godwin's Law? Never heard of it.

Please answer the poll.

I'm just curious. Homosexual marriage is a big debate right now. But I never here any debate about polygamy. I'm just wondering why those campaigning for homosexual marriages aren't also campaigning for the rights of polygamists.

WTf does one have to do with the other? Please explain and I expect a sensible reply. Now with that said, why would people supporting homosexual marriages feel any differently about polygamy or concern themselve's with it at all?

The same could be said for homosexual marriages; although, it would take less retooling to add homosexual marriage than polygamy.

But why is it any of the government's business at all?

It wouldn't take any retooling. It would take the change of two or three words. The construct as it is now could be applied to homosexuals. ThHis is not true of polygamy.

It is the government's business because the government has an interest in keeping track of assets and protecting those who merge their lives in such a way as to be difficult to legally discern them apart.

If polygamy was alowed then what would the point of marriage be? It is suppossed to be a man and woman commiting to each other. Besides, if people agreed to this just think of the paperwork with marriges, divorces, child custody and figure out what the tax forms would look like. "Please list
# of wives." he he he.

That's roughly the same argument often used by those opposed to homosexual marriages.

As for more paperwork, I'm sure the government would love more beaurcracy, it always does.

WTf does one have to do with the other? Please explain and I expect a sensible reply. Now with that said, why would people supporting homosexual marriages feel any differently about polygamy or concern themselve's with it at all?

Simple, those supporting homosexual marriages are always saying how it's unfair and discriminatory to not allow homosexual marriages, why aren't they also saying it's discriminatory to ban polygamous marriages?

Just seemed an odd contradiction to me.

Why is it the governments business? Maybe because if they allowed same-sex marriges you pretty much are giving out tax breaks to anyone that wants one...gay or not.

It wouldn't take any retooling. It would take the change of two or three words. The construct as it is now could be applied to homosexuals. ThHis is not true of polygamy.

It is the government's business because the government has an interest in keeping track of assets and protecting those who merge their lives in such a way as to be difficult to legally discern them apart.

But why should being married affect tax at all? And then why say you can't marry but you can, instead of just saying "put down who lives with you".

But seen as both are pretty near the same and both are the same type of fight, why not just add a few words to propaganda and proposals to include bigamy? It wouldn't be that hard to add just a little bit more on to the fight.

We had to fight Mussolini at the same time as we fought Hitler.

By the way, what's Godwin's Law? Never heard of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law :D

But they ARN'T the same type of fight, because polygamy would involve retooling nearly all the marrige laws. Gay marrige is just "Ok, kick it a bit."

Why is it the governments business? Maybe because if they allowed same-sex marriges you pretty much are giving out tax breaks to anyone that wants one...gay or not.

Why should married people get tax breaks? Seems stupid to me. Besides a gay person could just get around it anyway by just signing a liscence saying he/she is married to a member of the opposite sex, as a legal formality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law :D

But they ARN'T the same type of fight, because polygamy would involve retooling nearly all the marrige laws. Gay marrige is just "Ok, kick it a bit."

But why make marriage laws at all? It's a private contract and should have no bearing on taxation.

Besides, rights are rights. Why should the amount of effort it takes to give someone a right be considered at all?

polygamists can fight for their own rights if they want them

its not hypocritical for gaymarriage activists to not include polygamy in their fight. its a whole seperate issue

or maybe they just dont want to make the "marriage is between ONE man and ONE woman" conservatives' heads explode.

i have no problem with polygamy as a concept. after all we have serial monogamy now. if i can be married to man A today and man B tomorrow, is it so bad to be married to them both on the same day?

but it needs a reworking of the sexist patriachal paradigm in use now in order to limit the abuses noted by equus above.

a person should only be in ONE marriage at a time no matter how many people are in it. ALL spouses in a marriage must be married to each other. meaning that if my husband wishes to take a second wife, i would have to agree and we would be 3 spouses togeher. if *I* then wanted to take a second huband, both my current husband and co-wife would have to be party to it too. and so on.

this would keep the bigamy laws intact, thus giving legal protection from con artists who prey on unsuspecting people. and it would help to limit the abuse of young women by dominant men (not that you can eliminate domineering men abusing weak women but it would give a better legal framework)

Please answer the poll.

I'm just curious. Homosexual marriage is a big debate right now. But I never here any debate about polygamy. I'm just wondering why those campaigning for homosexual marriages aren't also campaigning for the rights of polygamists.
all consentual sexual or romantic activity should be 100% legal, no exceptions.

Polygamy in private lives should be allowed.

As for whether or not the government should recognize it, this is up for debate - but would require a whole new legal construct that is not currently in place.

Not really. Marriage, from a government perspective, is essentially a mutual Power of Attorney agreement and a declaration of joint ownership of property. All a government has to do to recognize people's desire to be married to more than one person is lift the prohibition on declaring "wife" or "common law wife" in the "dependent" section of a tax return. This would hardly be revolutionary thinking because declaring your wife as a dependent will work just fine if you write "roommate" in the "relationship" column.

Plenty of people try to do that with a traditional marriage because (last time I checked) the deduction for being head of a household with one dependent amounted to about $1500 more than being a married couple with no dependents.

Why is it the governments business? Maybe because if they allowed same-sex marriges you pretty much are giving out tax breaks to anyone that wants one...gay or not.

Marriage, Civil unions, pact of friendship, whatever.

All of the above should be treated as contracts like any other. The government shouldn't have to "recognise" anything, just let them butt out of private relationships.

And the christians who say that gay marriages "defiles the sanctity of marriage."

How about people who can go to Las Vegas and get married in an evening? How about the married couple where the man beats up his wife?

Do these things make YOUR marriage feel less to you?

Craig

Thanks for the link. Interesting law that Godwin's Law.

Actually it is men who do not want polygamy. It is tough enough to live with just one woman...

or maybe they just dont want to make the "marriage is between ONE man and ONE woman" conservatives' heads explode.


I can see the placards now..


"Marriage is between THREE men and EIGHT POINT TWO Women!"

:D

Craig

Simple, those supporting homosexual marriages are always saying how it's unfair and discriminatory to not allow homosexual marriages, why aren't they also saying it's discriminatory to ban polygamous marriages?

Just seemed an odd contradiction to me.
Makes perfect sense to me, actually. A great many opponent of the same-sex marriages like to argue that homosexuals are more promiscuous than heterosexuals (regardless of the facts), and any move to include polygamy the gay populace would be light a lightningbolt of affirmation to that claim.

Makes perfect sense to me, actually. A great many opponent of the same-sex marriages like to argue that homosexuals are more promiscuous than heterosexuals (regardless of the facts), and any move to include polygamy the gay populace would be light a lightningbolt of affirmation to that claim.

Interesting. Sort of goes along with my cynical guesses on the first page.

Or maybe they're too busy trying to get their own rights, and will work with someone else after that?

One battle at a time, Hitler taught us that :p

**coughsGodwin'sLawhadtoshowupsonerorlateratleastnowit'sharmless coughs**

Wheh, better stay hom, that's one nasty cough :p


And if the battle that you're in is a lost cause, divert attention with another, completly unrelated one. Regan taught us that.

Now that the poll has been answered a few times I see a large number of people for banning polygamy, but not homosexual marriages. For those who checked that result, I would appreciate it if you posted your reasoning.

Why should marriage be defined as solely between a man and a woman? That is something that Christianity has defined marriage to be. But religious marriage and a State marriage are two Completely different things. The United States Federal government is not supposed to have the power to limit marriages. This is so because the Constitution says that powers not descibed in the constitution belong to the individual states, and marriage is not something that was defined in the constitution; thus it is Supposed to be within a State's jurisdiction. Now whether the Federal government recognizes it is a different matter. But laws that were made restricting marriage to a man and a woman were written from a religious background, and that too is unconstitutional. Requiring the citizens of a nation that is supposedly open to all religions to obey the rules of a certain religion is hypocritical and unconstitutional. Denying the right of marriage through the state to Gay and Lesbian couples because of a religious conviction is hypocritical on the government's part. Same with polygamy (whether it's polyandrous or polygynous). As long as all members are entering into the marriage willingly and state and Federal laws are followed, the government really has no reason to deny them.

Simple, those supporting homosexual marriages are always saying how it's unfair and discriminatory to not allow homosexual marriages, why aren't they also saying it's discriminatory to ban polygamous marriages?

Just seemed an odd contradiction to me.


Here's a newsflash. The gay rights movement is driven by an ethic which supports the free will of the individual based on his/her sexual identity. Psychologically speaking this also inlcudes heterosexuality and bisexuality (not pedophilia, bestiality, polygamy, BDSM etc.). Polygamy is a cultural arrangement as is conventional marriage. Sexual orientation is primarily organic. Now since heterosexuals have recognised their own sexual identity and free will since the dawn of man and invented the sanctified religious/social institution of marriage (aka the right to appoint a mate as a family member) and is directly based upon fundamental human social behavior (pair bonding) I am left wondering why the heterosexual/religious community should not also support polygamy if one were to follow the logic that they should or seem contradictory.

... oh wait, at one time/place polygamous arrangements were (are) legal and/or socially acceptable while homosexuality was a crime deemed worthy of imprisonment or execution... and the heterosexist mud flinging continues.

Not really. Marriage, from a government perspective, is essentially a mutual Power of Attorney agreement and a declaration of joint ownership of property. All a government has to do to recognize people's desire to be married to more than one person is lift the prohibition on declaring "wife" or "common law wife" in the "dependent" section of a tax return. This would hardly be revolutionary thinking because declaring your wife as a dependent will work just fine if you write "roommate" in the "relationship" column.

Plenty of people try to do that with a traditional marriage because (last time I checked) the deduction for being head of a household with one dependent amounted to about $1500 more than being a married couple with no dependents.


But why should being married affect tax at all? And then why say you can't marry but you can, instead of just saying "put down who lives with you".

It is painfully obvious that neither of you understands all of the legal implications of marriage. Why don't you try looking into the protections provided by marriage before you try and debate about it.

DK - Marriage is by no means simply tax laws, nor is the government's interest in it.

Domici - Your summary of marriage leaves out quite a few protections, but let's go with it. Power of attorney. So a man marries 10 women. He is comatose. All ten women disagree on what treatment he should get. Who decides? Even this one example demonstrates why a whole slew of new laws would have to be passed and civil polygamy would be an entirely different construct from civil marriage. It would also do away with the government's main interest in recognizing marriage, namely, its own convenience.

Here's a newsflash. The gay rights movement is driven by an ethic which supports the free will of the individual based on his/her sexual identity. Psychologically speaking this also inlcudes heterosexuality and bisexuality (not pedophilia, bestiality, polygamy, BDSM etc.). Polygamy is a cultural arrangement as is conventional marriage. Sexual orientation is primarily organic. Now since heterosexuals have recognised their own sexual identity and free will since the dawn of man and invented the sanctified religious/social institution of marriage (aka the right to appoint a mate as a family member) and is directly based upon fundamental human social behavior (pair bonding) I am left wondering why the heterosexual/religious community should not also support polygamy if one were to follow the logic that they should or seem contradictory.

... oh wait, at one time/place polygamous arrangements were (are) legal and/or socially acceptable while homosexuality was a crime deemed worthy of imprisonment or execution... and the heterosexist mud flinging continues.

The heterosexual Christian community (for the most part) believes marriage is between one man and one woman. Anything else is considered a sin and a defilement of God's gift of sex to humanity.

The question is if someone is oriented towards wanting multiple wives or husbands why should that not be as important as someone oriented towards wanting a mate of the same sex?

It is painfully obvious that neither of you understands all of the legal implications of marriage. Why don't you try looking into the protections provided by marriage before you try and debate about it.

DK - Marriage is by no means simply tax laws, nor is the government's interest in it.

Domici - Your summary of marriage leaves out quite a few protections, but let's go with it. Power of attorney. So a man marries 10 women. He is comatose. All ten women disagree on what treatment he should get. Who decides? Even this one example demonstrates why a whole slew of new laws would have to be passed and civil polygamy would be an entirely different construct from civil marriage. It would also do away with the government's main interest in recognizing marriage, namely, its own convenience.

I don't know the legal implications of marriage all that well, but I don't know what that has to do with the topic at hand, as it is simply why support homosexual marriages, and not polygamous ones?

I know marriage is more than tax laws, but I don't think tax should be based on marital status. Marriage is a private union, and the government shouldn't but in at all, in any way (excpet in cases of coercion and minors.)

The heterosexual Christian community (for the most part) believes marriage is between one man and one woman. Anything else is considered a sin and a defilement of God's gift of sex to humanity.

The question is if someone is oriented towards wanting multiple wives or husbands why should that not be as important as someone oriented towards wanting a mate of the same sex?


You still haven't answered why pro-gay folks should support polygamy more or less than anyone else.

The question is if someone is oriented towards wanting multiple wives or husbands why should that not be as important as someone oriented towards wanting a mate of the opposite sex?

You still haven't answered why pro-gay folks should support polygamy more or less than anyone else.

The question is if someone is oriented towards wanting multiple wives or husbands why should that not be as important as someone oriented towards wanting a mate of the opposite sex?
all humans are "oriented" towards wanting multiple partners. monogamy versus polygamy is a social construct, not a sexual orientation. whether or not one supports gay rights does not need to have any bearing on one's support of polygamous social systems.

I don't know the legal implications of marriage all that well, but I don't know what that has to do with the topic at hand, as it is simply why support homosexual marriages, and not polygamous ones?

The simple fact that most of the protections are specifically written and would only work for two people. Polygamy would require an entirely new legal construct.

I know marriage is more than tax laws, but I don't think tax should be based on marital status. Marriage is a private union, and the government shouldn't but in at all, in any way (excpet in cases of coercion and minors.)

Actually, the tax laws in the US don't change for married couples. Middle class married couples pay *more* tax than they would unmarried. Why? Because claiming themselves as a single legal entity places them in a higher tax bracket - thus making them pay more taxes. The recent pushes to give tax breaks/money back to married couples is to alleviate the strain of paying *more* tax than a single person at the same job.

I chose the second option, and it's not at all difficult to justify.

Allowing polygamy is, in practice, highly discriminatory against women, a terribly unfair and unequal system that does actual harm to most women involved. Conversely, banning homosexuality is highly discriminatory against gays, an unfair and unequal system of which the allowance would do no harm whatsoever to those in 'traditional' marriages.

It's not about 'letting people do whatever they want' - it's about 'do what you will, and it harm none.' Polygamy harms women. Homosexuality harms no one.

I think the point is that the fight isn't just about some abstract right. Polygamy sounds fine, and the 50 people in the country who want it probably have some legitamate grounds for doing so. But seeing as how only 50 people care it is unlikely anything would ever be done.

Polygamy actually has strong support in the bible. It is a more modern set of prejudices that avoid it's practice. Abstracts aside those places where polygamy and polyandry (I only know of one, only the oldest son in the family marries, and his wife is considered to be married to all of his brothers, which also limits their options in life) are currently practiced women universally have miserable civil rights.

Expanded gay rights have a large base of support, and do not historically go hand in hand with any social problems (aside from decadence), it is much easier to convince people it is a good idea.

I chose the second option, and it's not at all difficult to justify.

Allowing polygamy is, in practice, highly discriminatory against women, a terribly unfair and unequal system that does actual harm to most women involved. Conversely, banning homosexuality is highly discriminatory against gays, an unfair and unequal system of which the allowance would do no harm whatsoever to those in 'traditional' marriages.

It's not about 'letting people do whatever they want' - it's about 'do what you will, and it harm none.' Polygamy harms women. Homosexuality harms no one.
polygamy only harms women when they are a) underage or b) adult, but non-consenting. in both cases, the problem is consent, really, so as long as all parties in the polygamous relationship are consenting there is no more harm than in any other marriage.

polygamy only harms women when they are a) underage or b) adult, but non-consenting. in both cases, the problem is consent, really, so as long as all parties in the polygamous relationship are consenting there is no more harm than in any other marriage.Non-consent and polygamy are extremely closely intertwined. I'd suggest that the latter encourages if not leads to the former.

Perhaps I'm being 'culturally insensitive', but who the hell would agree to marry some old guy with two wives already?

Non-consent and polygamy are extremely closely intertwined. I'd suggest that the latter encourages if not leads to the former.

Perhaps I'm being 'culturally insensitive', but who the hell would agree to marry some old guy with two wives already?

Perhaps no one. But I can envision 2 or more couples of about the same age with similar interests choosing to form a group marriage. Unfortunately, I've never heard of a culture that performs that kind of polygamy.

Non-consent and polygamy are extremely closely intertwined. I'd suggest that the latter encourages if not leads to the former.

Perhaps I'm being 'culturally insensitive', but who the hell would agree to marry some old guy with two wives already?

god told her to.

seems to ME that the recognition of polygamous marraiges might give those women more legal rights than they have now living in the shadows. not to mention the legal pooling of "family" money that would keep them off the welfare rolls.

god told her to.

seems to ME that the recognition of polygamous marraiges might give those women more legal rights than they have now living in the shadows. not to mention the legal pooling of "family" money that would keep them off the welfare rolls.It's a historically sound enough fact that government (or an equivilant authority like the church) encouragement and approval of polygamy does not raise its standards or improve it for the women, the excuse of "divinity" notwithstanding. I'm speaking about polygamy "in practice", not a theory of equally applied marital freedom.

It's not about 'letting people do whatever they want' - it's about 'do what you will, and it harm none.' Polygamy harms women. Homosexuality harms no one.

Why is it your call deciding what voluntary agreements others enter into?

I might think that to get married before you've known someone for longer than a week is harmful!! Doesn't mean I'd ban it.

I don't think you have the right to ban anything simply because you think it is harmful.

Some people think that homosexual marriage is harmful, are they justified in imposing that belief on others?

Craig

Because polygamists and homosexuals are two totally different groups? It's an ignorant question, and shouldn't have been asked in the first place.

Why is it your call deciding what voluntary agreements others enter into? It's not my arbitrary call - it's pretty well supported by actual instances of polygamous practices. And believe me, I am not the only opponent or critic of such things.

Some people think that homosexual marriage is harmful, are they justified in imposing that belief on others?There's no support whatsoever backing that up, though. "Traditionalists" against homosexual marraige are about as justified as pro-racist whites whose way of life was disrupted during the Civil Rights fight of the late 20th century in the US were right to demand unequal treatment of blacks.

It's a historically sound enough fact that government (or an equivilant authority like the church) encouragement and approval of polygamy does not raise its standards or improve it for the women, the excuse of "divinity" notwithstanding. I'm speaking about polygamy "in practice", not a theory of equally applied marital freedom.

True. But historically speaking the only kind of polygamy which has been practiced is where the "head" of a family (in most cases this has been a male) has had the right to marry multiple spouses. These spouses had no right to approve or disapprove of the "head" marrying another spouse nor did they have the right to multiple spouses for themselves. Obviously the "practice" has been to consider one gender as lesser (usually female) and thus it has been harmful and is definitely not a model for equally applied marital freedom.

The majority of the people who support the idea of modern polygamy are not working from the traditional definition of polygamy (which has always been either polygynous or, much less frequently, polyandrous). Rather they are supporting the type of model based upon the relationships of people who are in the polyamory movement. The "legal" model for such a marriage would be as Ashmoria described:

a person should only be in ONE marriage at a time no matter how many people are in it. ALL spouses in a marriage must be married to each other. meaning that if my husband wishes to take a second wife, i would have to agree and we would be 3 spouses togeher. if *I* then wanted to take a second huband, both my current husband and co-wife would have to be party to it too. and so on.

This would be a equal from of multiple partner marriage and as such would not be harmful to any specific gender.

Legally, there would be complications, as traditional legal marriage entails the automatic assigning of power of attorney to the spouse. Although these complications are no different than the complications that happen when a widowed parent has multiple adult children and thus multiple legal "next of kin." Theoretically this could be overcome by stating that each partner in a multiple marriage had to designate one partner to hold power of attorney in case of death or incapacity although legally this shouldn't be enforced unless everyone adult person had to designate someone with POA and courts observed this POA as superior to other kinship bonds.

The other complication, and one that is harder to figure out how to "fix" is what would happen if say in a five person marriage, persons A and B wanted to divorce each other, but neither wanted divorces from persons C, D, and E (considering that C, D, and E all wished to remain married to both A and B).

Obviously, homosexual marriage wouldn't have these problems. The current structure of legal marriage designates one other person as next of kin. That this one other person has to be of an opposite gender is really silly and random. In fact, one of the problems with the anti-gay marriage ammendments in places like Virginia is that as the law is worded, a person cannot designate a non-blood relative of the same gender as having power of attorney or as a beneficiary in any area where a marriage partner generally automatically recieves POA or benefits.

Personally, I don't think any legal benefits or rights should "automatically" come with marriage. Joining as a unit socially and legally should be two separate things.

It's not my arbitrary call - it's pretty well supported by actual instances of polygamous practices. And believe me, I am not the only opponent or critic of such things.


Arguing that you have numbers supporting you is hardly a valid argument.

I believe that individual rights and individual choice should come before what the current culture agrees with.

Once upon a time there were many opponents of black civil rights, or critics of the abolition of slavery.

People must be able to make their own choices. If someone wants to voluntarily enter into a polygamous relationship, no-one has the right to stop them.

There are MANY, MANY things that I think are harmful to people that they continue to do to themselves. If you start saying it is okay to stop people doing things that may harm them you head down the road to a totalitarian state.


There's no support whatsoever backing that up, though. "Traditionalists" against homosexual marraige are about as justified as pro-racist whites whose way of life was disrupted during the Civil Rights fight of the late 20th century in the US were right to demand unequal treatment of blacks.

The unequal treatment of blacks was endorsed and legislated by government. It is the culture and society, the thing you want to have control over peoples relationships, that made it so.

Craig

I don't really think that the right to homosexual marriage should bleed over to the right to polygamy. The two are separate issues, and as was stated in the forum, gay marriage is easier to legislate than polygamy. One fight at a time.

However, once the fight for gay marriage is won - and I'm sure it will be one day - we may have to turn our attention to polygamy. Here's my view:

This country preaches freedom and liberty. This entails the right for anyone to do whatever they want so long as 1) all people directly involved in what you do conscent to it (meaning that you are informed and able to make uncoerced decisions), and 2) all people indirectly involved aren't harmed by it (meaning that their bodies are not now at risk, or could ever potentially be at risk in the future, unless they too offer conscent).

So, polygamy follows under these rules of freedom. The multiple people can be together all they want, so long as the co-wives and/or co-husbands are fully informed as to their options, the community and national standards, and are able to decide if this is an option that they would consider under normal circumstances.

Now, Equus raised a very valid point, in that women who would conscent to such an arraingement are probably going to be a great minority:

Until women view polygamy as a viable marriage situation in which they can choose their mates and retain their individuality and freedom, they are unlikely to campaign for polygamy to be legal in North America and Europe.

And since polygamic communities (rare as they may be) are mostly composed of men taking young girls and women without allowing them informed decisions, this practice will continue to be unaccepted by the nation's community standards. If polygamy were to be legalized, it would necessarily have to be in a different format than the one presented above.

None of you feel that there will be more domestic disturbances at polygamous households? Human nature could very easily go into jealousy for one wife to another of the wives. All it takes is the husband paying more attention to one, and there could be big problems, also the idea of co-husbands is pretty ludacrous for the simple fact that no man would want to share his wife with another man.

None of you feel that there will be more domestic disturbances at polygamous households? Human nature could very easily go into jealousy for one wife to another of the wives. All it takes is the husband paying more attention to one, and there could be big problems, also the idea of co-husbands is pretty ludacrous for the simple fact that no man would want to share his wife with another man.
There is a society at the Himalya - i´ve seen a report about it - where polandry is common. One woman and up to four man -usually brothers- who are married to one woman.
So: That is against human nature?
It is obviously a cultural question.
Our culture - the euro-american culture - defines marriage as to be between one man and one woman. Many other cultures do that as well. And we should stick to that principal. So: No to gay marriage and no to polgamy.

The same could be said for homosexual marriages; although, it would take less retooling to add homosexual marriage than polygamy.

But why is it any of the government's business at all?

It shouldnt be part of thegovts business at all. Marriage should be between two or more people. If they want to include religion into this, then that is their business.

HOWEVER

Govt is involved because of a variety of issues relating to this ranging from inheritance rights to child care/alimony to welfare and Govt laws regulating who HMO/employers have to insure.

Strip govt from one aspect, and you have to strip it from all(my personal choice). OR if you keep govt in then it has the right/ability to regulate who and what marriage is.

SAME applies to all the benefits the govt gives to the public.
When the govt is paying for healthcare, it has the right/ability to regulate how healthy people can/should live their lives.(the rational behind seatbelt laws)

These are the choices we make, which side of the fence do you want to be on?

There is a society at the Himalya - i´ve seen a report about it - where polandry is common. One woman and up to four man -usually brothers- who are married to one woman.
So: That is against human nature?
It is obviously a cultural question.
Our culture - the euro-american culture - defines marriage as to be between one man and one woman. Many other cultures do that as well. And we should stick to that principal. So: No to gay marriage and no to polgamy.

I agree that both gay marriage and poligamy shouldn't be allowed. As to the Himalyan culture... well this is America and give me a list of a dozen guys who love their wives and then say: "Sure! You can sleep with her too! There's plenty of love to go around!" Plausable I'm sure.

I agree that both gay marriage and poligamy shouldn't be allowed. As to the Himalyan culture... well this is America and give me a list of a dozen guys who love their wives and then say: "Sure! You can sleep with her too! There's plenty of love to go around!" Plausable I'm sure.
I don´t know polygamists or polyandrists. They are certainly a tiny minority. But so are homosexuals.
I think you either have to allow both or neither of it. And I´m against either of it.

I don´t know polygamists or polyandrists. They are certainly a tiny minority. But so are homosexuals.
I think you either have to allow both or neither of it. And I´m against either of it.

Why be against either if it doesn't affect you?

NZ is looking at bringing in a Civil Unions bill, which I support, but it really doesn't affect me the slightest.

Legalising Polygamy and Homosexuality doesn't force you to marry four men :) Seriously, how would you like it if "society" said you couldn't marry the person you love?

Craig

Saying one is ok and the other is wrong is just a double standard.
This is why I am opposed to gay marriage. It's a slippery slope because once we start redefining marriage, where do we draw the line?
That's very ironic that you should say so. Here you are in a thread where (just in case you didnt realise) it has been made absolutely clear that marraige is not 'just one man and just one woman', yet you still claim that anything other than 'just one man and just one woman' is redefining marraige. As it happens marraige has come in many forms throughout time and space, including between two persons of the same sex. To state marraige is 'just one man and just one woman' is to redefine marraige.

I say leave it alone to protect not only the sanctity of marriage
If marraige has sancitity despite not having been defined throughout history as 'just one man and just one woman' then I see no reason to believe that this would discontinue all of a sudden.

but also to make sure the gov't doesn't redefine marriage later on once we're all dead.
Frankly once you are dead it is none of your business. It's bad enough you control freaks want to intervene in the personal lives of your contemporaries, the fact that you also want to control future generations, that is just plain scary...

Marriage = 1 man + 1 woman. Period.
Wrong, to say marraige = 1 man + 1 woman is redefining marraige.
Attempts to write off thousands of years worth of history and the cultural/social practices of millions (if not billions) of people throughout time and space, by redefining marraige to some narrow limits dictated by your enculturation, is the height of arrogance. Get over yourself.

Our culture - the euro-american culture - defines marriage as to be between one man and one woman.
No, elements within the 'euro-american culture' so define marraige, whilst many others within the 'euro-american culture' define it otherwise.

Many other cultures do that as well.
And many do not.

And we should stick to that principal.
Why?

NZ is looking at bringing in a Civil Unions bill, which I support, but it really doesn't affect me the slightest.
Really, I'm against it because it most certainly effects me. Firstly my property rights will be immediately effected as soon as the bill passes into law. I'm also against it for moral reasons. I believe there are only two possible purposes for the law and I disagree with both for moral reasons. I dont think that it is ok to invent a new relationship because the government is too wimpy to front up to religious fanatics and tell them to mind their own marraiges and keep their noses out of everyone else's, and I dont think that people too irresponsible to manage their own romantic lives should have the government front up to grant them half of their partner's property either. There is no legitimate reason for the civil unions bill, that is not heavily flawed, and I am completely against it. Homosexual people are not 2nd class citizens and they dont need a 2nd class form of marraige. Homosexual people either want to be married (in which case they should be free to choose to be) or they dont, we dont need this compromised bill that interferes with a huge number of people whilst still not granting homosexual people the rights they deserve - equality with heterosexual people.

Really, I'm against it because it most certainly effects me. Firstly my property rights will be immediately effected as soon as the bill passes into law. I'm also against it for moral reasons. I believe there are only two possible purposes for the law and I disagree with both for moral reasons. I dont think that it is ok to invent a new relationship because the government is too wimpy to front up to religious fanatics and tell them to mind their own marraiges and keep their noses out of everyone else's, and I dont think that people too irresponsible to manage their own romantic lives should have the government front up to grant them half of their partner's property either. There is no legitimate reason for the civil unions bill, that is not heavily flawed, and I am completely against it. Homosexual people are not 2nd class citizens and they dont need a 2nd class form of marraige. Homosexual people either want to be married (in which case they should be free to choose to be) or they dont, we dont need this compromised bill that interferes with a huge number of people whilst still not granting homosexual people the rights they deserve - equality with heterosexual people.

Sorry, I think you've got the wrong idea of my opinion!

I support same-sex marriages 100%, but see this bill as a step in the right direction.

Craig

While I appreciate the reasoning behind your opinion, I think that it's probably false. I dont believe for a moment that the civil union bill brings the acknowledgement of the equal marital rights of homosexuals any closer, in fact quite the opposite. Once the bill is passed homosexuals will be expected to gratefully slink away apeased that 'mainstream society' has so tolerantly allowed them to exercise something bearing a resemblence to the same rights enjoyed by other citizens. It is a compromise that pleases no one. It still gets up the nose of the minorities who think that someone else's marital affairs are their business, it doesnt acknowledge homosexual rights as being equal to heterosexual rights, it encourages everyone to pat themselves on the back regarding equality and slip back into apathetic enertia, and meanwhile it effects the property rights of 100,000s of people.

With all respect, I have to ask, do you think once this bill is passed that the government will get brave and risk antagonising the loud minority who want to interfere in the marital affairs of others, or that the loud minority will suddenly see reason and butt out of other people's business (thus allowing a bill to be passed affirming the rights of homosexuals to get married to the consenting adult of their choice), or do you agree that once this bill is passed into law, politicians hope and expect the whole politically messy business will just 'blow away'. In my opinion this bill is a broom who's sole purpose is to sweep the issue under the carpet, and it surprises me that it would be seen as step in a direction, rather than the excuse for not going there.