NationStates Jolt Archive

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not at all opposed to gay marriage. It's none of my business, if they want to marry I don't see any reason why not.
BUT - just legally speaking - when you legalise marriage, how can you oppose poligamy?
I understand the statement about "marriage only between consenting adults", that's a good basis, but it wouldn't exclude a man marrying 2 or more women... or a woman marrying 2 or more men? If that's their lifestyle, if they, as adult persons, feel that way and would like to marry, what could you hold against them?

Or, should you hold anything against them?

So long as every participant is okay with it, it should be legal.

I posted this in the Gay Rights thread before this one appeared...

I don't see what the problem would be with bigamy/polygamy other than there would be a heck of a lot of legal issues to work out. Who gets power of attourney? How do divide things in a divorce? Who would get custody of children? The Beaurocracy would take years to sort out. (Once again displaying that marriage is so much more a legal issue than religious.)

Gay people are sick. They should be locked up in a place where they can do no further harm to decent society.

So long as every participant is okay with it, it should be legal.
Seconded …
Though I would not restrict it to one man and mult women
Would also allow mult husbands for one woman or any combination

Gay people are sick. They should be locked up in a place where they can do no further harm to decent society.
That is not what this topic is about It is about polygamy

I posted this in the Gay Rights thread before this one appeared...

I don't see what the problem would be with bigamy/polygamy other than there would be a heck of a lot of legal issues to work out. Who gets power of attourney? How do divide things in a divorce? Who would get custody of children? The Beaurocracy would take years to sort out. (Once again displaying that marriage is so much more a legal issue than religious.)
Very true was thinking the same thing … I suppose it will boil down to just appointing someone for each of the important positions

Only 1 state has legalized gay marriage and that was by court order. Conn and Vermont have Civil Unions.

What other states have Civil Unions?

Government's duty is to protect the rights of people, not restrict them. That means that any consensual sex has absolutely no implications to the government. That means if four siblings all got together and had an orgy, there is no reason for government intervention.

And lets try something out, ignore the trolls for this thread. Consider it an experiment, no quotes, no responses, don't even acknowledge they exist.

Government's duty is to protect the rights of people, not restrict them. That means that any consensual sex has absolutely no implications to the government. That means if four siblings all got together and had an orgy, there is no reason for government intervention.

And lets try something out, ignore the trolls for this thread. Consider it an experiment, no quotes, no responses, don't even acknowledge they exist.
Ill do my best :p

Seconded …
Though I would not restrict it to one man and mult women
Would also allow mult husbands for one woman or any combination

Same here.

Government's duty is to protect the rights of people, not restrict them. That means that any consensual sex has absolutely no implications to the government. That means if four siblings all got together and had an orgy, there is no reason for government intervention.

And lets try something out, ignore the trolls for this thread. Consider it an experiment, no quotes, no responses, don't even acknowledge they exist.

What trolls? :D

Anyhoo... the problem with siblings is that it can lead to inbreeding, which is generally harmful for children. So sibling orgies is alright provided no children are produced!

Gay people are sick. They should be locked up in a place where they can do no further harm to decent society.

Actually, I am curious. What kind of proof can you provide to support the statement that they have done any harm to society as a whole?

I do not consider crime such as robbery, assault, theft and other criminal activities to be proof as that is an action any other person can commit, regardless of sexual orientation.

You would need to provide proof of something that is harmful to society and is only restricted to gays and gays alone. And I do hope you pick something other than their sexual orientation.

Gay people are sick. They should be locked up in a place where they can do no further harm to decent society.

You're sick for thinking that people should be denied basic rights when they've done nothing wrong. They don't harm society, terrorists harm society.

Ill do my best :p

I guess you could fluffle one or two, I know how much you enjoy it.

I guess you could fluffle one or two, I know how much you enjoy it.
YAY :fluffle:
oh wait *chases after the wee little biggot * :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: COME HERE YOU!!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by UpwardThrust
Lol your statement only says commonly but is directly followed by "but the deffinitions vary historicaly"
Just because it is the statistical strong runner does not mean many other forms (polygamy, same sex ... and others) have historicaly not been accepted.
There is no real historical basis to restrict gay marrige and deffinitions hardly set human rights nor law even if it did say between one man and woman


Don't get me wrong here, I'm not at all opposed to gay marriage. It's none of my business, if they want to marry I don't see any reason why not.
BUT - just legally speaking - when you legalise marriage, how can you oppose poligamy?
I understand the statement about "marriage only between consenting adults", that's a good basis, but it wouldn't exclude a man marrying 2 or more women... or a woman marrying 2 or more men? If that's their lifestyle, if they, as adult persons, feel that way and would like to marry, what could you hold against them?

Or, should you hold anything against them?

I don't hold anything against them. That definition should stand. Regardless, even if polygamous.

I would advise the possibility of civil suit still in cases where a spouse, in this case, were to have another wife, and the new wife was not made aware of this. Such would be applicable under contract law in seeking damages. But, the simple fact is, we have no right to define civil law by religious ideology (and I am Christian, BTW). Thus, if marrige is to be a fair opperation of civil law, it cannot discriminate on the basis by religious morality or conviction.

I say this, even though I am personally of conviction of homosexuality and polygamy as sins... They are sins by my own personal morality (to which I lack the right or authority to impose such upon the general populous). And I support the equality of rights on this issue for people to enter into personal contratural relationships, as long as such is the consent of all parties to said contractural relationships

What trolls? :D

Anyhoo... the problem with siblings is that it can lead to inbreeding, which is generally harmful for children. So sibling orgies is alright provided no children are produced!

Exactly, if people are responsible in their actions then they will not harm society. We should only restrict the rights of those who prove themselves to act irresponsibly, and leave those that will act responsibly alone.

Ok... to make it a bit more interesting as everybody seems to agree on this :

How, given that polygamy was legal, should divorces be handled?
Who would get custody of the children in a marriage between two men and a woman?
Who would pay child support?

Ok... to make it a bit more interesting as everybody seems to agree on this :

How, given that polygamy was legal, should divorces be handled?
Who would get custody of the children in a marriage between two men and a woman?
Who would pay child support?
The only way I can think of is a mutually signed agreement … maybe something that needs to be agreed on and legally signed before a marriage license is issued

Ok... to make it a bit more interesting as everybody seems to agree on this :

How, given that polygamy was legal, should divorces be handled?
Who would get custody of the children in a marriage between two men and a woman?
Who would pay child support?

There's no real difference, seeing as how those are questions we pose at present in divorces.

If anything, custody should be determined by the party best able to support the child; the other party(ies) should pay support for the child. If anything, the biologic parents should receieve prefference... Though the possibility of the non-biologic partner, accepting custody should be accepted as well. (The best interest in the custody hearing should be towards the child, as opposed to the wants of the parents)... The other party(ies) paying support the party with custody.

All in all, it's abit more complicated, but not inherantly different between the present situation that arrise in divorce.

YAY :fluffle:
oh wait *chases after the wee little biggot * :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: COME HERE YOU!!!

Now see how happy people are when they can fluffle whoever they want.

Now see how happy people are when they can fluffle whoever they want.
Made me happy!!!

How, given that polygamy was legal, should divorces be handled?
Same as now. One party will probably be consisting of more than one person, but it would still be one party.
That is assuming that if you marry, you marry all the partners in the household. So in a 1 man, 2 women household the man would be married to both women, and the women also to eachother. Since this quickly gets an administrative disaster when the family gets larger, I suggest just defining a family unit. People getting married form a unit of two or more persons. Adding members to this unit requires the consent of all involved; making divorce a two party situation.

Who would get custody of the children in a marriage between two men and a woman?
During marriage: the unit. I see no real problems with children being raised by a loving and caring group instead of a specific mommy and a daddy.
After a divorce, the party most likely to take best care of them. I suspect that courts will tend to the biological mother, though if that is the right choice is debateable.

Who would pay child support?
The unit if the divorcee (is that a word ?) gets custody and earns less than the unit per capita does.

Well, consider, in the case of one living parent, like my Yaya (grandmother), she had three children, any one of which she could've given power of attorney to. She decided to give it to her second born, who was her first born daughter.

So, in the case of polygamy, it could easily work the same way, especially if it was a legal document. If it's been legally done and in the presence of a lawyer, for example, then there could be no dispute. Sure, the others who try as heck to challenge it, but they would have no grounds for it because it has already been legally assigned.

In the case of children, the judge should decide based on who the true parents are based on DNA, and if neither as fit as the others, then the judge can give custody to the others, but the birth parents would be given preference. It would be like a normal custody case except there would be a chance that neither parent would get the child(ren).

You see, you can work with current laws in some ways, and just provide amendments.

Oh, and what the hell difference does it make? If someone wants to have a multi-partner marriage, it's not my problem if they are a masochist. And it is none of the government's business if there is no problem with consent and it is between beings considered legally adults.

Incesteous orgy? Sure, why the heck not? Just either get condoms, birth control pills or...snip-snip... :D

I personally don't like the idea of polygamy in our modern society. I believe society has degenerated far enough and that we really have to draw the line somewhere. 'Open' relationships rarely work anyway.

I personally don't like the idea of polygamy in our modern society. I believe society has degenerated far enough and that we really have to draw the line somewhere. 'Open' relationships rarely work anyway.
A closed mind rarely works. ;)

If it were up to me, I would either say no or have somebody else do all the details. Don't get me wrong; I am for as much personal freedom as possible. But it would be way too complicated. One complication is divorce. Another is insurance benefits. Someone else's life is none of my business, but I just wouldn't want to go through the headache of sorting out the issues that come with this.

I personally don't like the idea of polygamy in our modern society. I believe society has degenerated far enough and that we really have to draw the line somewhere. 'Open' relationships rarely work anyway.
It would not be an open relationship just a larger closed one

Government's duty is to protect the rights of people, not restrict them. That means that any consensual sex has absolutely no implications to the government. That means if four siblings all got together and had an orgy, there is no reason for government intervention.

And lets try something out, ignore the trolls for this thread. Consider it an experiment, no quotes, no responses, don't even acknowledge they exist.

1. You know this, of course, but it bears pointing out: marriage is not about sex. Whether sex should be regulated is a different question. What kind of sex people do or do not have has nothing to do with whether they should be allowed to exercise the right to marriage.

2. Consensual adult sex should not be a crime.

3. Agreed re trolls. (But my will is weak.)

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not at all opposed to gay marriage. It's none of my business, if they want to marry I don't see any reason why not.
BUT - just legally speaking - when you legalise marriage, how can you oppose poligamy?
I understand the statement about "marriage only between consenting adults", that's a good basis, but it wouldn't exclude a man marrying 2 or more women... or a woman marrying 2 or more men? If that's their lifestyle, if they, as adult persons, feel that way and would like to marry, what could you hold against them?

Or, should you hold anything against them?

1. Just legally speaking, there are many valid ways to distinguish the cases. The simplest: the ban on same-sex marriage discriminates on the basis of gender. A restriction on the number of people you can marry does not discriminate on the basis of race, gender, or any other suspect category. It is a rational and neutral restrictions.

2. Whether polygamy should be legal is a different question.

I agree that it would be an administrative hassle nightmare to sort out the "spoils of marriage" in the case of a group divorce. But I don't think that's a reasonable argument against polygamy; after all, there must have been administrative problems when women were first recognized as persons... allowed to vote... allowed to work outside the home... etc. The proposals above are all brave and reasonable approaches to the problem and, imho, are evidence that the legal challenges involved in group marriage are not intractable. Personal/ emotional problems might be more difficult to resolve, but we can leave that to the parties involved!

I look forward to the day when church and state are truly separated... marriage as a legal contract will be the domain of government; marriage as a religious institution will be the domain of churches; and marriage as a romantic affair will be the domain of the persons involved. Each "authority" will decide which of the possible combinations of person/gender/number they will recognize (hopefully the government will recognize all) and will not impose their views on the others.

The problem with polygamy is that it is actually an entirely different situation from marriage. The government recognizes marriage for several reasons. One is that the two people involved are in a unique situation not matched by anything else. They have agreed to live as a single entity and have generally meshed their finances and lives as such. This situation necessitates certain protections and responsibilities. The other is pure convenience (for the government). It recognizes a marriage because it would be horribly inconvenient to do otherwise.

Now, polygamy is a different situation altogether. It is not the same situation as two people living as one. It branches out and the priviledges applied to marriage would be impossible to directly apply to all members involved. An entirely new, and horribly inconvenient, set of laws would be necessary. In truth, the best way for the government to recognize polygamy, if it so chooses, would be to have the people incorporate themselves.

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not at all opposed to gay marriage. It's none of my business, if they want to marry I don't see any reason why not.
BUT - just legally speaking - when you legalise marriage, how can you oppose poligamy?
I understand the statement about "marriage only between consenting adults", that's a good basis, but it wouldn't exclude a man marrying 2 or more women... or a woman marrying 2 or more men? If that's their lifestyle, if they, as adult persons, feel that way and would like to marry, what could you hold against them?

Or, should you hold anything against them?
I don't oppose polygamy. Though I imagine that it could be a legal nightmare to legislate.

I personally don't like the idea of polygamy in our modern society. I believe society has degenerated far enough and that we really have to draw the line somewhere. 'Open' relationships rarely work anyway.

I would like to think that our society has advanced enough that we are beginning to accept people who hold different views and lifestyles than our own.

And lets try something out, ignore the trolls for this thread. Consider it an experiment, no quotes, no responses, don't even acknowledge they exist.
As you can probably tell from my posting on this forum, I have great fun feeding trolls when they appear. But I'll hold back in this thread.

Regarding trolls, is it just me or have there been many more trolls appearing lately with extreme anti-gay opinions?

As you can probably tell from my posting on this forum, I have great fun feeding trolls when they appear. But I'll hold back in this thread.

Regarding trolls, is it just me or have there been many more trolls appearing lately with extreme anti-gay opinions?
Yesterday was nuts with trolls and flames … I am wondering if it is not cause a lot of US collages got out or something (have no idea)

1. You know this, of course, but it bears pointing out: marriage is not about sex. Whether sex should be regulated is a different question. What kind of sex people do or do not have has nothing to do with whether they should be allowed to exercise the right to marriage.

Yes, but the dissent towards polygamous and gay marriages is normally solely based on sexual preference, so that should be addressed.

3. Agreed re trolls. (But my will is weak.)

Just as long as this thread doesn't explode with people piling on a troll.

the best way for the government to recognize polygamy, if it so chooses, would be to have the people incorporate themselves.

Which would really be the best way for civil authority, to handle the legal issue of marriage, by making it an "incorporated" entity, in the fullest extend. Which is why I push for marrital legislation as being under the principles of common-law contract. It really makes all the cursory issues pointless. If it is all under contract law, then gay-marriage is a non-issue, polygamy is a non-issue, bigamous situations become violations of contract, and can still be handled, etc.

I would like to think that our society has advanced enough that we are beginning to accept people who hold different views and lifestyles than our own.

I accept that people have different lifestyles. I'm a Christian. One of my friends is gay, but I could never hate him, though I hate the sin itself (there is a difference, btw. It means hating the thing that is being done, not the person that is doing it.). I don't force my views on him or anyone.

And to the person who called a polygamous marriage a closed relationship? While technically it may be, in my books, an open relationship is one in which there are more than two persons involved romantically. The potential for neglect in polygamous situations is enormous!

Marriage is something to be treasured. It was specifically created for two individuals (a man and a woman) and that is how it is defined here I believe (though I'll admit I haven't seen that part of the Australian Constitution).

#1. Legislating polygamy would be about the same as legislating a corporation, I imagine. Insurance would also be the same as in regular marriage. On most insurance policies you have the option of putting having several dependants and beneficiaries. I don't see how polygamy would make things more complicated. Although because marriage is a legal contract I think that everyone in the relationship should be married to everyone else. That way if there is divorce on down the road, no one can claim ignorance of the polygamy or that they were forced to accept the situation with no legal recourse.

#2. The societal benefits of polygamy are pretty evident to me. You end up with 3 or more people working together for the same goals. Think of the effect that would have on poverty.

I also think that, if the involved parties truly believed in what they were doing and weren't coerced or pressured, the rate of divorce would probably be the same if not lowered. If two people are having a disagreement, they can each look to the 3rd or 4th to mediate. In a polygamous relationship you have more than 2 people with just a much emotional, mental, and material influence. I think it would level the playing field.
#3. Plus taking into account the fact that there are more women on this planet than men, it makes some biological sense to me.

I accept that people have different lifestyles. I'm a Christian. One of my friends is gay, but I could never hate him, though I hate the sin itself (there is a difference, btw. It means hating the thing that is being done, not the person that is doing it.). I don't force my views on him or anyone.

If you truly accepted that people have different lifestyles and respect the people who hold different lifestyles, you would not call for drawing lines that should not be crossed.

EDIT:

Marriage is something to be treasured. It was specifically created for two individuals (a man and a woman) and that is how it is defined here I believe (though I'll admit I haven't seen that part of the Australian Constitution).

Also, if you truly believed that marriage was something to be treasured, then you would not accept government intervention in it.

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not at all opposed to gay marriage. It's none of my business, if they want to marry I don't see any reason why not.
BUT - just legally speaking - when you legalise marriage, how can you oppose poligamy?
I understand the statement about "marriage only between consenting adults", that's a good basis, but it wouldn't exclude a man marrying 2 or more women... or a woman marrying 2 or more men? If that's their lifestyle, if they, as adult persons, feel that way and would like to marry, what could you hold against them?

Or, should you hold anything against them?

How can you hold marriage between 2 people, irrespective of gender in the same caterogy of polygamy? There is no comparison. Marriage is between 2 people. Have you ever tried to have a relationship with more than one person?!

If you truly accepted that people have different lifestyles and respect the people who hold different lifestyles, you would not call for drawing lines that should not be crossed.

EDIT:

Also, if you truly believed that marriage was something to be treasured, then you would not accept government intervention in it.

Commitment is the most important thing in a marriage. The legal rights and responsibilities that result from marriage are, somewhat, a symbol of that commitment. The main reason that marriage is defined this way is because those were the laws of Britain at the time of colonisation and we gained them (due to the British 'accidentally' declaring Australia terra nullius.

They're mainly used for taxation and statistical purposes anyway.

I am sure though that even you would accept that there are some lines that should not be crossed.

I will point out here that this is merely my opinion. That is all. If the law is changed here on this, it means diddly-squat to me, though I would be disappointed.

"I am sure though that even you would accept that there are some lines that should not be crossed."

I agree that there are lines that shouldn't be crossed. Lines that restrict any person's freedom to live in a way that is pleasing and beneficial to them in an effort to save some of us from "disappointment"

Have you ever tried to have a relationship with more than one person?!

I daresay there are many families/groups living under the same roof that consist of more than 2 persons. That does not mean they all have sex with eachother; just that they form a unit that lives together.

But to answer the question you -assumedly- actually meant: contrary to the myths it is perfectly possible to love more than 1 person at the same time for some persons. Not for everybody, but I daresay true for quite a few. Just look at the number of romantic novels in which the girl cannot choose between two men. Or the number of people that have a lasting affair next tot heir marriage. Or the people that actually live in a polygamous marriage already.

Gay people are sick. They should be locked up in a place where they can do no further harm to decent society.
please tell me where do you see a decent society?????

Meh, polygamy would be fine, so long as women are allowed multiple husbands as well and the spouses in the original marriage aren't allowed to take on new spouses without the explicit permission of the other spouse. If there's some way to ensure that the spouse isn't forced to give permission as well, then that would be swell.

Marriage is something to be treasured. It was specifically created for two individuals (a man and a woman) and that is how it is defined here I believe (though I'll admit I haven't seen that part of the Australian Constitution).
Jely Bellys are something to be treasured. They were specifically created for all sweets loving people to enjoy, and that is how they are defined here. And there, too.
I want special protection for Jelly Bellys, and if some other sweets gain popularity as well i will scream infringement of my rights to Jelly Bellys. They are holy! I have a book that says so! And i can only enjoy them if everybody does so too and does not stray from the right path! Look what became of Rome! Think of the Children!

I hope my little example shows how very useless moralities and oppinions are in regard to legal issues. And nothing else should marriage be, a government sanctioned legal contract.

Commitment is the most important thing in a marriage.

Very true, but are you trying to say that people practicing polygamy could not manage that level of commitment to their partners?

I am sure though that even you would accept that there are some lines that should not be crossed.

No laws should be based on morality. They should be derived rationally.

So no, I do not think that there are any moral limitations placed on society.

I will point out here that this is merely my opinion. That is all. If the law is changed here on this, it means diddly-squat to me, though I would be disappointed.

And I will respect your opinion in hopes that you respect mine.

"I am sure though that even you would accept that there are some lines that should not be crossed."

I agree that there are lines that shouldn't be crossed. Lines that restrict any person's freedom to live in a way that is pleasing and beneficial to them in an effort to save some of us from "disappointment"

My primary concern is that polygamy has serious potential to be quite destructive. Yes, in a FEW circumstances, it may work. But by and large, 3+ party intimate relationships don't last terribly long. I know, I know, some marriages don't either - but that's why I think marriage needs to be treated with greater status. A marriage means (or at least should mean) commitment for the REST OF YOUR LIFE. That's why I'm not going to marry until I know for SURE that she's the right one, and that I want to spend the rest of my days with her.

If a polygamous group can agree to this and it's legal where they are - it's their decision. Not mine. I have merely been expressing my views, and I thank everybody here for viewing them with an open mind and debating them from their own hearts.

Jely Bellys are something to be treasured. They were specifically created for all sweets loving people to enjoy, and that is how they are defined here. And there, too.
I want special protection for Jelly Bellys, and if some other sweets gain popularity as well i will scream infringement of my rights to Jelly Bellys. They are holy! I have a book that says so! And i can only enjoy them if everybody does so too and does not stray from the right path! Look what became of Rome! Think of the Children!

I hope my little example shows how very useless moralities and oppinions are in regard to legal issues. And nothing else should marriage be, a government sanctioned legal contract.

We must ban these foul Butter Popcorn Jelly Bellys, those that eat them are disgusting human beings and are degrading our societies.

Jely Bellys are something to be treasured. They were specifically created for all sweets loving people to enjoy, and that is how they are defined here. And there, too.
I want special protection for Jelly Bellys, and if some other sweets gain popularity as well i will scream infringement of my rights to Jelly Bellys. They are holy! I have a book that says so! And i can only enjoy them if everybody does so too and does not stray from the right path! Look what became of Rome! Think of the Children!

I hope my little example shows how very useless moralities and oppinions are in regard to legal issues. And nothing else should marriage be, a government sanctioned legal contract.

The difference here is that Jelly Bellys are inanimate. Though I certainly agree that they're special. :)

Certain moralities have merit, though they have to be carefully chosen.

Could it be possible that some polygamy or 3-party relationships don't work or last because we have a cultural and larger social bias against them that is representative in our laws?
Kinda like how in the united states our law enforcement engaged in racial profiling. Certain perspectives based on racial sterotypes that led to police-work that targeted certain specific minority groups. Or how about Jim Crow laws?
I mean there is precedence for people making laws resulting from flawed interpretation of human behavior.
Also, I don't know anyone who is truly interested in polygamy that would enter into it lightly. Marriage of convenience is always a risk for anyone.

polygamy.
Health insurance companies would really love that. One guy-three wives and twelve children. Everyone's premiums might go up a little.

Imagine the field day in the event of a divorce-how would the assets be divided?
Custody battles would be a regular flying circus as well. Visitation, child support.

I dont agree with it. Its a big can of worms.

Imagine the field day in the event of a divorce-how would the assets be divided?
Custody battles would be a regular flying circus as well. Visitation, child support.

I dont agree with it. Its a big can of worms.

Make both marriages and divorces a private matter and there is no problem.

Make both marriages and divorces a private matter and there is no problem.


the solution would never be that simple. And in the end, it will still be as it always was and will be-the kids will suffer them most, because of selfish and dim witted parents

Well, then you get into issues involving child custody that people will inevitably bring into a legal forum Vittos Ordination. If a marriage isn't legally recognized, then how could a legal entity make a determination on it.
But, like the Shindler's in the Shiavo case, people will seek legal protection for their desires and wishes.

Make both marriages and divorces a private matter and there is no problem.

Marriages should indeed be a private matter, but there needs to be means for the government to step in when somebody's walked off from a two-party marriage and left their partner and kids in the cold.

polygamy.
I dont agree with it. Its a big can of worms.

Life is complex, if we just passed over or ignored certain issues because the answer didn't just fall into our laps, we won''t advance as a civilization.

Marriages should indeed be a private matter, but there needs to be means for the government to step in when somebody's walked off from a two-party marriage and left their partner and kids in the cold.

Parental rights and responsibilities are established in the absense of marriage.

However, there are legal concerns other than that. I don't understand marriage law well enough to comment on it, though. Maybe C-T will show up and through around some expertise.

Make both marriages and divorces a private matter and there is no problem.

Corporations, partnerships, etc, should be a private matter too?

No artificial legal institutions or entities?

What about parenthood?

Parental rights and responsibilities are established in the absense of marriage.

However, there are legal concerns other than that. I don't understand marriage law well enough to comment on it, though. Maybe C-T will show up and through around some expertise.

It was an example, 'tis all. There are a million other situations, though. Can't think of one right now, but then, it IS 2:37 in the morning here.

Corporations, partnerships, etc, should be a private matter too?

No artificial legal institutions or entities?

I didn't say that

and you ought to know not to get me started on those issues

What about parenthood?

There are many children born to unwed parents.

The difference here is that Jelly Bellys are inanimate.
Last time i looked marriage was both inanimate and immaterial. But next time i will use gerbils.

This is one of those areas in which the government has absolutely no business.
I do not belive there should be any laws regarding marriage at all, other than those governing any other form of contract.
As for divorce, inheritance, children, that should all be spcified in the contract.

And those claming that monogamy is how it's meant to be, whewther on religious, cultural, or biological grounds, should re-examine the facts. Consider that "thou shalt not marry multiple partners" isn't one of the 10 commandments. Many of the biblical luminaries were polygamous. And there are numerous cultures in which polyamory works quite well.

I don't give a rat's ass how many adult spouses someone else wants to have, why should I? It would have no real effect on anyone else. The fact is, a married man or woman who wants to fool around with someone else will do so whether you legalise it or not. Let them marry the newcomer and pay for the support of the offspring, if that's what they want to do. Why should the government get involved in the domestic arrangements of consenting adult voters?

polygamy already exists in the united states. the question is "should it be legal?"

as it is now, polygamous families collect considerable amount of government assistance (welfare) because all of the "other" wives and children arent recognized by the state as being part of the economic unit of the husband and his first wife.

the other wives have limited inheritance rights, no possible divorce rights (which doesnt mean they cant get "divorced" just that there is no court to protect their interests if they leave), no legal say in any of their husbands affairs whatsoever. many were pressured to get married well before the age of 18. they have little education and little knowlege of the outside world.

is it better to keep it illegal or to legalize it and make sure that all the wives have rights?

i think its better to make it legal.

This is one of those areas in which the government has absolutely no business.
I do not belive there should be any laws regarding marriage at all, other than those governing any other form of contract.
As for divorce, inheritance, children, that should all be spcified in the contract.

And those claming that monogamy is how it's meant to be, whewther on religious, cultural, or biological grounds, should re-examine the facts. Consider that "thou shalt not marry multiple partners" isn't one of the 10 commandments. Many of the biblical luminaries were polygamous. And there are numerous cultures in which polyamory works quite well.

1) Marriage has to be an issue for the government. If you wife has an accident, you want to be able to see her in the hospital, right? You need laws for taxes, inheritance, parenthood, ... laws that put the idea that the two of you are 'one' in a practical, legal form. You'll also need laws to protect both partners when they decide not to be one anymore. You cannot put these things in a 'normal' contract since a lot of these laws don't just include both of you, but also a third party: The government in most cases (inheritance taxes for example), but the hospital is one too in the above mentioned case of an accident.

2) I am against polygamy on a practical basis. Things would get very complicated for our paperwork for example since the 'easy' monogamous marriage is incorporated in many ways. tax forms are designed for it and a 'simple' monogamous familystructure is used in almost any law regarding families. You would also need a (not that inexpensive) DNA test with every newborn because the father would not be 'automaticly known', allthough a lot of 'fathers' are deceived now - but they are legally the 'natural' father untill someone raises doubts.

Oh, i forgot. the cultures that allow polygamy are different from ours in one of the following:
1) Don't rely that heavely on 'paperwork'. (mostly because they are smaller tribal cultures, not a country with millions)
2) Have grown their legal structures with polygamy in mind. They also don't allow a woman to marry multiple men - not possible in the US - and simplify most problems by defining the woman as owned by the man.

I've got no problem with either polygamy or polyandry.

Sorry, other than that, I got nothin' on this, uh... issue.

How can you compare homosexuality, which is nto a choice, and therefor out of the couples hands, to a guy or woman who just want to get laid by as many people as possible while still getting th benefits of marriage? :confused: :confused: :(

Its this kind of thing that makes me wonder. Where will it stop? I am in no way opposed to gay men or women, however; where will the definition of marriage stop? When Humans are marrying animals? When two gays marry two gay women? When two marrieed partners marry the other set of married partners?

I will respectfuly disagree with a law allowing multiple people to marry, and add a question to this topic.

If this law was to be passed would you allow a man to marry a woman, who is already married to a man?

Its this kind of thing that makes me wonder. Where will it stop? [snip] When Humans are marrying animals?
The general consensus is "between consenting adults", thus no chance for that.
If this law was to be passed would you allow a man to marry a woman, who is already married to a man?
If the first man agrees to this and by the same logic be married to the second man, why not?

Now that I've finally attained the ability to maintain an erection for an interminable period of time, polygamy starts to make sense.

Otherwise, I hold to Mark Twain's adage that any woman is more than a match for any ten men in bed.

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not at all opposed to gay marriage. It's none of my business, if they want to marry I don't see any reason why not.
BUT - just legally speaking - when you legalise marriage, how can you oppose poligamy?
I understand the statement about "marriage only between consenting adults", that's a good basis, but it wouldn't exclude a man marrying 2 or more women... or a woman marrying 2 or more men? If that's their lifestyle, if they, as adult persons, feel that way and would like to marry, what could you hold against them?

Or, should you hold anything against them?


Uhh polygamists have been around loooong before 'gay marriage' and so has heterosexual polygamous 'unions'. Polygamy is a societal convention as is marriage to one person. Sexual orientation is neurology and psychology.

This question is still valid without homosexual marriage but curiously it hasn't been considered until recently which is pretty ludicrous considering history. It's just a way for moralizing fools to say we can't have one thing because y and z will follow. The concern is not with what may come, it is with what occurred. It's thinking right up there with such gems as 'homosexuality will spread and we'll go extinct' or 'why don't we legalize pedophilia?'

Uhh polygamists have been around loooong before 'gay marriage' and so has heterosexual polygamous 'unions'. Polygamy is a societal convention as is marriage to one person. Sexual orientation is neurology and psychology.

If sexuality is neurology and psychology, it certainly predates any form of marriage.

Meanwhile, same-sex unions are just as old as polygamy, just not prevalent in most Western societies.

If sexuality is neurology and psychology, it certainly predates any form of marriage.

Meanwhile, same-sex unions are just as old as polygamy, just not prevalent in most Western societies.

Ya think they got much to do with the other?

If a polygamous group can agree to this and it's legal where they are - it's their decision.
Surely this is the whole issue, that generally in the west it isn't legal (or rather polygamous unions aren't recognised by the state) so this isn't an option. We should give the non-married parties in the group the opertunity to join the group surely, this would prevent unbalance as only 2 out of 3+ people have their union protected by the state, and premote equality, things which the west is supposedly trying to encourage.

it would be nice of polygamy was legal. if there was a measure to make it legal, I would be one of the first in line for the certificate. why isnt it legal anyway?

it would be nice of polygamy was legal. if there was a measure to make it legal, I would be one of the first in line for the certificate. why isnt it legal anyway?

Well, i personally think its immoral.....it cheapens love I think. I believe people should be allowed to marry regardless of race, ethnics, height, weight, wtf ever but when you get one person marrying multiple women or men, it cheapens the concept of love and marriage. I know same was said for allowing different races to marry and same being said for same sex marriage now but those are different in that they can't help who they are. This.....this is just another form of gluttony to me and it makes me sick.

it would be nice of polygamy was legal. if there was a measure to make it legal, I would be one of the first in line for the certificate. why isnt it legal anyway?

If you want to get technical, polygamy is perfectly legal, it simply isn't legally recognized.

Legal recognition would not be a simple matter of extending the marriage laws, as they are specifically written to apply to two people. They don't even make sense in the context of a polygamous arrangement.

As such, an entirely different arrangement would be necessary for its recognition. If you can demonstrate a good reason that the government needs to recnognize such unions, you may be able to get that going. Of course, it could most likely be accomplished by having the persons in question incorporate themselves.

Well, i personally think its immoral.....it cheapens love I think. I believe people should be allowed to marry regardless of race, ethnics, height, weight, wtf ever but when you get one person marrying multiple women or men, it cheapens the concept of love and marriage. I know same was said for allowing different races to marry and same being said for same sex marriage now but those are different in that they can't help who they are. This.....this is just another form of gluttony to me and it makes me sick.


I am polyamorous and have no trouble lovign more than one person. Our love is deep. To each his/her own I say. Besides, who are you to say what someones quality of love is for another single person or group of people? How does it cheapen love exactly?

If you want to get technical, polygamy is perfectly legal, it simply isn't legally recognized.

Legal recognition would not be a simple matter of extending the marriage laws, as they are specifically written to apply to two people. They don't even make sense in the context of a polygamous arrangement.

As such, an entirely different arrangement would be necessary for its recognition. If you can demonstrate a good reason that the government needs to recnognize such unions, you may be able to get that going. Of course, it could most likely be accomplished by having the persons in question incorporate themselves.


If it was legal I wonder why I heard a story on NPR a couple weeks back about prosecuting a bunch of people in a small town (they do it for their religious belief - offshoot of mormonism) for having multiple wives. I can't remember if it was in Utah or Arizona.

If it was legal I wonder why I heard a story on NPR a couple weeks back about prosecuting a bunch of people in a small town (they do it for their religious belief - offshoot of mormonism) for having multiple wives. I can't remember if it was in Utah or Arizona.

You have already stated that you live in a polygamous relationship. Have you been arrested?

On the other hand, if they were trying to have multiple marriages legally recognized, that becomes a legal issue, as the legal institution of marriage is specific to two people.

this guy is going to prison because of bigamy:

http://www.btinternet.com/~familyman/ontrial.htm

Green sentenced to 5 years imprisonment for cohabitation

Friday 24th August 2001 saw three hours of legal argument followed by the sentencing of Tom Green. Judge Guy Burningham sentenced Green to 5 years imprisonment five times over for 4 offences of bigamy and one of "criminal non-support" related to family claims for welfare payments. The judge also ordered Green to pay $78,000 to the state, in recompense for these payments - which might be difficult given the number of wives and children he will now have to sustain from prison. Because the sentences will run concurrently Green could be separated from his family for five years, for cohabiting with more than one woman at once, which is not an offence in many states, and which is perfectly legal behaviour across the world, including many Western countries.

Prosecutor David Leavitt had asked for a 10-year sentence, but appeared happy with the result. The story is not yet over as there is every likelihood of appeal, and prosecutors are pursuing a case of statutory rape against Green, relating to his relationship with one of his current wives 15 years ago, when she was a few months below Utah's legal marriage age. The woman is still married to Green, and is pregnant with their seventh child, but he could still face 6-years-to-life if the case goes to trial. After the bigamy sentence was passed she complained that Green "wasn't allowed to talk to us or say good-bye to us. He just blew us a kiss goodbye." A ruling is awaited as to whether the planned trial would violate the Statute of Limitations.

Green is expected to appeal his conviction and the amount of restitution Judge Burningham ordered.There will be a hearing on 4 September on a motion to release Green to allow him to work on the appeal. Before he sentenced Green, Judge Burningham said "It is specific in the Utah Constitution that polygamous acts or polygamous marriage was forbidden when it became a state". He ruled that religious belief is protected in U.S. and Utah constitutions, but that religious practice that is deemed a threat to society can be regulated under law. This is a highly contentious point likely to feature in any future appeal.

You have already stated that you live in a polygamous relationship. Have you been arrested?

On the other hand, if they were trying to have multiple marriages legally recognized, that becomes a legal issue, as the legal institution of marriage is specific to two people.

No , I stated I would be first in line to sign up for a marriage certificate to marry two women if it were legal. I only live with one woman. Isn't polygamy a marriage between one man and many women or whatever?

Personally, I think that marriage should stay between the couple and the religious institution. For those of you who want a simple explanation, marriage is merely another case of government sticking its nose into our bedrooms. I would propose a different type of legal union with the same state and federal benefits as a marriage. Either that or abolish marriage altogether and stick with civil unions. Marriage used to be a states-only affair, and no state had to recognize marriages from another state (I still think that's the case today). Since I can't have my ideal society, I remain in pretty firm support of gay marriage.

As for polygamy, I oppose that on a moral basis. Before you start arguing that morals are individual, ask yourself why aren't you hacking anyone's account right now, or replying to people's posts with flames? More so, why are you following NS and Jolt's ToS? If you knew what you were doing, you could easily get away with any violation. Back to the polygamy issue, states have the right to protect public health, safety, and morals. Many of the controversial issues are controversial not because people see them as an equal rights issue, but an ethical issue, and turn to the state representatives to debate it.

I am polyamorous and have no trouble lovign more than one person. Our love is deep. To each his/her own I say. Besides, who are you to say what someones quality of love is for another single person or group of people? How does it cheapen love exactly?

Im not one to say if it does or does not, thats simply imho. However, I am against it being legally recognized because it has no predetermined basis in which one can claim discrimination. Also, I do not feel you can really be in a truely loving and caring relationship like the one you are in if your splitting it up with multiple women, im sorry but thats simply my opinion, but then again who am I?

Im not one to say if it does or does not, thats simply imho. However, I am against it being legally recognized because it has no predetermined basis in which one can claim discrimination. Also, I do not feel you can really be in a truely loving and caring relationship like the one you are in if your splitting it up with multiple women, im sorry but thats simply my opinion, but then again who am I?

You said that it cheapens love and is immoral. I want to know why you think so. Is this due to a religious belief? Maybe it discriminates and maybe it doesn't - I dont know. It seems like it might in some sense of the word. It discriminates against those who choose to marry multiple partners in my view.

I am a bottomless well of love and those on the receiving end of it are more than satisfied. Two of the girls I am in love with are also in love with each other. Noone is missing out on anything. Only gaining. I guess some people do have a tough time with the concept though. That is understandable.

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not at all opposed to gay marriage. It's none of my business, if they want to marry I don't see any reason why not.
BUT - just legally speaking - when you legalise marriage, how can you oppose poligamy?
I understand the statement about "marriage only between consenting adults", that's a good basis, but it wouldn't exclude a man marrying 2 or more women... or a woman marrying 2 or more men? If that's their lifestyle, if they, as adult persons, feel that way and would like to marry, what could you hold against them?

Or, should you hold anything against them?
Polygamy?

*Drools uncontrollably*

:D :D :D

All those women I could have all at once.... :D

You said that it cheapens love and is immoral. I want to know why you think so. Is this due to a religious belief? Maybe it discriminates and maybe it doesn't - I dont know. It seems like it might in some sense of the word. It discriminates against those who choose to marry multiple partners in my view.

I am a bottomless well of love and those on the receiving end of it are more than satisfied. Two of the girls I am in love with are also in love with each other. Noone is missing out on anything. Only gaining. I guess some people do have a tough time with the concept though. That is understandable.

Nah not religous, im agnostic. I just have certain beliefs when it comes to love...since im pretty much faithless you could say as of now love is my belief and so its important to me. To each their own I suppose as long as it harms no one.

Only 1 state has legalized gay marriage and that was by court order. Conn and Vermont have Civil Unions.

What other states have Civil Unions?
the full faith and credit clause of the constitution says that other states must respect one states laws. meaning if you marry another man in massachussetts, your married in whatever state you live in, even if gay marriage is illegal. this is the logic behind the president supporting a constitutional ammendment banning gay marriage (actually he just wanted support from the christian right)

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not at all opposed to gay marriage. It's none of my business, if they want to marry I don't see any reason why not.
BUT - just legally speaking - when you legalise marriage, how can you oppose poligamy?
I understand the statement about "marriage only between consenting adults", that's a good basis, but it wouldn't exclude a man marrying 2 or more women... or a woman marrying 2 or more men? If that's their lifestyle, if they, as adult persons, feel that way and would like to marry, what could you hold against them?

Or, should you hold anything against them?

Ideally, marriage is a religious institution, thus making it less of a federal government issue. If it is your religion to allow polygamy, then yes the government should NOT have laws against polygamy because it is between consenting adults.

Unfortunately, marriage has become a pain in the butt issue due to religion. Because of this, it is a STATE issue first.

There can NOT be a constitutional ammendment banning gay marriage or polygamy due to the nature of not being able to RESTRICT the rights of citizens. There needs to be more debate. AT THE STATE AND LOCAL LEVEL.

1) Marriage has to be an issue for the government. If you wife has an accident, you want to be able to see her in the hospital, right? You need laws for taxes, inheritance, parenthood, ... laws that put the idea that the two of you are 'one' in a practical, legal form. You'll also need laws to protect both partners when they decide not to be one anymore. You cannot put these things in a 'normal' contract since a lot of these laws don't just include both of you, but also a third party: The government in most cases (inheritance taxes for example), but the hospital is one too in the above mentioned case of an accident.

Hospital visitation - This should be covered in the contract betwwen partners, as well as the contract between the patient and the hospital.
Taxes - Variations in taxation due to marital status discriminate, and should be totally scrapped. No marriage penalty, no marriage or dependents benifit.
Inheritance - Again, this is something that's none of the governments business.
Parenthood -

2) I am against polygamy on a practical basis. Things would get very complicated for our paperwork for example since the 'easy' monogamous marriage is incorporated in many ways. tax forms are designed for it and a 'simple' monogamous familystructure is used in almost any law regarding families. You would also need a (not that inexpensive) DNA test with every newborn because the father would not be 'automaticly known', allthough a lot of 'fathers' are deceived now - but they are legally the 'natural' father untill someone raises doubts.

As I mentioned above, it's legal in other places. Examine how nations where it is legal (and times and places when it was) to deal with such issues.

Additionally, the creation of extra red tape is not a sufficient argument for the denial of rights (free exercise, privacy).

Oh, i forgot. the cultures that allow polygamy are different from ours in one of the following:
1) Don't rely that heavely on 'paperwork'. (mostly because they are smaller tribal cultures, not a country with millions)
2) Have grown their legal structures with polygamy in mind. They also don't allow a woman to marry multiple men - not possible in the US - and simplify most problems by defining the woman as owned by the man.

There have been several groups that practiced polygamy in the US. The prime example of cours is the Church of Latter-day Saints. The supprossion of the LDS was what lead to the bigamy laws in the US.

Polygamy may be a new idea in Europe and America, but this practice has been going on for centuries in Asia. Polygamy has now been outlawed in the Chinese, Korean and Japanese cultures (even the Emperor of Japan can't keep concubines anymore), and so the West retracting to the barbaric and unfair principle of polygamy is a step backwards from civilisation.

If you want to get technical, polygamy is perfectly legal, it simply isn't legally recognized.

Legal recognition would not be a simple matter of extending the marriage laws, as they are specifically written to apply to two people. They don't even make sense in the context of a polygamous arrangement.

As such, an entirely different arrangement would be necessary for its recognition. If you can demonstrate a good reason that the government needs to recnognize such unions, you may be able to get that going. Of course, it could most likely be accomplished by having the persons in question incorporate themselves.

It's not legal under state or federal* bigamy statutes in the US.

Examples:
http://www3.state.id.us/idstat/TOC/18011KTOC.html
Every person having a husband or wife living,
who marries any other person, except in the cases specified in the next
section, is guilty of bigamy.

Bigamy is punishable by fine not exceeding $2,000 and by imprisonment in the state prison not exceeding three (3) years.

Man, this whole 'two people getting married' thing is insane... you'd have to worry about divorce, insurance companies would have to ...

...Yeah, I think you get it.

Life would also be easier for the court system if you weren't allowed to sue.

But our rights are worth defending, even if that means defending them in court during a divorce.

Now that gay marriages are becoming legalised... what do you think about polygamy?

Slippery slopes get me hot.

I'm not handling the paperwork.

Though divorce lawyers will have orgasams of joy over this one. :D Just think of the buttloads of cash they'll earn!

People can't handle normal marrages, what makes you think allowing this will make things better?

As long as it's two (or more) concenting adults... the only problem being that I worry that the one taking multi spouces may be dominating and forcing it against reservations of the other(s), which is why I'm iffy on keeping it in the family as well.

Still, I think any man who wants more that one wife needs to have his head examined, I get into enough trouble with my fiancee as is, I don't need TWO people ganging up on me to tell me to stop playing on the computer. ;)

I also think that, if the involved parties truly believed in what they were doing and weren't coerced or pressured, the rate of divorce would probably be the same if not lowered. If two people are having a disagreement, they can each look to the 3rd or 4th to mediate. In a polygamous relationship you have more than 2 people with just a much emotional, mental, and material influence. I think it would level the playing field.


Actually being one of the people crazy enough to be in a polygamous relationship (though no one's married., let's not break any laws now), this is completely true. When two people are arguing, it's great to have another person to step in and help sort out the unholy mess of it all. As for the (probably much lower) divorce rate; the person who brought up the viewing it as two parties still probably has the best shot at it that I've read. And a hearty thank you to everyone here being so accepting of alternate lifestyles.

I think me might as well legalise Cousin Marriage* and marry your Animals** and Younguns***
*Georgia(I know its not true but eh)
**India
***Rumania

Dude, cousin marriage already is legal here. :p

Well, I personally am all for polygamy/multiple person marriage.

There's a great example of 9 people (4 men, 5 women) being "married" to each other in the novel Friday by Robert A. Heinlein.

The details are too numerous to go into, but it is sufficient to say that the bases were pretty much covered...although you'd have a tough time keeping the lawyers out of anything like this in the real world.

The principle reason for having a family is to support any children that are a part of that family. Three (or four, or 27) people can do this better than two...

...provided they don't all go nuts and each have kids all at the same time.

15 sets of twins! :eek:

Dude, cousin marriage already is legal here. :p
Really cool next ill be pushing for Brother Sister relationships! ;)
INCESTUAL FAMILY TREE
()
()
()
()
()
()
()

Personally, I think that marriage should stay between the couple and the religious institution. For those of you who want a simple explanation, marriage is merely another case of government sticking its nose into our bedrooms. I would propose a different type of legal union with the same state and federal benefits as a marriage. Either that or abolish marriage altogether and stick with civil unions. Marriage used to be a states-only affair, and no state had to recognize marriages from another state (I still think that's the case today). Since I can't have my ideal society, I remain in pretty firm support of gay marriage.

That I understand... However...


As for polygamy, I oppose that on a moral basis. Before you start arguing that morals are individual, ask yourself why aren't you hacking anyone's account right now, or replying to people's posts with flames? More so, why are you following NS and Jolt's ToS? If you knew what you were doing, you could easily get away with any violation. Back to the polygamy issue, states have the right to protect public health, safety, and morals. Many of the controversial issues are controversial not because people see them as an equal rights issue, but an ethical issue, and turn to the state representatives to debate it.

That is a load of contradictory crap. Sorry. You're argument is a large sophistry. Based more upon emotion rather than reason.

What does me not violating the rights of others, or the regulations of a particular private site, have to do with polygamy? This entire statement violates and contradicts your first... If you think the "states have the right to protect..... morals" then you believe the states can supress ANY freedom for sake of moral order. Morality does not belong in politics, ETHICS however do (if you want to understand the difference, spend some time studying Aristotle and Plato). And an equal rights ISSUE, is an ETHICS issue.... So you can't divorce the concepts to pit them against one another... EQUALITY of rights, being a foundational principle of our nation, is thus an aspect of our ETHICAL considerations in law and operation. Morality, is not ethics.... Ethics are procudures conduced in reason, morality is an invididual, and oftentime unreasonable thing. I'm morally opposed to gay-marrage, however because of my Ethics, I support the legalization and mandation of such; though, much like you, I would rather the government butt out, and just leave marriage in the realm of contract law... However, if you place it in the hands of religious institutions, and/or contract law; then polygamy becomes just as legal... Which is a good thing, for some who practice polygamy. If it's out of government hands, and lays in the realm of freedoms of the people, then it's out of government hands.... You can't have both, my little hypocritical friend.

I'd suggest the goverment should get out of the business of people's personal relationships all together. That or I should be allowed to marry myself. It's time for Single Persons' Rights.

I don't think it's possible to be in love with more than one person. If you love someone you put that person before everything and everyone else. You cant be in love with two (or more) people equally because it would contradict the very definition of love. The point is of course that you shuldn't marry someone unless you are in love with them, therefore shouldn't marry more than one person.

Commitment is the most important thing in a marriage.

Very true, but are you trying to say that people practicing polygamy could not manage that level of commitment to their partners?

I would say that people manages to live in polygamous relationships show -more- commitment than monogamous couples... because they're commitet to not one person, but two or more!

Well, i personally think its immoral.....it cheapens love I think. I believe people should be allowed to marry regardless of race, ethnics, height, weight, wtf ever but when you get one person marrying multiple women or men, it cheapens the concept of love and marriage. I know same was said for allowing different races to marry and same being said for same sex marriage now but those are different in that they can't help who they are. This.....this is just another form of gluttony to me and it makes me sick.

So... all the people who are truely polyamorous and is deeply and devotedly in love with two partners at the same time can help it?
Then I guess gay people can help their deep and devoted love to another member of their gender...

the full faith and credit clause of the constitution says that other states must respect one states laws. meaning if you marry another man in massachussetts, your married in whatever state you live in, even if gay marriage is illegal. this is the logic behind the president supporting a constitutional ammendment banning gay marriage (actually he just wanted support from the christian right)

Then I guess you haven't Heard of the Defense of Marriage Act of the 1990s passed under the Clinton Administration? I know precisely where to find it if you don't know what it says.

Then I guess you haven't Heard of the Defense of Marriage Act of the 1990s passed under the Clinton Administration? I know precisely where to find it if you don't know what it says.

That could be contested under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, as well as that of faith and credit clause.

I'm sorry, but when it comes to the Constitution; all "acts" made in legislation by congress, are inferior. All it takes is a case of denial in acceptance by one state, under that of another; to contest the legality of that "Act" under Constitutional Law by the judiciary.

Every single state law, state constitution, state legislature, federal law, federal legislature, and officer; is subservient and inferior to the United States Constitution.

I don't think it's possible to be in love with more than one person. If you love someone you put that person before everything and everyone else. You cant be in love with two (or more) people equally because it would contradict the very definition of love.

Only if your definition of being in love is "putting a single person before everything and everyone else" - which is both unhealthy and seldom lasting longer than the rush of fenylethylamine. If you use a definition based on "wanting to share the rest of your life with he other" this problem is gone.

The point is of course that you shuldn't marry someone unless you are in love with them
Says who ? A lot of marriages are not based on love, but on for instance economic reasons, a desire for companionship, a pregnancy etc. If they turn out to be stable and everyone is happy.. why would they be wrong ?
And aside, since being in love often is something that does not last, I'd prefer people to wait until they are certain they really love eachother, instead of being *in* love.

That could be contested under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, as well as that of faith and credit clause.

It was and held up.

I'm sorry, but when it comes to the Constitution; all "acts" made in legislation by congress, are inferior. All it takes is a case of denial in acceptance by one state, under that of another; to contest the legality of that "Act" under Constitutional Law by the judiciary.

I know full well what the constitution says thank you.

Every single state law, state constitution, state legislature, federal law, federal legislature, and officer; is subservient and inferior to the United States Constitution.

They are NOT repeat the word NOT denying them the right to be together. Most states are leaving open the right to Civil Unions. Therefore, the Constitution is not being violated.

It was and held up.



I know full well what the constitution says thank you.



They are NOT repeat the word NOT denying them the right to be together. Most states are leaving open the right to Civil Unions. Therefore, the Constitution is not being violated.

What about the states that are passing man-woman only ammendments to their state constitution? That will be challenged, it will be back in court. I have no prediction on the result.

In Britain gay couples are getting a marriage like thing where they get all the rights of a married couple and can share finances etc

Nobodys even batted an eyelid about it

What about the states that are passing man-woman only ammendments to their state constitution? That will be challenged, it will be back in court. I have no prediction on the result.

What they are doing is defining MARRIAGE as one man one woman. Most states are doing this. I have no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is those few states that have decided to not only ban gay marriage but also civil unions. Those I do NOT agree with.

I'm all for Civil Unions. I am not for Gay Marriage.

I'm all for Civil Unions. I am not for Gay Marriage.

Question: what is the difference between a civil union and marriage ?

Question: what is the difference between a civil union and marriage ?

Depending on who you ask, none. However, I know that some states want to limit benefits for Civil Unions. Meaning that they can have certian benefits but not all of them.

That goes to the other portion of this debate. Frankly, I don't care if they want to live together. That's fine. If they want to commit to eachother, also fine. Marry? No. A civil union? Yes.

Marriage to me is one man to one woman. That is my definition of marriage and that is how the federal government defines marriage as well.

Depending on who you ask, none. However, I know that some states want to limit benefits for Civil Unions. Meaning that they can have certian benefits but not all of them.
That goes to the other portion of this debate. Frankly, I don't care if they want to live together. That's fine. If they want to commit to eachother, also fine. Marry? No. A civil union? Yes.

But if such restrictions are not implemented, would having two names for things that are essentially the same not be a waste of resources ? Redesigning all types of forms to mention both "civil union" and "marriage". Laws that need to be rewritten to incorporate them both. 50 year old signs at the zoo stating that married couples get a discount that need to be replaced.. et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. What purpose would it serve ?

Question 2: if a couple is married by a priest in a church, without the involvement of a state official, are they also married for the state in the USA ?

But if such restrictions are not implemented, would having two names for things that are essentially the same not be a waste of resources ? Redesigning all types of forms to mention both "civil union" and "marriage". Laws that need to be rewritten to incorporate them both. 50 year old signs at the zoo stating that married couples get a discount that need to be replaced.. et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. What purpose would it serve ?

You'll have to ask the real politicians that. I'm not a real politician yet. :D

Question 2: if a couple is married by a priest in a church, without the involvement of a state official, are they also married for the state in the USA ?

"By the authority invested by me by the church and by the state of {insert State} I now pronounce u husband and wife." Yes they are.

The problem with poligamy is that one person ends up having so much power over the others. A man marrying several women, or a woman marrying several men, causes the sigle person to have many choices over who they want at the moment but gives the many but one choice. Perhaps I'm wrong but it seems like the sigle person would always be without responsability since he has much leeway while the others are trapped in a monogamou relationship.

It just seems too much like a one way street to me where people will end up getting hurt emotionally.

I don't have any problem with polygamy, but I would find it a bit offensive if it were only legalized for men who wished to have multiple wives.

It was and held up.

Yep, unfortuneately... It shouldn't have... but it was.

It's a clear violation of full faith and credit. I could actually care less what you traitors think about it.


I know full well what the constitution says thank you.

Yep, you just don't give a damn about it.


They are NOT repeat the word NOT denying them the right to be together. Most states are leaving open the right to Civil Unions. Therefore, the Constitution is not being violated.

Gay marriage is inevitable... And the overturning of the DOM is inevitable.

Why? Because its the only "American" thing to do.

Yep, unfortuneately... It shouldn't have... but it was.

It's a clear violation of full faith and credit. I could actually care less what you traitors think about it.

1. I'm glad it was held up and 2. don't ever call me a traitor ever again.

Yep, you just don't give a damn about it.

Oh I give a damn. I just happen to agree with the decision. Sorry for having an opposite view point.

Gay marriage is inevitable... And the overturning of the DOM is inevitable.

Actually, the people of this country don't want gay marriage. The majority of the country approves of Civil Unions. Civil Unions are inevitable. The only way Gay Marriage will be inevitable is if the federal courts get involved and that goes against everything the liberals have been preaching.

Why? Because its the only "American" thing to do.

Civil Unions is the American thing to do since that is what the people support. They don't support gay marriage.

1. I'm glad it was held up and 2. don't ever call me a traitor ever again.



Oh I give a damn. I just happen to agree with the decision. Sorry for having an opposite view point.



Actually, the people of this country don't want gay marriage. The majority of the country approves of Civil Unions. Civil Unions are inevitable. The only way Gay Marriage will be inevitable is if the federal courts get involved and that goes against everything the liberals have been preaching.



Civil Unions is the American thing to do since that is what the people support. They don't support gay marriage.
From what I understand, this isn't a gay marriage thread, it's a polygamy thread.

Civil Unions is the American thing to do since that is what the people support. They don't support gay marriage.

You are confusing the USA with a democracy ;)

From what I understand, this isn't a gay marriage thread, it's a polygamy thread.

And I asked the question how many states have actually legalized Gay Marriage. The answer? One and that was by... (Drum roll please) Judicial Means.

VT and CT have legalized Civil Unions. Other states are moving in that direction and I applaud. Only a couple our outlawing Civil Unions and that I don't applaud.

It goes with the title of this thread. "Now that Gay Marriages are becoming legalized what do you think about Polygamy"

The only problem is that they are NOT becoming legalized.

You are confusing the USA with a democracy ;)

The US is a democracy, Well... A democratic Republic at any rate! LOL

And I asked the question how many states have actually legalized Gay Marriage. The answer? One and that was by... (Drum roll please) Judicial Means.

VT and CT have legalized Civil Unions. Other states are moving in that direction and I applaud. Only a couple our outlawing Civil Unions and that I don't applaud.

It goes with the title of this thread. "Now that Gay Marriages are becoming legalized what do you think about Polygamy"

The only problem is that they are NOT becoming legalized.
True, only one state has legalized gay marriage, and that happened two years ago, but many states are seriously considering it. I think that within 10 years, most if not all of the states in the country will have it legalized.

True, only one state has legalized gay marriage, and that happened two years ago, but many states are seriously considering it. I think that within 10 years, most if not all of the states in the country will have it legalized.

You have a slight error here. Many states have already passed constitutional amendments banning gay marriage and defining marriage as one man and one woman.

The only thing that states are considering is Civil Unions.

I was just pointing out that the title of the thread is wrong in that Gay Marriage IS NOT becoming legalized.

You have a slight error here. Many states have already passed constitutional amendments banning gay marriage and defining marriage as one man and one woman.

The only thing that states are considering is Civil Unions.

I was just pointing out that the title of the thread is wrong in that Gay Marriage IS NOT becoming legalized.
Shh... allow me to live in denial; it's fun. :p

Shh... allow me to live in denial; it's fun. :p

Ok I'll let ya live in denial :D

Is there a group working for legal polygamy? It would be fine be me if a group wanted to marry, but I thought polygamy was just a shock issue for the conservatives to show the "slippery slope" of legalizing gay marriage.

Is there a group working for legal polygamy? It would be fine be me if a group wanted to marry, but I thought polygamy was just a shock issue for the conservatives to show the "slippery slope" of legalizing gay marriage.

I wouldn't be surprised if there is a group working towards this goal.

Not gonna happen in amreica you fags

Not gonna happen in amreica you fags

Its people like this that give the rest of us a bad name.

Its people like this that give the rest of us a bad name.
Don't you mean naem? :p

Don't you mean naem? :p

LOL! I was just thinking that but then again, I try to spell everything correctly and use proper punctuation!

Gay marriages should NOT be legal. Poligamy shouldnt even be considered.
What kind of sick people are we to even consider these things? Have we lost all morals entirely? I'm sorry but like it or not, life is not based on "if it feels good do it".

The Redeemer']Gay marriages should NOT be legal. Poligamy shouldnt even be considered.
What kind of sick people are we to even consider these things? Have we lost all morals entirely? I'm sorry but like it or not, life is not based on "if it feels good do it".
So who’s morals are we going to choose to enforce? My morals say that consenting adults should be able to be with whomever they please (providing consenting adult)
What makes your morals better then mine?

The Redeemer']Gay marriages should NOT be legal. Poligamy shouldnt even be considered.
What kind of sick people are we to even consider these things? Have we lost all morals entirely? I'm sorry but like it or not, life is not based on "if it feels good do it".

really odd opinion there. gay marriages shouldn't be legal, i agree, but polygamy should be legal.

really odd opinion there. gay marriages shouldn't be legal, i agree, but polygamy should be legal.

Why should Polygamy be legal but not Gay Marriage?

Why should Polygamy be legal but not Gay Marriage?

'cause polygamy's natural.

EDIT: i personnally wouldn't want to be married to more than one person, but i think it should be allowed since it is natural.

'cause polygamy's natural.

EDIT: i personnally wouldn't want to be married to more than one person, but i think it should be allowed since it is natural.

WHy is polygamy natural and how is it natural?

WHy is polygamy natural and how is it natural?

Because it happens in nature I assume (as does homosexuality for that matter). Most animals in fact are not monogamous, especially if you count all the insects with their queenhive structures. But also in mammals polygamy is quite common.

For humans one can ask the question: why would being monogamous be an advantage ?

Gay people are sick. They should be locked up in a place where they can do no further harm to decent society.

huhuhuhahahahahahihihihihihi

Not gonna happen in amreica you fags
Draconis Federation, forumbanned for three days for flamebaiting. If you can't keep the invective out of your gay-bashing posts (yes, I deleted others elsewhere), your roleplay buddies are just going to have to live without you for a while.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Forum Moderator
The One-Stop Rules Shop (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=416023)

really odd opinion there. gay marriages shouldn't be legal, i agree, but polygamy should be legal.
Oh, yes. The Redeemer has a really odd opinion. :rolleyes:

I have a few questions.
One, if marriage is idealy a religious institution that why is it that non-religious people are married all of the time? And why is it that some religious marriages end in divorce, if the circumstances are so ideal and all.
Also, why is it not possible to love more than one person? Anyone who has family generally will love more than one of them. Maybe that's an assumption that I am making based on personal experience, but so be it.
Finally why are folks so against gay marriage, but not civil unions? The last time I checked no person invented, created, or owned a patent on marriage. This need for people to take personal insult by the desires and wishes for consenting adults is what is shocking to me.
I say that folks who are against people finding someone(s) that they could actually spend the rest of their lives with need to just get over themselves. If that person or people is not sitting in your lap, it's really none of your business. I guess it's typical of people to assume that because they believe in a thing, everyone else should also. It's also pretty sad. :(