NationStates Jolt Archive

Inspired from the adultery thread...Should polygamy be legal? I think, yes, the government has no rights to restrict the number of partners that one can marry with. So, after all participants (I will not say husband and wife due to the fact that homosexual marriage is legal in Canada and this thread isnt limited to heterosexual marriage in scope) in a marriage give consent with their free will, any participant should be able to marry again.

You may ask, what's the point of getting married in the first place then? Legal protections for starters? Or maybe someone wants to merge his/her life with only and only two people? Large families can be fun. Who knows? The point is government has no right to restrict this. Also note that, by marriage, I mean legal marriage. Churches and religious institutions may oppose and dont have to perform this.

Inspired from the adultery thread...Should polygamy be legal? I think, yes, the government has no rights to restrict the number of partners that one can marry with. So, after all participants (I will not say husband and wife due to the fact that homosexual marriage is legal in Canada and this thread isnt limited to heterosexual marriage in scope) in a marriage give consent with their free will, any participant should be able to marry again.

You may ask, what's the point of getting married in the first place then? Legal protections for starters? Or maybe someone wants to merge his/her life with only and only two people? Large families can be fun. Who knows? The point is government has no right to restrict this. Also note that, by marriage, I mean legal marriage. Churches and religious institutions may oppose and dont have to perform this.

Who cares, really? I doubt you'd see many polygamous marriages if it was legal, but hell, let them marry their rosebushes if it makes them happy. I don't give a shit.

Who cares, really? I doubt you'd see many polygamous marriages if it was legal, but hell, let them marry their rosebushes if it makes them happy. I don't give a shit.

I may care if and when I want to marry in distant future.

Should it? Yes.

Why? Because one person's morality is not another's.

'The government has no place in the bedrooms of the nation,' are the wise words uttered by late/former Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau when he saw to making homosexuality legal.

If all the parties involved consented to the union, there should be no problem.

Monogamy is a human concept.

We are able to love more than one person, or we may love just one person. Humans are unique creatures. We're all different.

If people are happy with many partners then let them. They don't bother me and I don't bother them.

No.

Aren't there more women than men? So it only makes sense.

As long as it's being monitored to avoid the situation that was seen down with that Mormon splinter group.

Personally though, no. Only a madman wants to deal with more than ONE wife. ;)

Why not? Polygamy, polygyny, polyandry, group marriage - if it works, promotes the general benefit of all concerned and doesn't contribute to social instability I'm all for it.

Inspired from the adultery thread...Should polygamy be legal? I think, yes, the government has no rights to restrict the number of partners that one can marry with. So, after all participants (I will not say husband and wife due to the fact that homosexual marriage is legal in Canada and this thread isnt limited to heterosexual marriage in scope) in a marriage give consent with their free will, any participant should be able to marry again.


Polyandry should also be legal, since you're on the topic (more or less).

Personally though, no. Only a madman wants to deal with more than ONE wife. ;)

What if they annoyed each other instead of you, and went shoe shopping together?

It could work out very well, I just don't think that you are seeing the big picture.

It should be legal everywhere except Utah, just to piss them off.

:D

in my opinion, a person should be allowed only one marriage at a time. the number of people IN that marriage should be up to the participants but every member must consent to being married to every other member.

so if the nasty old man wants to take a 16th wife, a pretty little 18 year old (only adults in polygamous marriages) every other wife has veto power. if the nasty old man dies, all the women are still married to each other. all the children are equally the children of every legal member of the marriage. everyone has the same legal rights and responsibilities to each other.

as long as it works this way, its fine by me.

:D What if they annoyed each other instead of you, and went shoe shopping together?

It could work out very well, I just don't think that you are seeing the big picture.
I'm seeing the big picture of more than one wife going shoe shopping and my empty wallet. ;)

I highly recomend Mark Twain's chapter on meeting Brigham Young in Roughing It for a good take on that problem. :D

:D
I'm seeing the big picture of more than one wife going shoe shopping and my empty wallet. ;)

I highly recomend Mark Twain's chapter on meeting Brigham Young in Roughing It for a good take on that problem. :D

Obviously they should both have high paying jobs, allowing us to sit at home and play video games all day.

I don't see the downside. This could be the new paradigm.

Of course it should be legal.

Now, how it would be legally recognized is another issue. The current laws under which marriage is recognized are designed for two people. They would be unwieldy and impossible to apply in a multiple marriage situation. However, a legal recognition patterned largely after incorporation would work quite well for polygamous relationships. All assets could be merged and rules could be drawn up for how decisions are made within the family unit (to take the place of next-of-kinship and the like).

Being the extreme libertarian I am, I believe the government should stay out of this kind of business and stick to building roads and raising armies. So yes, polygamy should be legal.

Of course it should be legal.

Now, how it would be legally recognized is another issue. The current laws under which marriage is recognized are designed for two people. They would be unwieldy and impossible to apply in a multiple marriage situation. However, a legal recognition patterned largely after incorporation would work quite well for polygamous relationships. All assets could be merged and rules could be drawn up for how decisions are made within the family unit (to take the place of next-of-kinship and the like).

Rather like the setup in Heinlein's Friday. It was an economic structure informed by emotion and logic.

I don't know why it shouldn't be.

sure as long as the marriage is mutual....both want it then hey people should be allowed to married as many people as they want....i really could care less

Inspired from the adultery thread...Should polygamy be legal? I think, yes, the government has no rights to restrict the number of partners that one can marry with. So, after all participants (I will not say husband and wife due to the fact that homosexual marriage is legal in Canada and this thread isnt limited to heterosexual marriage in scope) in a marriage give consent with their free will, any participant should be able to marry again.

You may ask, what's the point of getting married in the first place then? Legal protections for starters? Or maybe someone wants to merge his/her life with only and only two people? Large families can be fun. Who knows? The point is government has no right to restrict this. Also note that, by marriage, I mean legal marriage. Churches and religious institutions may oppose and dont have to perform this.

Yes. As should Polyandry. As long as the people involved are all consenting adults or are taught that there are other alternatives, such as Monogamy/andry.

Polygamy should be legal. The government has no business stepping into the relationships of consenting adults.

Yes. As should Polyandry. As long as the people involved are all consenting adults or are taught that there are other alternatives, such as Monogamy/andry.

lol. I think people can figure that one out themselves.

lol. I think people can figure that one out themselves.

Not if you're brought up by a group of people who believe that polygamy and polyandry are the only way, and therefore teach their children this.

Indoctrination.

I think a better question would be "Why shouldn't polygamy be legal". Then it'll force the bigots to come up with reasons of their own, rather than picking at the merits in favour of legalisation of freedom of choice.

No, but thats just my opinoin. Generally I don't care, as long as they don't pressure me into doing it.

Not if you're brought up by a group of people who believe that polygamy and polyandry are the only way, and therefore teach their children this.

Indoctrination.

People aren't that stupid. If people in the west (where monogamy is obviously the cultural norm) can see nothing wrong with an alternative in polygamy - it can happen vice-versa too.

Yes, it should.

I think it should.

As long as it's consentual, and not used as a way to exploit women (see: Mormonism), I'm cool with it.

Wow, it's time for this thread again already?

As I stated in another thread where this came up tangentially: As long as everyone involved is a consenting adult I don't care if you marry 6 men, 3 women, 8 transsexuals, and an artificially intelligent toaster. http://crapolainc.co.uk/talkie/index.php

<edit: Note that the numbers may differ from the last time I said this . . .)

no form of personal relationship "should" ever be unlawful, nor for that matter any bussiness of any government.

not just polygamy, but polygeny, polyamoury, intrest group families, linear families, casual relationships between hermits, nonsentients, nontangables, and immaginaries, and any other kind of committed relationships immaginable or unimmaginable.

=^^=
.../\...

Are we just talking multiple wifes or multiple husbands?
I'm all for multiple husbands :D

i'm all for as few or as many of both as is mutualy aggreable to all parties actualy and personaly involved.

=^^=
.../\...

The government has no place in the bedroom.

Unless it's Jennifer Government..

I may care if and when I want to marry in distant future.

So? Unless you're going to marry your rosebushes, it really has nothing to do with your specific situation.

I think a better question would be "Why shouldn't polygamy be legal". Then it'll force the bigots to come up with reasons of their own, rather than picking at the merits in favour of legalisation of freedom of choice.

Bigots? I'm actually on the fence about it myself because I do believe in the intangible concept called "the sanctity of marriage"; I don't support gay or lesbian marriage, for instance, but I have gay and lesbian friends who could tell you that I'm not a homophobe. There's a reason for you.

Bigots? I'm actually on the fence about it myself because I do believe in the intangible concept called "the sanctity of marriage"; I don't support gay or lesbian marriage, for instance, but I have gay and lesbian friends who could tell you that I'm not a homophobe. There's a reason for you.

See, that's something I still don't understand.
I assume that by the "sanctity of marriage", you refer to the religious ceremonies. I don't believe that you'd consider the civil bit (the legally binding bit) as sacrosanct. Registry offices don't have much holiness about them as such.
So, why would you claim that registry offices allowing civil marriages between more than two adults or between same-sex couples would infrigne in the least on whatever is going on in your church?

Are we just talking multiple wifes or multiple husbands?
I'm all for multiple husbands :D

you have multiple husbands and they have multiple wifes that would drive someone nuts trying to work that out

so what's supposed to be un-"sanctity" of ANY "commited" relationship???

=^^=
.../\...

No. There is too great a risk of leading to the destruction of all of feminism's gains. The only societies with polygamy are inegalitarian ones.

It would also require a complete overhaul of all marriage and divorce laws.

Should it? Yes.

Why? Because one person's morality is not another's.

'The government has no place in the bedrooms of the nation,' are the wise words uttered by late/former Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau when he saw to making homosexuality legal.
That's why polyamory should be legal.

What type of legal?

Because, monogamous marriages get tax breaks and stuff (for some reason).

I certainly wouldn't mind recognising it, but the law needs to be in place first, either by removing tax breaks for the monogamous or making a very complicated tax break thing for the polygamous (it would become complicated one way or another, incl. the fact that some people may want to try to go for tax evasion).

What type of legal?

Because, monogamous marriages get tax breaks and stuff (for some reason).

I certainly wouldn't mind recognising it, but the law needs to be in place first, either by removing tax breaks for the monogamous or making a very complicated tax break thing for the polygamous (it would become complicated one way or another, incl. the fact that some people may want to try to go for tax evasion).

so make all taxes sales taxes and user fees thus eliminating the problem by eliminating income tax entirely and encouraging alternatives to capitolism at the same time.

sounds like a silly excuse to keep governments nose in the bedroom anyway.

i'll aggree that MANY laws need to be chainged, and NOT to further favor corporatocracy either.

=^^=
.../\...

Merely refusing to recognise additional marriages won't do anything to stop them I know, but they really aren't good for society. Most of the time, it will be a man claiming additional spouses, not a woman, and done on a large scale this will result in a large excess of unmarried and dissatisfied men. And seeing the way parts of rural India and China are on the brink of collapse due to infanticide and the resulting overabundance of men, this is not a good at all.

No, but thats just my opinoin. Generally I don't care, as long as they don't pressure me into doing it.

OK. I can respect your opinion and not force you to take part in a polygamous (or polyandrous) marriage - the same way I don't force you to drink cheap Russian wine. But why, because you don't want to do it, should it be illegal?

It may be only your opinion, but in saying that it should not be legal, which was the question, you are wanting to force your opinion on others who may well disagree with you. Are they not entitled to their opinion too?

There is a very strange fear that is widespread here (in Brazil) that anything that is legal will be compulsory. It appears to me that you have made this same error.

Aren't there more women than men? So it only makes sense.

Actually that's just because women live longer. For every 100 baby girls, 104 baby boys are born. Men outnumber women up until the age of 50 or 60 or so, at which point many of them have died.

Of course, the OP didn't limit this to men marrying multiple women...

Bigots? I'm actually on the fence about it myself because I do believe in the intangible concept called "the sanctity of marriage"; I don't support gay or lesbian marriage, for instance, but I have gay and lesbian friends who could tell you that I'm not a homophobe. There's a reason for you.

I beg to differ with them. There is no other reason to oppose gay marriage.

Inspired from the adultery thread...Should polygamy be legal? I think, yes, the government has no rights to restrict the number of partners that one can marry with. So, after all participants (I will not say husband and wife due to the fact that homosexual marriage is legal in Canada and this thread isnt limited to heterosexual marriage in scope) in a marriage give consent with their free will, any participant should be able to marry again.

You may ask, what's the point of getting married in the first place then? Legal protections for starters? Or maybe someone wants to merge his/her life with only and only two people? Large families can be fun. Who knows? The point is government has no right to restrict this. Also note that, by marriage, I mean legal marriage. Churches and religious institutions may oppose and dont have to perform this.

Well, you could get rid of the idea of state marriage, and be done with it as a civil function altogether.

Then, you could say that if people wanted to be partners, they could either form a limited liability corporation, or some other form of corporation, and have as many people in the corporation as they liked.

No. I believe polygamy is inherently sexist.

So does that mean somewone could marry multiple people then collect multiple alimonies?

I've heard from many good sources that it completely fuck up the tax system, so I'm not so sure.

No.

why not?

Meh, I don't care who other people want to marry, unless they want me involved.

Meh, I don't care who other people want to marry, unless they want me involved.

Well, I wouldn't marry you. You're obviously not some rich person with stuff I could have after the divorce.

Polygamy sounds like a tax dodge. Marry a bunch of spouses, declare a bunch of dependents, you're set!

Seriously though, I wouldn't have a problem with it, if consenting adults want to have their vows to include multiple partners than that is certainly their choice.

Polygamy sounds like a tax dodge. Marry a bunch of spouses, declare a bunch of dependents, you're set!

Seriously though, I wouldn't have a problem with it, if consenting adults want to have their vows to include multiple partners than that is certainly their choice.

If a man honestly thinks he can argue with 10 women, well, he deserves whatever happens to him...

I beg to differ with them. There is no other reason to oppose gay marriage.

Sidetrack
That's a pretty narrow-minded thing to say.
/Sidetrack

Well, I wouldn't marry you. You're obviously not some rich person with stuff I could have after the divorce.

*hides 42" plasma TV in the hangar with the Lear Jet*

If a man honestly thinks he can argue with 10 women, well, he deserves whatever happens to him...

:D

Though to be fair a woman could marry multiple men though I can't think of many guys (who aren't assholes anyway) who would be willing to share a woman so this would probably be more rare. :p

why not?

Because I believe in monogomy.

Because I believe in monogomy.

Well then you enjoy your monogamy. No need to force everyone else to go along with you.

I think what I would support is group marriage--but it has to truly be a group decision. Any single member can get out whenever he or she wishes, but for someone to join, everyone has to agree. Full equality. When you join, you marry the group, not just one member of the group.

Well then you enjoy your monogamy. No need to force everyone else to go along with you.

But that's the American way.

Well then you enjoy your monogamy. No need to force everyone else to go along with you.

All I said was thatI do not believe that Polygamy should be legal. How am I forcing everyone else to go along with that? I'm not. Jeez.

Sidetrack
That's a pretty narrow-minded thing to say.
/Sidetrack

What's narrow minded is opposing gay marriage. Please, provide me with a reason that DOES NOT have its basis entirely in bigotry.

Why do I keep seeing "gamy/andry"?

All I said was thatI do not believe that Polygamy should be legal. How am I forcing everyone else to go along with that? I'm not. Jeez.

Aren't we forced to not have it if it's illegal? >_>

Why do I keep seeing "gamy/andry"?



Aren't we forced to not have it if it's illegal? >_>

Its already illegal however. I did not make it illegal. Do I want it to stay that way? Yes but I am indifferent to it. If it gets overturned, it gets overturned.

Why do I keep seeing "gamy/andry"?



Aren't we forced to not have it if it's illegal? >_>

I have a hard time following that fellow's logic from time to time.

All I said was thatI do not believe that Polygamy should be legal. How am I forcing everyone else to go along with that? I'm not. Jeez.

Believe it or not, law has the power of force. If something is illegal, a person is being forced either to not do it, or to be punished if they do. If you wish something to be illegal just because you wouldn't personally do it, you are forcing your own viewpoints on others.

Note that legality is the default in our law. Action has to be taken to make something illegal. "I didn't actually do it, but I think it should be that way," doesn't change the fact that you are in favor of forcing your viewpoint on others.

If you are "indifferent to it," then you don't care if it is legal or illegal - which would then fall to the default of law - that it would be legal.

Probably not. I'm not saying it's immoral or any crap like that, it's just that I don't see how it could be implemented pratically vis-a-vis our current legal system. At least gay marriage is still only about two people. But multiple parties? On each side? How would that work in terms of contracts, divorces, custody agreements, etc.? Not to mention the effect on the kids. What would it be like to be raised in a polygamous household, with multiple, equal parents? I don't see it happening any time soon.

Its already illegal however. I did not make it illegal. Do I want it to stay that way? Yes but I am indifferent to it. If it gets overturned, it gets overturned.

You're silly. Things start legal. It was made illegal. If you want it to stay illegal, you force others to abstain from it. If you're indifferent, you don't want it to stay illegal, you don't want anything in particular.

Probably not. I'm not saying it's immoral or any crap like that, it's just that I don't see how it could be implemented pratically vis-a-vis our current legal system.

Then we adjust the legal system. You know, with laws and shit?

Not to mention the effect on the kids. What would it be like to be raised in a polygamous household, with multiple, equal parents?

...you expect us to know?...Illegal, remember?

Probably not. I'm not saying it's immoral or any crap like that, it's just that I don't see how it could be implemented pratically vis-a-vis our current legal system. At least gay marriage is still only about two people. But multiple parties? On each side? How would that work in terms of contracts, divorces, custody agreements, etc.? Not to mention the effect on the kids. What would it be like to be raised in a polygamous household, with multiple, equal parents? I don't see it happening any time soon.

If it's a loving and caring household it really doesn't matter. The same argument has been made against gay marriage.

The kids will be fine as longs as they are living in a safe, loving, stable household.

No. There is too great a risk of leading to the destruction of all of feminism's gains. The only societies with polygamy are inegalitarian ones.

It would also require a complete overhaul of all marriage and divorce laws.


That's why polyamory should be legal.

By legalising polyamory, and not just the gender-slanted ones, you've given people the option.

People have the right to make their own choices in life.

IF people want multiple partners why should they be denied the right so long as there is consent on the part of everyone involved.

Just fifty years ago, interracial marriages were regarded the same way that homosexual and polyamrous marriages are today.

People said that letting blacks marry whites would be the end of the world...

We've taken away the racial and religious barriers and slowly the sexuality barriers are being beaten down, but that is still a fight going on today.

All I said was thatI do not believe that Polygamy should be legal. How am I forcing everyone else to go along with that? I'm not. Jeez.

You said you believe in monogamy. Legalising polygamy wouldn't affect monogamy in anyway.

Probably not. I'm not saying it's immoral or any crap like that, it's just that I don't see how it could be implemented pratically vis-a-vis our current legal system.

Actually, a modified version of the law regarding incorporation would work quite well.

At least gay marriage is still only about two people. But multiple parties? On each side? How would that work in terms of contracts, divorces, custody agreements, etc.?

Much like with a corporation, those entering the union would have to determine this at the outset.

Not to mention the effect on the kids. What would it be like to be raised in a polygamous household, with multiple, equal parents? I don't see it happening any time soon.

It would depend on the parents and how they approached it - just like any family situation does.

Then we adjust the legal system. You know, with laws and shit?
That'd be a pretty tall order. We'd have to legislate an entirely new branch of family law. There are so many permutations and combinations of possible polygamous relationships, and it'd be tough to fit it all in into a neat legal framework.

...you expect us to know?...Illegal, remember?

If it's a loving and caring household it really doesn't matter. The same argument has been made against gay marriage.

The kids will be fine as longs as they are living in a safe, loving, stable household.
I don't know... it's a completely different dynamic. It wouldn't affect a kid to have eight moms and one dad? Or three dads and six moms? I'm not saying it would be bad necessarily, just that we don't know what the consequences would be. Are there any developed countries where polygamy is legal?

That'd be a pretty tall order. We'd have to legislate an entirely new branch of family law. There are so many permutations and combinations of possible polygamous relationships, and it'd be tough to fit it all in into a neat legal framework.

*points to 'Demp'* Point handled, it seems.


I don't know... it's a completely different dynamic. It wouldn't affect a kid to have eight moms and one dad? Or three dads and six moms? I'm not saying it would be bad necessarily, just that we don't know what the consequences would be. Are there any developed countries where polygamy is legal?

*shrug* I'm a scientific sort of person, I experiment to find my unknowns.

Probably not. I'm not saying it's immoral or any crap like that, it's just that I don't see how it could be implemented pratically vis-a-vis our current legal system. At least gay marriage is still only about two people. But multiple parties? On each side? How would that work in terms of contracts, divorces, custody agreements, etc.? Not to mention the effect on the kids. What would it be like to be raised in a polygamous household, with multiple, equal parents? I don't see it happening any time soon.

Given the divorce rate, I dont think the children would be affected worse than the current system. Multiple marriages may also save troubled ones so children may be happier. I think it's definately more fun growing up in a bigger family, you have many more bro's you can play with.
About the legal side, they should just deal with it. I usually hate politicians so it'd be good to see them suffer with workload.

Well, you could get rid of the idea of state marriage, and be done with it as a civil function altogether.


Why?


Then, you could say that if people wanted to be partners, they could either form a limited liability corporation, or some other form of corporation, and have as many people in the corporation as they liked.

You do that if you want to. The point is that people should be able to do whatever they want unless they infringe on others' rights.

All I said was thatI do not believe that Polygamy should be legal. How am I forcing everyone else to go along with that? I'm not. Jeez.

making it illegal doesn't force others to follow it.:confused: You don't make any sense.

I say no because having more than 1 wife/husband will always cause problems. First there is the issue of neglection, what if you spend all your time with 1 and not the others. Love is not a thing to share thats why people should be just be happy with their 1 partner who should be your soulmate.

I say no because having more than 1 wife/husband will always cause problems. First there is the issue of neglection, what if you spend all your time with 1 and not the others. Love is not a thing to share thats why people should be just be happy with their 1 partner who should be your soulmate.

Wow, a real legitimate argument against polyandry/polygamy that mentions a real, true concern that stems beyond the issue of morality. I'm referring to the part I have bolded. That is a concern that is legitimate.

After all, people, even in friendship may seem to favour one person over another, and another friend may feel left out because of it.

Mind you, I still think it should be legal.

polyandry/polygamy
There it is again, what's up with that?
Wow, a real legitimate argument against polyandry/polygamy that mentions a real, true concern that stems beyond the issue of morality. I'm referring to the part I have bolded. That is a concern that is legitimate.

After all, people, even in friendship may seem to favour one person over another, and another friend may feel left out because of it.

Mind you, I still think it should be legal.

*shrug* It's not for everyone, polygamy. I imagine there are people who simply couldn't handle the situation.

Wow, a real legitimate argument against polyandry/polygamy that mentions a real, true concern that stems beyond the issue of morality. I'm referring to the part I have bolded. That is a concern that is legitimate.

After all, people, even in friendship may seem to favour one person over another, and another friend may feel left out because of it.

Mind you, I still think it should be legal.Heh, yeah, if possible neglect were a sufficient reason to outlaw polygamy, you'd also have to outlaw having more than one friend, for the same reason.

Inspired from the adultery thread...Should polygamy be legal? I think, yes, the government has no rights to restrict the number of partners that one can marry with. So, after all participants (I will not say husband and wife due to the fact that homosexual marriage is legal in Canada and this thread isnt limited to heterosexual marriage in scope) in a marriage give consent with their free will, any participant should be able to marry again.

You may ask, what's the point of getting married in the first place then? Legal protections for starters? Or maybe someone wants to merge his/her life with only and only two people? Large families can be fun. Who knows? The point is government has no right to restrict this. Also note that, by marriage, I mean legal marriage. Churches and religious institutions may oppose and dont have to perform this.

Only NS-polygamy. :p

Heh, yeah, if possible neglect were a sufficient reason to outlaw polygamy, you'd also have to outlaw having more than one friend, for the same reason.
Of course.

I was merely commenting about how it is a decent argument against the practice. I usually arguments that are about other issues.

And that's why you let your other partner keep a spare tire... ;)

I say no because having more than 1 wife/husband will always cause problems. First there is the issue of neglection, what if you spend all your time with 1 and not the others. Love is not a thing to share thats why people should be just be happy with their 1 partner who should be your soulmate.

So? Why does that have to be legislated? Not thinking it's a good lifestyle choice is one thing. Not letting anyone else choose that lifestyle is something else.

I'm highly against laws created to save people from themselves.

Traditional marriage is overrated. If two or more responsible, sane adults wish to live with each for life who am I to stop them?

All you need is more love baby!

There it is again, what's up with that?

Polyandry is more than one husband and polygamy is more than one wife.

Polyandry is more than one husband and polygamy is more than one wife.

No, polygyny is more than one wife. Polygyny, Polyandry, and group marriage are subsets of Polgamy.

yes

By legalising polyamory, and not just the gender-slanted ones, you've given people the option.
Polyamory is simply a group relationship, it doesn't require marriage. It would be backwards to criminalise that.

People have the right to make their own choices in life.
Government exists to protect people from damaging choices. Specifically, to protect the stong from the weak. Do you think people should have the right to choose to whip their children? How about the right to choose not to employ non-whites?

IF people want multiple partners why should they be denied the right so long as there is consent on the part of everyone involved.

Just fifty years ago, interracial marriages were regarded the same way that homosexual and polyamrous marriages are today.

People said that letting blacks marry whites would be the end of the world.
You didn't read my post at all did you?

We've taken away the racial and religious barriers and slowly the sexuality barriers are being beaten down, but that is still a fight going on today.
My reasons, as you have evidently failed to notice, are not about "this sexuality is immoral/evil", my overriding concern is the rights of women. They are always the losers in polygamy.

I support polyamory/gamy, provided that everyone consents. :)

Government exists to protect people from damaging choices. Specifically, to protect the stong from the weak. Do you think people should have the right to choose to whip their children? How about the right to choose not to employ non-whites?

If the government protected us from every single damaging choice, we'd live in a friggin' Nanny State, one of which we would regret because all of our rights would be taken because for every action there is an opposite or equal reaction, and for every action there is a consequence.

There will always be weak people, but if we always protect the weak, the the strong will complain of discrimination.

You cannot make everyone happy, but you can let everyone be equal.

People will always make damning choices.

We can make laws to protect people, but at the end of the day, there will be people who break those laws, and there will be those who take the law into their own hands when the government fails them.

No, the government can't protect us from everything; we're not children, we're adults and we have to learn to live with the consequences of our choices.

My reasons, as you have evidently failed to notice, are not about "this sexuality is immoral/evil", my overriding concern is the rights of women. They are always the losers in polygamy.

And men are the losers in polyandry.

People's basic rights only get overridden when they don't consent and they are deprived of the basic rights as humans.

For Everyone that says it shouldn't be legal to have multiple partners I just have one question: who is hurt by it?

For Everyone that says it shouldn't be legal to have multiple partners I just have one question: who is hurt by it?

jealousy and hard feelings would seem to be almost inevitable I would think.

Personally, as long as everyone is at least a consenting adult (and I would think 21 would be wiser then 18 in this case), I see nothing wrong with it in a legal sense.

But a divorce would be one hell of a mess unless every person in the marriage had specified shares, child custody could be a nightmare as well and we still have that potential problem with jealousy and everything that comes with it.

read the book "Friday" by Robert A. Heinlein for a good example of everything involved. The TV show "Big Love" on HBO would be a good example as well on the evils and the good of group marriages.

Some people have mentioned polyandry.

Technically, polygamy is more than one spouse.

More than one woman is polygyny.
More than one man is polyandry.

Saying that polygamy and polyandry should both be legal is redundant.

I'm a little bit wary of legalizing polygamy because certain cultures practice abusive polygyny. When the marriage starts to look like a harem, there is cause for concern.

I might like to be married to a man and a woman at the same time.


That said, I doubt it will ever because legal because that will imply social acceptance.

Personally though, no. Only a madman wants to deal with more than ONE wife. ;)

Amen!

In my opinion, polygamy is just asking for sexist, abusive, sex-crazed men to sleep with more than one woman and have an excuse. Of course not all marriages would be that way, but I'm seeing that as a very large, very real possibility.

Personally, I couldn't stand being married to a guy that I KNOW is sleeping with other women, and I can't beat the crap out of either of them for doing so.

So, in other words, I'm con. Too much of a risk for my fellow females. Heck, even for the males. Of course, we'd never hear about it. But eh.

I'm a little bit wary of legalizing polygamy because certain cultures practice abusive polygyny.

You can find a culture or subculture that practices an abusive form of just about any activity you name, thus making this a very poor argument.

You can find a culture or subculture that practices an abusive form of just about any activity you name, thus making this a very poor argument.

Exactly.

Personally though, no. Only a madman wants to deal with more than ONE wife. ;)And only a madman wouldn't want wives who like to sleep with each other as well.

Then again, I'd prefer a more mixed group. Couple of guys, couple of girls, lots and lots of loving.

Yes, but I'm sort of iffy on marriage in general. If everyone has multiple spouses, why get married.

Inspired from the adultery thread...Should polygamy be legal?thanks for the Thread+Poll..
This was needed to follow-up the adultery thread.
It was needed.. I wanted to do it.. but I was not able to stay on-line.

Yes, but I'm sort of iffy on marriage in general. If everyone has multiple spouses, why get married.

I say why get married anyway, regardless of the number of spouses.

I refuse.

And only a madman wouldn't want wives who like to sleep with each other as well.

Then again, I'd prefer a more mixed group. yeah.. I want some mixed races on my group.. I want to have at least one hot Indian girl.. :D :fluffle: :D :D

yeah.. I want some mixed races on my group.. I want to have a hot Indian girl. :D :fluffle: :D :D

:p

Brazilians. I want Filipinas and Brazilians. Mmmm.

Add a Nordic and Latina girl to that and we're golden.

Add a Nordic and Latina girl to that and we're golden.

Well Brazilians are latina. I'm not a huge fan of blondes, but I might make an exception just for the sake of variety.

But wait, there need to be some men in here too ya know.

:p

Brazilians. I want Filipinas and Brazilians. Mmmm.
I have your Brazileira (she is a carioca BTW).. I only need to find your Filipina.

Inspired from the adultery thread...Should polygamy be legal? I think, yes, the government has no rights to restrict the number of partners that one can marry with. So, after all participants (I will not say husband and wife due to the fact that homosexual marriage is legal in Canada and this thread isnt limited to heterosexual marriage in scope) in a marriage give consent with their free will, any participant should be able to marry again.

You may ask, what's the point of getting married in the first place then? Legal protections for starters? Or maybe someone wants to merge his/her life with only and only two people? Large families can be fun. Who knows? The point is government has no right to restrict this. Also note that, by marriage, I mean legal marriage. Churches and religious institutions may oppose and dont have to perform this.

Hell, I can't do everything one wife tells me......

I have your Brazileira (she is a carioca BTW).. I only need to find your Filipina.

Got one lined up in Vegas, and she comes with a very hung husband :)

:p

Brazilians. I want Filipinas and Brazilians. Mmmm.

Well, I guess my man and I are out. We're pasty white folk. =)

Well, I guess my man and I are out. We're pasty white folk. =)

Hehehehheehe, I know it's bad of me...then again, it's not like I don't make exceptions for the pasty white folk:)