NationStates Jolt Archive

The term polygamy (a Greek word meaning "the practice of multiple marriage") [...] can be defined as any "form of marriage in which a person [has] more than one spouse."

In social anthropology, polygamy is the practice of marriage to more than one spouse simultaneously. Historically, polygamy has been practiced as polygyny (one man having more than one wife), or as polyandry (one woman having more than one husband), or, less commonly as group marriage (husbands having many wives and those wives having many husbands). (See "Forms of Polygamy" below.) In contrast, monogamy is the practice of each person having only one spouse. Like monogamy, the term is often used in a de facto sense, applying regardless of whether the relationships are recognized by the state.
-- Wiki. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy

How do you feel about the notion of polygamy?

In what sense?

Honestly one wife is enough, if anyone can handle more than one..then kudos to them.

whatever people want to do with their lives is their own business.

If someone wants to have multiple partners their allowed to do that, but I don't see why government has to recognize it. For one thing, aren't their marriage benefits from the government? And can the government afford to pay those to people multiple times over, especially given the current deficite? And what about people having multiple marriages to manipulate the system in precisely such a manner?

Nothing wrong with it in itself, but has the potential for abuse.

I have no problem with it as long as nobody's forced.

How do I feel about it? Like this: LMAO

Why (and how) is your maritial situation my business at all? And why (and how) is mine your business?

If someone wants to have multiple partners their allowed to do that, but I don't see why government has to recognize it. For one thing, aren't their marriage benefits from the government? And can the government afford to pay those to people multiple times over, especially given the current deficite? And what about people having multiple marriages to manipulate the system in precisely such a manner?

May I ask what business government has in marriages? Why the marriage benefits, marriage penalties, marriage licenses, and all the other marriage/state entanglements? Marriage is a cultural/religious establishment that seems to predate all existing governments worldwide. Government ought have no authority whatsoever in saying who can marry whom or what benefits/penalties may be involved.

It's pretty beautiful that I'm getting match.com ads to this topic :D

May I ask what business government has in marriages? Why the marriage benefits, marriage penalties, marriage licenses, and all the other marriage/state entanglements? Marriage is a cultural/religious establishment that seems to predate all existing governments worldwide. Government ought have no authority whatsoever in saying who can marry whom or what benefits/penalties may be involved.

You make an interesting point. Perhaps the government should not give marriages any special recognition. But as long as they continue to, I don't see why things should be made worse by recognizing polygamy.

You make an interesting point. Perhaps the government should not give marriages any special recognition. But as long as they continue to, I don't see why things should be made worse by recognizing polygamy.

I have no personal objection to plural marriage. Seriously, it has a much longer history in US culture and ancestry than homosexual unions. Why all the hoopla over the latter and a continued objection to the former? the Mormons were once polygamist (and some are still), the Biblical patriarchs often had multiple wives, and it wouldn't surprise me to learn of plural marriage situations in the Native American tribes.

May I ask what business government has in marriages? Why the marriage benefits, marriage penalties, marriage licenses, and all the other marriage/state entanglements? Marriage is a cultural/religious establishment that seems to predate all existing governments worldwide. Government ought have no authority whatsoever in saying who can marry whom or what benefits/penalties may be involved.

Because the contract of marriage is necessary to allow for marriage to function. We typical organize into family units and it is to our benefit for the government to acknowledge them and allow them to work.

I have no personal objection to plural marriage. Seriously, it has a much longer history in US culture and ancestry than homosexual unions. Why all the hoopla over the latter and a continued objection to the former? the Mormons were once polygamist (and some are still), the Biblical patriarchs often had multiple wives, and it wouldn't surprise me to learn of plural marriage situations in the Native American tribes.

We don't base everything on what the Biblical patriarchs supposedly did, and with good reason. And as for the Native tribes, "it wouldn't surprise me" won't do. You need to actually give examples with sources if you want it to carry any weight.

Who can say where marriage came from? Surely not I, as I seem to have misplaced my magic crystal to look back into the annals of pre-written history.

I'm against polygamy. In a perfect world living under an egalitarian classless society of proletariat workers who all share equally for equal labor, it might work. But back in reality, multiple wives are never equal wives. This leads to jealousy between wives, and since these wives are presumably around to bear children, this jealousy poisons the children's formative years. And isn't it always about the children, folks?

These aren't my ideas, originally. They are Obama's Kenyan grandmother's. In case you were curious.

Who can say where marriage came from? Surely not I, as I seem to have misplaced my magic crystal to look back into the annals of pre-written history.

I'm against polygamy. In a perfect world living under an egalitarian classless society of proletariat workers who all share equally for equal labor, it might work. But back in reality, multiple wives are never equal wives. This leads to jealousy between wives, and since these wives are presumably around to bear children, this jealousy poisons the children's formative years. And isn't it always about the children, folks?

These aren't my ideas, originally. They are Obama's Kenyan grandmother's. In case you were curious.

There are a lot of marriages that I'm surprised can work, people can make a lot of sticky situations work, and sometimes the situations that I/other people may think are difficult end up being better for them. We can't know what will work best for other people's relationships.

Not against having multiple partners as long as all the partners know about the multiple partner thing and agree with it. Otherwise you're looking at a complex problem. Multiple spouses, however, pose problems. You're going to make an already complicated world get even more complicated. The world is already too complex. Half the time, it's difficult to even understand what the hell is going on.

Deregulating marriage would allow us to simplify the tax code and unclog the courts. I'd be for that. If people want to point to a person of the same or opposite sex, or to a rock or to a tree and say "we're married!" then let them.

It seems to me that a "pack" of humans would be able to take care of offspring far more efficiently than a mere couple. For one thing, there can always be an adult at home.

It seems to me that a "pack" of humans would be able to take care of offspring far more efficiently than a mere couple. For one thing, there can always be an adult at home.

What if they all work? After all, a man without a job is a lazy woman-hating neanderthal and a woman without a job is a woman-hating neanderthal.

When you let femenism and anti-femenism exist in the same world, they merge into some sort of monstrosity, like when Hitler and Nero merged to form that guy that created Xenuland, Hubbard was it? The world was never the same once crazy-evil and crazy-evil merged to form super-evil.

What if they all work? After all, a man without a job is a lazy woman-hating neanderthal and a woman without a job is a woman-hating neanderthal.

When you let femenism and anti-femenism exist in the same world, they merge into some sort of monstrosity, like when Hitler and Nero merged to form that guy that created Xenuland, Hubbard was it? The world was never the same once crazy-evil and crazy-evil merged to form super-evil.

...ummm, what?

...ummm, what?

You heard me, or have the Scientologists gotten to you? How many fingers am I holding up?

You heard me, or have the Scientologists gotten to you? How many fingers am I holding up?

Jokes right?

What if they all work? After all, a man without a job is a lazy woman-hating neanderthal and a woman without a job is a woman-hating neanderthal.

Have at least 7 people participating, and make sure everyone has a different day off ;)
Or don't care what certain organisations say you should or should not do. Which if you go for poly probably will not be much of a problem ;)

Have at least 7 people participating, and make sure everyone has a different day off ;)
Or don't care what certain organisations say you should or should not do. Which if you go for poly probably will not be much of a problem ;)

But then you've got problems with the government. You've got conseratives pissed about the poly and liberals pissed that I'm "oppressing" so many women. Then there are the poeple who you don't know what the hell they are. They're mad that you didn't vote for them and they want you and your sweet, sweet blood. You've got a whole lotta problems.

Then the periods. But the good thing about poly is that there's a good chance at least one of them isn't having that time of the month.

Maybe it's better to have a non-legally binding ceremony. But then I'd have to worry about Scientologists knocking down my door and taking my Led Zeppelin albums. Awesome goes against their evil doctrines, you know.

Then the periods. But the good thing about poly is that there's a good chance at least one of them isn't having that time of the month.

Usually women who spend a lot of time together end up having their period at the same time, and PMSing at the same time, you wouldn't survive the month.

But then you've got problems with the government. You've got conseratives pissed about the poly and liberals pissed that I'm "oppressing" so many women. Then there are the poeple who you don't know what the hell they are. They're mad that you didn't vote for them and they want you and your sweet, sweet blood. You've got a whole lotta problems.

But you will have a small army to deal with that. It is not just two of you vs the world - it is the Pride vs the world ;)

Usually women who spend a lot of time together end up having their period at the same time, and PMSing at the same time, you wouldn't survive the month.

With Zeppelin in my heart, and playing in the backround, and a pointy stick in my hand, I'll survive it. If I can survive during an era where hip-hop is popular, Country Music exists, and metal devolved from awesome into a mess I can't recgonize, I'll survive any hardship.

May I ask what business government has in marriages? Why the marriage benefits, marriage penalties, marriage licenses, and all the other marriage/state entanglements? Marriage is a cultural/religious establishment that seems to predate all existing governments worldwide. Government ought have no authority whatsoever in saying who can marry whom or what benefits/penalties may be involved.

This. The idea of state marriage is repulsive. The State got involved only because marriage became a political tool, where women were alliance-gifts and presents, rather than free rational beings.

Because the contract of marriage is necessary to allow for marriage to function. We typical organize into family units and it is to our benefit for the government to acknowledge them and allow them to work.

So what? If they are natural, they will happen with or without government interference.

With Zeppelin in my heart, and playing in the backround, and a pointy stick in my hand, I'll survive it. If I can survive during an era where hip-hop is popular, Country Music exists, and metal devolved from awesome into a mess I can't recgonize, I'll survive any hardship.

The key is to have multiple households. Say, an apartment in the city and a real home out in the suburbs. Each wife to a home. That way, you can make sure their cycles don't synchronize.

Alternatively, do the Roman thing. When the bad time of the cyle hits, run to the pub and find a guy.

Deregulating marriage would allow us to simplify the tax code and unclog the courts. I'd be for that. If people want to point to a person of the same or opposite sex, or to a rock or to a tree and say "we're married!" then let them.

Did the tree consent? ;)

Polygamy - great idea in theory but im practice way too much work if you ask me. IMHO it a much better idea to have one wife and maybe the occasional threesome with a friend ;)

I don't like polygamy any more than monogamy. I think I'll stick to zerogamy, or nonogamy, notmegamy or sonosologamy, if you prefer. :D

I don't like polygamy any more than monogamy. I think I'll stick to zerogamy, or nonogamy, notmegamy or sonosologamy, if you prefer. :D

Anpu does not approve of the content in your post.

You could take the meaning more literal and exclude marriage. A single person who screws around a lot with different partners is technically polygamous.

You could take the meaning more literal and exclude marriage. A single person who screws around a lot with different partners is technically polygamous.

I thought the correct term for that was promiscuous. :D

I thought the correct term for that was promiscuous. :D

Well you could use polygamous from a scientific perspective. And humans are animals after all.

Did the tree consent? ;)

Trees don't have rights. At least not innately.

Trees don't have rights. At least not innately.

Ah, so they're just like humans after all.

Ah, so they're just like humans after all.

No. Humans have rights. We just ignore the inconvenient ones and invent newer, more convenient rights. So many people don't acknowledge the right to Zeppelin that the American forefathers envisioned when inventing the United States, but they're quick to invent the right to not be offended.

If one biological entity has "rights", whatever that means, then they all have. Since any biological entity can easily be snuffed out by any number of causes, this must mean that no biological entity has any innate rights whatsoever. But I fear this is going a bit off topic...

If one biological entity has "rights", whatever that means, then they all have. Since any biological entity can easily be snuffed out by any number of causes, this must mean that no biological entity has any innate rights whatsoever. But I fear this is going a bit off topic...

This is silly. The fact that you can be killed should have no bearing on your rights while alive. Different biological entities have different rights because of their differences. Trees aren't sentient and can't demand rights. Humans are and can.

So what? If they are natural, they will happen with or without government interference.

They will happen, yes, but the contract reconciles this natural event with the world in which we live in. Because hospital visitation rights, insurance and taxes are not natural therefore provisions must be made to allow marriage to work within our society. These provisions are conveniently united in a single contract... marriage.

-- Wiki. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy

How do you feel about the notion of polygamy?

I feel fine about it.

Plural unions, unlike homosexual marriage, would require us to totally restructure the rights and responsibilities of marriage to the point that it would no longer be recognizable. Issues of inheritance, power of attorney, unified finances and other elements would either need to be totally restructured, or just outright abolished. It becomes a network, and I do not believe that that fits our secular definition of marriage.

For example, in a plural marriage, if you had five people, and one of them was brain dead, if there were a disagreement, which of the individuals would have the right to "pull the plug"?

How about divorce? That one becomes pretty complex too.

Also, let's not forget that in most societies that permit plural unions, plural unions tend to have a man as a pole for many different women, rather than a mixed network. It tends to perpetuate disparities between the sexes, and leave large swathes of young men totally unable to find a partner.

Plural unions, unlike homosexual marriage, would require us to totally restructure the rights and responsibilities of marriage to the point that it would no longer be recognizable. Issues of inheritance, power of attorney, unified finances and other elements would either need to be totally restructured, or just outright abolished. It becomes a network, and I do not believe that that fits our secular definition of marriage.

For example, in a plural marriage, if you had five people, and one of them was brain dead, if there were a disagreement, which of the individuals would have the right to "pull the plug"?

How about divorce? That one becomes pretty complex too.

Also, let's not forget that in most societies that permit plural unions, plural unions tend to have a man as a pole for many different women, rather than a mixed network. It tends to perpetuate disparities between the sexes, and leave large swathes of young men totally unable to find a partner.

So abolish State marriage. People can arrange that legal crap on a personal level, rather than having the State mandate it be within a certain social construct.

Plural unions, unlike homosexual marriage, would require us to totally restructure the rights and responsibilities of marriage to the point that it would no longer be recognizable. Issues of inheritance, power of attorney, unified finances and other elements would either need to be totally restructured, or just outright abolished. It becomes a network, and I do not believe that that fits our secular definition of marriage.

For example, in a plural marriage, if you had five people, and one of them was brain dead, if there were a disagreement, which of the individuals would have the right to "pull the plug"?

How about divorce? That one becomes pretty complex too.

Also, let's not forget that in most societies that permit plural unions, plural unions tend to have a man as a pole for many different women, rather than a mixed network. It tends to perpetuate disparities between the sexes, and leave large swathes of young men totally unable to find a partner.

Meh! Then let the reshuffling commence. In reality the whole concept of Conservitism is somewhat doomed, things change, and will contiune to do so. Nowt anybody can do about that.:D

It seems to me that a "pack" of humans would be able to take care of offspring far more efficiently than a mere couple. For one thing, there can always be an adult at home.
a pack might be good but you would have to redefine parenthood. having the "one true mommy" yank a kid out of a group environment to strike out on her own would be pretty cruel.

So abolish State marriage. People can arrange that legal crap on a personal level, rather than having the State mandate it be within a certain social construct.
then, to use his example, you get a group of 5 married people and when one has a terrible accident that leaves him brain dead his parents (or surviving sibling) makes the decisions.

its better to redefine marriage.

liberals pissed that I'm "oppressing" so many women.
It isn't oppression if you let your multiple wives get multiple husbands, and then those husbands (of course) will want multiple wives, who will, in turn, need multiple husbands, and then . . .
Oh no, I've gone cross-eyed.

I see no reason for laws against polygamy. I'm in favor of marriage between any consenting adults.

I see no reason for laws against polygamy. I'm in favor of marriage between any consenting adults.
the only problem i have is that the monogamy laws dont serve polygamy well.

it should be "one marriage per person" so that if a man marries several women, they all have to be married to each other too, not just to him. if he dies, they are still married to each other. if someone wants to marry an extra person, they all have to agree because they all have to marry him/her.

the only problem i have is that the monogamy laws dont serve polygamy well.

it should be "one marriage per person" so that if a man marries several women, they all have to be married to each other too, not just to him. if he dies, they are still married to each other. if someone wants to marry an extra person, they all have to agree because they all have to marry him/her.

I'm not clear on the "monogamy laws dont serve polygamy well". Can you elucidate?

I think provided you actually fully support all your wives/husbands without social assistance. I am okay with poly. I do believe government should just get out of it. Atheists/Agnostics should have their own marriage department. If you are religious you should go to your church. In any event the proper documents must be filled out.

So abolish State marriage. People can arrange that legal crap on a personal level, rather than having the State mandate it be within a certain social construct.

Yes. But that is sensible and would take care of things. So there are many people who are against such solutions since it reduces the potential for drama.

Yes. But that is sensible and would take care of things. So there are many people who are against such solutions since it reduces the potential for drama.

I'm in favor of that.

Canada managed until the 1950s to not have the government involved in marriage.

I'm not clear on the "monogamy laws dont serve polygamy well". Can you elucidate?
well take children for example.

one father one mother with the father being assumed to be the woman's husband.

if a 3rd person is living in the home, raising that child, paying for that child, loving that child, doesnt that person deserve rights to that child?

and, as i mentioned above, monogamy laws doesnt cover "who is married to whom". the mormon polygamy method has one man married to several women none of whom are married to each other. is that the best way? it would have to be formally decided just what polygamy means and who can marry whom and when. can i marry an extra man without the express permission of all my current spouses? if i do does he have some legal claim on them as happens in monogamy?

it would all have to be thoroughly thought out. by people who by and large think that polygamy is wrong. (the various legislators in the country)

Because the contract of marriage is necessary to allow for marriage to function. We typical organize into family units and it is to our benefit for the government to acknowledge them and allow them to work.

But does government need to be a party to that contract via the marriage license?

We don't base everything on what the Biblical patriarchs supposedly did, and with good reason. And as for the Native tribes, "it wouldn't surprise me" won't do. You need to actually give examples with sources if you want it to carry any weight.

the almighty wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy#Patterns_of_occurrence_worldwide) shows nothing of polygamy among native americans (though it doesn't state it didn't happen, either) but it does offer a number of cultures and their favorable attitudes toward polygamy.

*edit* maybe a dubious source, but http://westgatehouse.com/art161.html :

Plural marriage was often common (usually one male, often older, with several women) as was the marriage of young men and women with older women and men, the age of their grandparents. In the latter case, the young partners would often marry someone younger or the same age after their older, first mate, had passed on.

Couples of the same sex also were recognized as legitimate in many or perhaps most tribes. This style of marriage may not have been overly common, but it is certainly noted for a number of American Nations.

So abolish State marriage. People can arrange that legal crap on a personal level, rather than having the State mandate it be within a certain social construct.


The thing is, the state has significant interests in marriage, in defining marriage and in ensuring the two-individual model of marriage.

Wiki has a nice list.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States#Rights_and_benefits

Meh! Then let the reshuffling commence. In reality the whole concept of Conservitism is somewhat doomed, things change, and will contiune to do so. Nowt anybody can do about that.:D

I'm fine and dandy with being conservative on this, it's the only sensible thing to do when dealing with an issue of such broad impact.

The state has a vital interest in maintaining the two-individual model for marriage. Altering it would require a greater impact on most people's everyday lives than virtually any event in the past sixty years in the broader western world. In the United States, probably the last 140 years.

It would fundamentally alter issues of parental custody, inheritance, immigration, conscription and taxation. Gender neutral marriage doesn't change these matters in the slightest. Polygamy does.

I have no personal objection to plural marriage. Seriously, it has a much longer history in US culture and ancestry than homosexual unions. Why all the hoopla over the latter and a continued objection to the former? the Mormons were once polygamist (and some are still), the Biblical patriarchs often had multiple wives, and it wouldn't surprise me to learn of plural marriage situations in the Native American tribes.

What do Biblical Patriarchs have to do with marriage in the 21st Century?

I said it once I'll say it again.

Wanting to have more than one wife is like wanting to have more than one open heart surgery.

Wanting to have more than one wife is like wanting to have more than one open heart surgery.

What is wanting more than one husband ?

how do i modify legislation

What is wanting more than one husband ?

Do not ask me. I have never wanted a single one.

how do i modify legislation

If you're talking about the Nationstates game this isn't the place to ask. I'd suggest Gameplay or something like that.

What do Biblical Patriarchs have to do with marriage in the 21st Century?

"Conservatives" (more like right-wing liberals) use the bible to justify their policies, especially concerning family and marraige.

Plural unions, unlike homosexual marriage, would require us to totally restructure the rights and responsibilities of marriage to the point that it would no longer be recognizable. Issues of inheritance, power of attorney, unified finances and other elements would either need to be totally restructured, or just outright abolished. It becomes a network, and I do not believe that that fits our secular definition of marriage.

This is true. Also, plural marriages will have a much greater variance in needs and organization than single marriage does.

Hence the reason that I think, if plural marriage were to be legally recognized, it would have to be under a different legal structure. My guess would be that the best way to go about it would be to create something akin to incorporation.

But does government need to be a party to that contract via the marriage license?

Depends on what we expect the contract to do. Given some of the protections our society has decided are needed in a marriage contract, yes, the government does have to be party to it.

how do i modify legislation

Run as a Congressman/PM in your constituency.

Alternatively, violently overthrow the government.

So abolish State marriage. People can arrange that legal crap on a personal level, rather than having the State mandate it be within a certain social construct.

When people "sort out legal crap on a personal level," I think its safe to say there would be a fair amount of violence involved. Or did I miss the US suddenly become a nation of polite and well-reasoned people? ;) The State's there to provide order to the chaos.

-- Wiki. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy

How do you feel about the notion of polygamy?

I support it, provided no-one is legally an "inferior" member of the group.

Government ought have no authority whatsoever in saying who can marry whom or what benefits/penalties may be involved.

I agree totally with this, but only for the future; the world needs to be slowly weaned from government approval.

I agree totally with this, but only for the future; the world needs to be slowly weaned from government approval.

It's not really a matter of "approval". It's more a matter of recognition and protection. Two people who live as a single legal entity run into legal issues that they wouldn't otherwise encounter. Those issues need to be dealt with.

When people "sort out legal crap on a personal level," I think its safe to say there would be a fair amount of violence involved. Or did I miss the US suddenly become a nation of polite and well-reasoned people? ;) The State's there to provide order to the chaos.

You'd be wrong, because that's not actually what I was saying. I mean, instead of the State organizing a legal institution for powers of attorney, etc, to automatically transfer, a person can assign said powers, etc, on an individual basis.

Plus, think about it: you're in prison for some crime. If you're in the US, most likely for something stupid that shouldn't be illegal. Like Polygamy. You have two wives whom you love very very much, and they love you the same, and are perfectly content sharing.

By legally disallowing polygamy, one of those wives who cares deeply for you, with the feeling reciprocated, is barred from conjugal visits and other benefits the other wife would have. It effectively is the State forcing you to pick favourites.

It's not really a matter of "approval". It's more a matter of recognition and protection. Two people who live as a single legal entity run into legal issues that they wouldn't otherwise encounter. Those issues need to be dealt with.

And could be dealt with. Just because no one has thought about it in depth in the mainstream doesn't mean it couldn't happen. Monogamous State Marriage had a bit of a head start, after all. ;)

I agree totally with this, but only for the future; the world needs to be slowly weaned from government approval.

An internet being after my own heart. :fluffle:

It's true. By now I'd say marriage by law is useless. Why does it exist anymore? It's not working, 3 out of 4 marriages fail, or something like that. Parents on the average seem to be getting worse as the results show. What is marriage protecting? It's just putting pressure on idiots to get married when they shouldn't. Also, the tax benefits are weak. I agree, abolish marriage laws, let people live as they please and raise a family on their own terms.

It's true. By now I'd say marriage by law is useless. Why does it exist anymore? It's not working, 3 out of 4 marriages fail

1 out of 4 of marriages end in divorce (http://www.gregswensonphd.com/lasting_marriage.htm#1)(i'll get a slightly less bias source) now by fail you mean people in a marriage don't love each other anymore or say less than when they first married then you could be right.
another source for the other side of half marriages fail (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2435/is-it-true-half-of-all-marriages-end-in-divorce)

both only claim a maximum of half so you way over did the failure rate and people that divorce more than once probably skew the stats even more so I don't know where we're heading but I doubt marriage is going to be dissolved as a government recognized unit anytime soon, infact with homosexuals getting/losing the right to marry we may see another shift(more marriages staying together or breaking apart I don't really know but we will see some sort of shift as they gain those rights)

1 out of 4 of marriages end in divorce (http://www.gregswensonphd.com/lasting_marriage.htm#1)(i'll get a slightly less bias source) now by fail you mean people in a marriage don't love each other anymore or say less than when they first married then you could be right.
another source for the other side of half marriages fail (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2435/is-it-true-half-of-all-marriages-end-in-divorce)

By fail I mean they split, divorce. And I'd say that the accurate number is half of marriages fail, I don't know if there is an official tally, but either way, suffice to say a lot of them fail. But yeah, if we apply marriages that are dysfunctional, it probably is 3/4.

Banning polygamy=
1. Religious Persecution
2. is an act of bigotry
3. Violates peoples right to equal protection.

If two people really love each other, they should be allowed to get married and create a family unit. Even if it means there is three or four of them.

Strangely...Aroused?...

lol, jk...Idk, i would say that i dont care as long as its consensual, but very rarely in most polygamist societies do both sides get a choice in the matter....

Deregulating marriage would allow us to simplify the tax code and unclog the courts. I'd be for that. If people want to point to a person of the same or opposite sex, or to a rock or to a tree and say "we're married!" then let them.

Why the heck does the government give special tax cuts to married people that it then denies to single people. Does that not make the government practice of marriage recognition discriminatory against single people, whereby depriving singles of their right to equal protection?

Banning polygamy=
1. Religious Persecution
2. is an act of bigotry
3. Violates peoples right to equal protection.

If two people really love each other, they should be allowed to get married and create a family unit. Even if it means there is three or four of them.

that's it. Poe.

Why the heck does the government give special tax cuts to married people that it then denies to single people. Does that not make the government practice of marriage recognition discriminatory against single people, whereby depriving singles of their right to equal protection?

well, I believe the main reason is for kids and the fact that families are supporting more than one person...

But, I think itd be simpler if you just got a tax cut for having kids rather than using marriage as a basis...

I would agree with the notion that government should stay out of marriage entirely...And instead of denying certain kinds of marriages, it could focus on Non-Consensual ones...

plural unions tend to have a man as a pole for many different women,


Hey, that's sexist. :eek:

the only problem i have is that the monogamy laws dont serve polygamy well.

it should be "one marriage per person" so that if a man marries several women, they all have to be married to each other too, not just to him. if he dies, they are still married to each other. if someone wants to marry an extra person, they all have to agree because they all have to marry him/her.

If gay marriage will let me marry both of my girlfriends at the same time, then I'm all for it.

I think provided you actually fully support all your wives/husbands without social assistance. I am okay with poly. I do believe government should just get out of it. Atheists/Agnostics should have their own marriage department. If you are religious you should go to your church. In any event the proper documents must be filled out.

How is that nondiscriminatory? Most single people rely on government support for their family. Many couples are welfare and send their children to public schools for example. Many older couples subsist on social security and one of the partners retirement checks.

Applying those only to two person families is not discriminatory how???

well take children for example.

one father one mother with the father being assumed to be the woman's husband.

if a 3rd person is living in the home, raising that child, paying for that child, loving that child, doesnt that person deserve rights to that child?

and, as i mentioned above, monogamy laws doesnt cover "who is married to whom". the mormon polygamy method has one man married to several women none of whom are married to each other. is that the best way? it would have to be formally decided just what polygamy means and who can marry whom and when. can i marry an extra man without the express permission of all my current spouses? if i do does he have some legal claim on them as happens in monogamy?

it would all have to be thoroughly thought out. by people who by and large think that polygamy is wrong. (the various legislators in the country)

In polygamy, all the women in union are married to each other as well as to the man.

Hey, that's sexist. :eek:

I doubt you'll find many women with a pole. ;)

The thing is, the state has significant interests in marriage, in defining marriage and in ensuring the two-individual model of marriage.

Wiki has a nice list.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States#Rights_and_benefits

No. No. The only possible interest the state would have in allowing one type of marriage but not others is the promotion of bigotry and discrimination.

I doubt you'll find many women with a pole. ;)

Thailand begs to differ, lol....

Just as dumb as monogamy.

You'd be wrong, because that's not actually what I was saying. I mean, instead of the State organizing a legal institution for powers of attorney, etc, to automatically transfer, a person can assign said powers, etc, on an individual basis.

Plus, think about it: you're in prison for some crime. If you're in the US, most likely for something stupid that shouldn't be illegal. Like Polygamy. You have two wives whom you love very very much, and they love you the same, and are perfectly content sharing.

By legally disallowing polygamy, one of those wives who cares deeply for you, with the feeling reciprocated, is barred from conjugal visits and other benefits the other wife would have. It effectively is the State forcing you to pick favourites.
You speak truth to power.

I personally think it's not a big deal. How about a total revamp of Federal Marriage laws. Lets allow for freedom in marriage. Go ahead and allow for polygamy and gay marriage in one pen stroke. Also I know people keep thinking of some guy and 2-3 wives however it can work opposite.

In polygamy, all the women in union are married to each other as well as to the man.
that would have to be decided eh?

in the most common polygamous group in the country--apostate polygamous mormons, the women arent really married to each other since when their husband dies they are free to marry again.

Thailand begs to differ, lol....

"Many" is not completely exclusionary. :P

that would have to be decided eh?

in the most common polygamous group in the country--apostate polygamous mormons, the women arent really married to each other since when their husband dies they are free to marry again.

That makes no sense.

My view: To each their own. If some guy wants many wives, I hope he has the money incase they all divorce him.

That makes no sense.
perhaps it makes no sense to YOU but to the majority of polygamists in the country, it makes perfect sense.

so why should your idea hold sway when they are the ones with plural marriages?

which is not to say that i dont agree with you. its just that it would have to be formally decided.

and since marriage laws are state laws the rules might very well vary from state to state just as they do for monogamy.

its okay so long as I have lots of teenage wives. they have multiple husbands or get older then 19 its not so good.

I doubt you'll find many women with a pole. ;)Teh interwebz and the nearby dance joint begs otherwise.

I ask this every time in these debates, and I never get an answer. So Ill ask again.

Why would you want more than one wife? Why would you want more than one woman nagging you and always mad at you?


;)

Why would you want more than one wife? Why would you want more than one woman nagging you and always mad at you?

Nononono - they will have their other husband for that ;)

I ask this every time in these debates, and I never get an answer. So Ill ask again.

Why would you want more than one wife? Why would you want more than one woman nagging you and always mad at you?


;)

The Economics. The more working people in the family unit the more its purchasing power and its ability to support itself.
If the women, on the otherhand, (or the men) were kept uneducated, then that would defeat the purpose because they would not be able to work and would have to live on the government rolls. Which currently means fraud.

I think all adult members of a polygamous marriage should be required to have real jobs and sign an agreement to not use government welfare benefits unless they actually divorce their spouses.

But think of the theory though. A man has say, 5 wives. A man and woman are capable of making on average 60,000 a year. Add four more people to that. That's at least $100,000 miniimum. But in reality, the man is likely to make at least 60,000 a year. So even if the women made only 20,000 a year a peice that gives them a total of $140,000 minimum.

More than enough to afford a low income house for a family their size, two cars and expenses. Not to mention enough for their children as well.

EDIT: Take it one step further. Suppose the women are highly skilled and then all 6 of them were able to bring in at least $50,000 a year. Total Family income: $300,000 Minimum.

I ask this every time in these debates, and I never get an answer. So Ill ask again.

Why would you want more than one wife? Why would you want more than one woman nagging you and always mad at you?


;)
if you are an extremely horny man--far hornier than the average man--and you keep "falling in love" with women but cant have sex with them because god says you must save sex for marriage, you want to marry them all.

why any woman would marry a man who already had a wife (or 3) i dont know. perhaps the matchup of an extremely horny man with many low sex drive women is ideal?

And could be dealt with. Just because no one has thought about it in depth in the mainstream doesn't mean it couldn't happen.

They are dealt with - through marriage law. So it doesn't really make sense to say that the solution is to get rid of marriage altogether.

Monogamous State Marriage had a bit of a head start, after all. ;)

Huh?


It's true. By now I'd say marriage by law is useless. Why does it exist anymore? It's not working, 3 out of 4 marriages fail, or something like that.

And that means it isn't working....how?

Actually, some of what marriage law covers is how to dissolve a marriage - and do so in such a way as to protect both the couple and any creditors, etc. they might have.


Why the heck does the government give special tax cuts to married people that it then denies to single people.

It doesn't. There's no marriage "tax cut". There is a different part of the tax code that applies to those couples who are filing as a single legal entity. Why? Because they are in a different financial situation than two people who keep their assets separate.

3. Violates peoples right to equal protection.


Uh, no. I have no more right to marry more than one person at a time than you do. There is no equal protection violation.

Banning polygamy=
1. Religious Persecution


Also, as far as the state is concerned, marriage has nothing to do with religion.

Hey, that's sexist. :eek:

Huh?

Polygamy is a bridge too far in terms of marriage law reform, for me personally. But each to their own, given the propensity in nature towards non-monogamous relationships I think we can chalk this one up to personal choice.

They are dealt with - through marriage law. So it doesn't really make sense to say that the solution is to get rid of marriage altogether.

No, they're not "dealt with", because the way it is "dealt with" is by banning polygamous relationships. Which is absurd. If a State must exist, it cannot be allowed to dictate the actions of people who engage in actions that do not infringe on the rights of others.

Marriage law could be amended to allow polygamous relationships, and then have the legal stuff adjusted accordingly. However, I don't think anyone in government is smart enough to think of a fair way to do that.

Getting rid of state marriage makes things

1. Simple
2. Free from government intervention
3. free from all controversy

Religious folks don't have to bitch because of the state doing things they find immoral and distasteful, everyone else doesn't have to bitch because they can do what they want. Once you allow the government to control a certain area of society, you invite nothing but controversy, special interests, and thus, corruption. I think it would be best if these three things stay out of the field of personal relationships.

No, they're not "dealt with", because the way it is "dealt with" is by banning polygamous relationships. Which is absurd. If a State must exist, it cannot be allowed to dictate the actions of people who engage in actions that do not infringe on the rights of others.

Marriage law could be amended to allow polygamous relationships, and then have the legal stuff adjusted accordingly. However, I don't think anyone in government is smart enough to think of a fair way to do that.

Getting rid of state marriage makes things

1. Simple
2. Free from government intervention
3. free from all controversy

Religious folks don't have to bitch because of the state doing things they find immoral and distasteful, everyone else doesn't have to bitch because they can do what they want. Once you allow the government to control a certain area of society, you invite nothing but controversy, special interests, and thus, corruption. I think it would be best if these three things stay out of the field of personal relationships.
they dont ban polygamous relationships. they ban polygamous marriage.

no one gives a damn how many adults live in whatever family units they want to devise.

but our laws are not set up to deal with the increased complications of polygamous marriage.

getting rid of marriage laws altogether would not change that now would it.

getting rid of marriage laws altogether would not change that now would it.

Well, it would make it unnecessary... Does that count?

Well, it would make it unnecessary... Does that count?
make what unnecessary?

they dont ban polygamous relationships. they ban polygamous marriage.

no one gives a damn how many adults live in whatever family units they want to devise.

You're right, my fault for mis-stating. Doesn't change the point of my post.

but our laws are not set up to deal with the increased complications of polygamous marriage.

So set them up to be so. As Dempublicents said:

There is a different part of the tax code that applies to those couples who are filing as a single legal entity. Why? Because they are in a different financial situation than two people who keep their assets separate.

So why should the government say that having THREE people together as a single entity is wrong, but two is okay? Answer: They shouldn't.

Besides, why should "complications" matter to the government? Everything they do is bathed in bureaucracy and complication.

getting rid of marriage laws altogether would not change that now would it.

Yes it would, because marriage wouldn't be a legal status.

If the government chooses to give benefits to one group for X reason, it must give them to all other groups in X situation, or it is discriminatory and unjust.

So for it to be fair and just, either the government allows anybody to marry anyone else as long as all involved parties are consenting and gives them all benefits, or it backs off and gets rid of state marriage. There is no other acceptable solution.

make what unnecessary?

"but our laws are not set up to deal with the increased complications of polygamous marriage."

Well, then it wouldn't have to, presumably. If fact, I do believe that is a major, if secondary, purpose of such a removal.

"but our laws are not set up to deal with the increased complications of polygamous marriage."

Well, then it wouldn't have to, presumably. If fact, I do believe that is a major, if secondary, purpose of such a removal.
i still dont understand what you are talking about.

make marriage unnecessary? its not necessary now.

if people want to get married, we have laws that cover it.

if more than 2 people want to get married to each other, we would need to revamp the laws and decide exactly how it would work--monogamy laws are not adequate to the increased complications.

to get rid of marriage altogether does nothing to improve the situation of polygamists. it only puts monogamists into the same unregulated status.

i still dont understand what you are talking about.

make marriage unnecessary? its not necessary now.

if people want to get married, we have laws that cover it.

if more than 2 people want to get married to each other, we would need to revamp the laws and decide exactly how it would work--monogamy laws are not adequate to the increased complications.

to get rid of marriage altogether does nothing to improve the situation of polygamists. it only puts monogamists into the same unregulated status.

It's not necessarily about "improving," it's about legal equality. Either give benefits to all, or none. I personally prefer none because of my political beliefs, but legal equality for marriagites would come through either all or none.

Uh, no. I have no more right to marry more than one person at a time than you do. There is no equal protection violation.

You denying it on the basis of how people choose to live their private lives.

Uh, no. I have no more right to marry more than one person at a time than you do. There is no equal protection violation.

That sounds a lot like "gays have the same right as I do, to marry someone of the opposite sex" ;)

Then the periods. But the good thing about poly is that there's a good chance at least one of them isn't having that time of the month.

Well, firstly, no. Women's menstrual cycles often sync up when living in the same household.

Secondly, I think real men don't care about menstrual blood.

The key is to have multiple households. Say, an apartment in the city and a real home out in the suburbs. Each wife to a home. That way, you can make sure their cycles don't synchronize.

The notion of a polygamous relationship with multiple households - to me - kind of defeats the purpose of the relationship. In my opinion, if a man is married to three women, for example, he still should be there for all of them as much as he should be for one of them.

You could take the meaning more literal and exclude marriage. A single person who screws around a lot with different partners is technically polygamous.

But a polygamous marriage would (if you marry for love) means you don't just have sex with multiple partners, but you also love multiple partners. That's the complicated thing for me. I can't understand how someone can love more than one person.



Plus, think about it: you're in prison for some crime. If you're in the US, most likely for something stupid that shouldn't be illegal. Like Polygamy. You have two wives whom you love very very much, and they love you the same, and are perfectly content sharing.

Do you (or anyone else for that matter) believe a man can love more than one wife?

In polygamy, all the women in union are married to each other as well as to the man.

I'm not sure if that's the case in all polygamous marriages/unions/etc.

I ask this every time in these debates, and I never get an answer. So Ill ask again.

Why would you want more than one wife? Why would you want more than one woman nagging you and always mad at you?


;)

Pick better wives?

if you are an extremely horny man--far hornier than the average man--and you keep "falling in love" with women but cant have sex with them because god says you must save sex for marriage, you want to marry them all.

why any woman would marry a man who already had a wife (or 3) i dont know. perhaps the matchup of an extremely horny man with many low sex drive women is ideal?

I've heard it said quite often that women have a lower sex drive than men, and that seems to be a justification for men having sex with more women, but I think that's a load of crap.

Polygamy is a bridge too far in terms of marriage law reform, for me personally. But each to their own, given the propensity in nature towards non-monogamous relationships I think we can chalk this one up to personal choice.

I think it would be more to do with relaxing marriage laws rather than legalising polygamy. I don't personally think it should be legal, but I can't see exactly why it's illegal either.

Do you (or anyone else for that matter) believe a man can love more than one wife?

Absolutely. And vice versa as well of course. And same gender love is also certainly possible.

I've heard it said quite often that women have a lower sex drive than men, and that seems to be a justification for men having sex with more women, but I think that's a load of crap.



it is, in general, a load of crap. but there are individual men and women who have very high sex drives that make it difficult to be sexually satisfied with a relationship with a person with a normal sex drive.

if those people cant "keep it in their pants" and cant bear the thought of fornication, they decide that god wants them to have multiple spouses....this is what joseph smith, the founder of the mormon church, did. its also what david koresh, the leader of the branch davidians, did.

Arguably, at least in Australian marriage law, the definition of marriage conflicts with Section 116 of the Constitution as it legislates against religious observance for certain people.

i'm for poly-amore-y WITHOUT gender bias. i don't support the idea of anything one sided.

No, they're not "dealt with", because the way it is "dealt with" is by banning polygamous relationships.

LT follow the conversation.

I was responding to someone who was talking about getting rid of marriage altogether. The context was not polygamy-specific.

Meanwhile, polygamous relationships are not banned. They simply are not legally recognized. And I agree that there should be some way to gain legal recognition and protections for such relationships. Such a construct could be similar to (although not identical to) current marriage law, although it would probably work best if it were more similar to incorporation.

Marriage law could be amended to allow polygamous relationships, and then have the legal stuff adjusted accordingly. However, I don't think anyone in government is smart enough to think of a fair way to do that.

It's more likely that recognition of polygamous marriages would develop out of incorporation than out of current marriage law. Too much of marriage law is specifically designed for two people. Incorporation, on the other hand, can allow for any number of people in various types of arrangements.

Getting rid of state marriage makes things

1. Simple

Incorrect. It would actually greatly complicate things. Married couples would only be able to obtain some of the current protections they can currently obtain, and it would cost more and take more time to do so.

2. Free from government intervention

Incorrect again. Even if we remove the actual legal construct of marriage (and thus many of the protections it affords), we're looking at contract law. And contract law is created and enforced by the government.

3. free from all controversy

Again, incorrect. What happens the first time a married couple runs into a legal issue that used to be covered by marriage law?

What happens when breakups all start going through lengthy court battles because there is no longer a mechanism by which those couples jointly own property (or a default mechanism for dissolving that relationship)?

So why should the government say that having THREE people together as a single entity is wrong, but two is okay? Answer: They shouldn't.

No, they shouldn't.

But the construct would be different. Having three people in such an arrangement opens up new issues that would have to be dealt with in a different way.

Besides, why should "complications" matter to the government? Everything they do is bathed in bureaucracy and complication.

If government recognition makes something more complicated instead of less, there is no reason for it.

Personally, I don't think that would be the case in an incorporation-style recognition of polygamous marriage.



Uh, no. I have no more right to marry more than one person at a time than you do. There is no equal protection violation.
That sounds a lot like "gays have the same right as I do, to marry someone of the opposite sex"

No, it doesn't. In the case of same-sex marriage, the couple in question is in the exact same type of relationship - the only difference is the sex of the people involved.

In the case of polygamous marriage, the group in question is in a different type of relationship, with different legal complications.

There is an argument to be made for government recognition of polygamous marriages, but equal protection is not it.

The notion of a polygamous relationship with multiple households - to me - kind of defeats the purpose of the relationship. In my opinion, if a man is married to three women, for example, he still should be there for all of them as much as he should be for one of them.

....You took me seriously?

Do you (or anyone else for that matter) believe a man can love more than one wife?

Yes. But then again, I think love is a mental disease.

To Dem: Incorporation? Hmm, I didn't think of that. :) I could get behind changing marriage law to be more like incorporation. Generally, though, I support government abolition of it on principle. ;)

Absolutely. And vice versa as well of course. And same gender love is also certainly possible.

Of course same gender love is possible. That's not what we're talking about here.

I personally feel that if I truly, madly and deeply love someone, I can't love someone else. There is only that person. And that's why I have issues with polygamy. I think that if you can "love" more than one person, it's not the ultimate love.

it is, in general, a load of crap. but there are individual men and women who have very high sex drives that make it difficult to be sexually satisfied with a relationship with a person with a normal sex drive.

Those people need to find someone else with a very high sex drive. It's all about compatibility. Someone who wants to have sex all of the time should find someone who wants to have sex with them all of the time.

Of course same gender love is possible. That's not what we're talking about here.

I personally feel that if I truly, madly and deeply love someone, I can't love someone else. There is only that person. And that's why I have issues with polygamy. I think that if you can "love" more than one person, it's not the ultimate love.

Marriage only became about love fairly recently. Marriage isn't just about love. So your complaints are irrelevant. :)

If someone wants to have multiple partners their allowed to do that, but I don't see why government has to recognize it. For one thing, aren't their marriage benefits from the government? And can the government afford to pay those to people multiple times over, especially given the current deficite? And what about people having multiple marriages to manipulate the system in precisely such a manner?The governmment has no rights, they only have powers given to them by the people.

That sounds a lot like "gays have the same right as I do, to marry someone of the opposite sex" ;)

Uh, no, it doesn't. Because of the legal nature of what marriage is (and should be, as I feel the right to marry should be gender irrelevant) plural marriage is substantially different, and would require a substantial reworking of the very basics of marriage law. Allowing someone to marry another individual of the same sex doesn't require us to rework marriage law, and redefine the rights and responsibilities of marriage. Plural marriage requires the creation of substantial new rights, responsibilities and legal relations, as plural relations are indeed different.

As it stands, laws that only allow individuals to marry someone of the opposite sex are exclusionary, and violate the basic tenet that when we (in the government) look at an individual, should not deal with matters that cannot be controlled, as they are beyond the veil of ignorance.

Uh, no, it doesn't. Because of the legal nature of what marriage is (and should be, as I feel the right to marry should be gender irrelevant) plural marriage is substantially different, and would require a substantial reworking of the very basics of marriage law. Allowing someone to marry another individual of the same sex doesn't require us to rework marriage law, and redefine the rights and responsibilities of marriage. Plural marriage requires the creation of substantial new rights, responsibilities and legal relations, as plural relations are indeed different.

As it stands, laws that only allow individuals to marry someone of the opposite sex are exclusionary, and violate the basic tenet that when we (in the government) look at an individual, should not deal with matters that cannot be controlled, as they are beyond the veil of ignorance.
its not a small change eh?

for example.

if polygamy is allowed can i marry a 2nd man over the objections of my current husband? if a group of .....8 women...and 1 man, with the man being the sole breadwinner decides to divorce the man as a group, do they get to keep the vast majority of the marital assets since they are the vast majority of the marriage members? if 2 people want to divorce out, are they still married to each other? do they have any claim on the children born into that marriage whether or not they are biologically related?

its a huge number of issues that cant be handled under our current monogamy laws.

and since marriage is regulated by the states, how much more complicated will it be when one person "goes to reno" to get divorced in order to get a better deal?

One spouse is enought as it is.

Marriage only became about love fairly recently. Marriage isn't just about love. So your complaints are irrelevant. :)

Well, no. It doesn't make my "complaints" "irrelevant". I did not ask whether polygamy should be legal. I asked how people feel about it. I feel that way about it, and that is why personally I am reluctant to be in a polygamous relationship.

I think that monogamy works for a lot of people but not for all. From the age of 18 to about 40 I couldn't stick to being monogamous for very long. The result was that I had a sort of serial monogamy/promiscuity phases interchanging. However, I met my ideal partner when I was 26 and I am now monogamous with her (have been since 2002).
We both had some affairs but were committed to our primary relationship.

I have been a stickler for the "It's okay if you do it but you've got to fess up rule."

I think the special treatment of marriage in law should end. So if a group of people wants to marry and someone marries them, twhy not let them without the need to get the state involved.

Well, no. It doesn't make my "complaints" "irrelevant". I did not ask whether polygamy should be legal. I asked how people feel about it. I feel that way about it, and that is why personally I am reluctant to be in a polygamous relationship.

Oh, sorry. I misunderstood what you were saying. :(

-- Wiki. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy

How do you feel about the notion of polygamy?

I know a happy triple, and they have to work harder than most of the two-person relationships I've encountered to keep it working. It really isn't a big deal.

I know a happy triple, and they have to work harder than most of the two-person relationships I've encountered to keep it working. It really isn't a big deal.

Is it two women and one man, and - out of interest - are the women also in love?

If all parties consent and if the contract is equitable, I have no issues with it.

If someone wants to have multiple partners their allowed to do that, but I don't see why government has to recognize it. For one thing, aren't their marriage benefits from the government? And can the government afford to pay those to people multiple times over, especially given the current deficite? And what about people having multiple marriages to manipulate the system in precisely such a manner?
Isn't the real problem, then, with the marriage benefits in the first place?

...

Anyway, the only things that sound like problems with polygamy to me are children being raised by an "unusual" family and more potential for STD transfer. First, if protecting the children is enough of a reason to prohibit polygamy, it's enough of a reason to prohibit people with inheritable diseases from reproducing. Second, if STDs are the concern, the real core of the concern is that people should be getting tested for STDs before having sex. After all, even if one was to assume that a certain monogamous relationship was constant, with the same partner (and abscence of previous partners) wherein both partners were completely honest about keeping it consistently monogamous, (quite a few assumptions so far) there's still the risk of getting STDs from other sources one might be unaware of. (ie. infected needles or blood transfusions)

No, it doesn't. In the case of same-sex marriage, the couple in question is in the exact same type of relationship - the only difference is the sex of the people involved.
Agreed on that part though. It's actually sexist, even if not directly and not necessarily intentionally, to treat relationships differently based on the sexes of the people involved, whether it's motivated by religion or not.

I think the special treatment of marriage in law should end. So if a group of people wants to marry and someone marries them, twhy not let them without the need to get the state involved.

Because two people living together run into issues that one individual living alone don't run in to. Hasn't that been covered to death in this thread?

its not a small change eh?

for example.

if polygamy is allowed can i marry a 2nd man over the objections of my current husband? if a group of .....8 women...and 1 man, with the man being the sole breadwinner decides to divorce the man as a group, do they get to keep the vast majority of the marital assets since they are the vast majority of the marriage members? if 2 people want to divorce out, are they still married to each other? do they have any claim on the children born into that marriage whether or not they are biologically related?

its a huge number of issues that cant be handled under our current monogamy laws.

and since marriage is regulated by the states, how much more complicated will it be when one person "goes to reno" to get divorced in order to get a better deal?

Agreed.

Because two people living together run into issues that one individual living alone don't run in to. Hasn't that been covered to death in this thread?
Some people don't have time to read through a several-page thread. o.o