Originally Posted By utahjosh I completely expect gay marriage to be constitutional and available across the USA in the near future. My question is, if a marriage between consenting adults of the same sex is constitutional, why not a 3-way partnership? If a man is in love with 2 women who love him back and both wish to marry him, why should their relationships and the rights afforded to other married couples be denied them? Serious question - I'm not trying to stir the pot or bring up bad blood. Also - I am not an advocate for making polygamy legal. I'm very happy with having one wife. I do not wish nor to I expect to see my Church encourage polygamy. I'm just curious what the thoughts are.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 My thoughts are these: if anyone wants to make the case for making polygamy legal, let them. It HAS been legal in various places at various times and in some places still is. If anyone wants to say it should be legal in the US, have at it. It's kind of antithetical to the American ideal of all being created equal; in most societies where it has existed, a). it's for men but not for women; b). it's effectively for wealthy or prominent men only. After all, with most people being straight and with a 50/50 male-to-female ratio, if EVERY man could marry, say, 5 women, pretty soon 20% of the populace would have wives, and the other 80% would be shut out. So in practice, it has been reserved for the wealthy and prominent only, and the American ideal says everyone is treated equally. So it's never seemed a good fit for us. The other thought is that this has nothing to do with gay marriage. "If gay people can marry, then why not polygamy?" is not logical. Sexual orientation is intrinsic to the individual; polygamy is merely a social arrangement that is allowed or not. If a straight man is allowed to have one legal wife, or 5 legal wives, HE doesn't change. He's still a straight man. And gay people are still gay people, whether allowed one legal spouse, or (in most states) zero. And here we come back to being treated equally, guaranteed by the 14th amendment. Right now in most states (and federally), straight people can have one legal spouse of their choosing. Gay people can have zero. That's not equal treatment no matter how you slice it. So if anyone wants to argue to legalize polygamy, have at it. That's America - you can do that. I don't see any big groundswell for it, and there HAS been a groundswell for gay marriage - but hey, have at it. If it happens, of course, it should be equal for gay and straight people. It's just a completely separate question to gay marriage.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder I don't believe josh for a second. This is exactly meant to stir up the pot. Since gay marriage looks like it will eventually be a fait accompli, one last ditch way to possibly head that off is to scare people into thinking it could also lead to more "radical" things, like polygamy. People who might only have tepid support for gay marriage could be scared off if they're led to believe it could lead to polygamy, something no one has seriously encouraged legally. Outside of the above, I wouldn't give the "argument" or question of polygamy any kind of polite response whatsoever.
Originally Posted By utahjosh I'm beginning to think SPP doesn't like me very much. My post was an honest question. You are calling me a liar. I am not trying to scare gay marriage advocates change their minds. Around here, that would be a very futile effort.
Originally Posted By Daannzzz I actually do not have a problem with a man having more than one wife...or a woman having more than one husband as long as all agree and sign legal documents (follow proper polygamy marriage laws that would be set up)accordingly. Why should I care? Now if someone can point me in the direction of why it would not work (other than feuding between all the spouses and who gets the children when one or two of them pass on) please do.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 <<If a man is in love with 2 women who love him back>> In college that got you a high five.
Originally Posted By ecdc Dabob2 pretty much summed up my thoughts. In theory, I really have no problem with polygamy being legal. I say "in theory" because I'll admit I haven't thought through all the implications. How do tax laws change for filing jointly? Can you file jointly? What about hospital care decisions if you have 20 wives? What if I have 30 children--should my taxes be higher for their education? It just seems to me that gay marriage requires no changes to our current system, whereas polygamy might. What I'd personally rather see is the eventual removal of the notion of "marriage" altogether from the state and government. Marriage is a religious ceremony; let the different faiths marry who they want and how many people they want. Let the government grant "civil unions" or some other such thing for the legal benefits we often discuss. And I don't think that could include more than two people, just for some of the practical reasons (and many more) I've mentioned. As an atheist, I really don't care if I'm married or civilly unioned to my wife. The practical day-to-day of our relationship isn't impacted.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>What I'd personally rather see is the eventual removal of the notion of "marriage" altogether from the state and government. Marriage is a religious ceremony; let the different faiths marry who they want and how many people they want. Let the government grant "civil unions" or some other such thing for the legal benefits we often discuss<< When I lived in Mexico religious ministers could not legally perform marriages. The bride and groom would have to go first to the "Registro Civil" where they would get their "civil marriage". Once they had that, then they could (optionally) go to the religious minister of their choice to have a religious wedding. I tend to agree with ecdc's approach. As he suggested, don't even call the civil ceremony "marriage", leave that to the churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, etc. But in legal matters it would be the civil union that counts.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <When I lived in Mexico religious ministers could not legally perform marriages. The bride and groom would have to go first to the "Registro Civil" where they would get their "civil marriage". Once they had that, then they could (optionally) go to the religious minister of their choice to have a religious wedding.> That's not really so different from here. The marriage license is issued by the state, and the clergyman/woman asks to see it. If you don't have it, he's not going to marry you (except in the case of some small cults - and the state won't consider you married without it no matter what the cult says). Remember, the preacher still says "by the power vested in me by the state of blahblah, I now pronounce you..." So while churches still perform the ceremony, the legal recognition is all the state. And people here have ALWAYS been able to get married at the courthouse instead of the church, and they're just as married.
Originally Posted By Princessjenn5795 As long as everyone is given the equal right to marry more than one person, I could care less if polygamy is legal. But that means that women would be allowed to have more than one husband, men could have multiple husbands, women could have more than one wife, or a marriage could be a mix of men and women. Personally, I am perfectly happy with my one husband, and think it would be kind of a pain to have more than one, but if someone wants more than one spouse, more power to them. I do not think the comparison between polygamy and gay marriage is at all useful though. The two are in no way related. From a government standpoint, I could see polygamy being a bureaucratic headache for agencies like the IRS and Social Security. Can you imagine trying to process tax returns with 5 or 6 spouses and a ton of kids? How do they figure out which spouse gets SS or insurance benefits, or how to split up the benefits when one of the spouses dies? So even taking out any moral objections people have, I doubt any states or the federal government will want to make polygamy legal.
Originally Posted By fkurucz "That's not really so different from here." Actually, there is a difference. In Mexico the minister CANNOT perform the civil wedding. You have to already be married before he can perform the religious ceremony.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Talking points circulated by the LDS re: same sex marriage. Number 10 is bring up polygamy. https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1vKTVX5CGgMh8_tCEXr6cTKeluittkQLZe_-a5IawMwM
Originally Posted By Labuda I honestly can't imagine why anyone would be willing to share the person they love with another person, but if they want to? Sure, go for it. Consider me another who's in favor of making marriage a church-only thing. Civil union would be much better for a person like me.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 ""That's not really so different from here." Actually, there is a difference. In Mexico the minister CANNOT perform the civil wedding. " Yes I know they're somewhat different; that's why I put it the way I did. But FWIW, ministers can't perform civil ceremonies here either unless they're also a justice of the peace or other state official. The real difference is that the state here is willing to accept your wedding date as the date of the church ceremony rather than when you went to the courthouse, but you stiill have to go to the courthouse here first and get the license (if not the ceremony) or you ain't married.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Since the average guy is about five times as horny as the average woman, I figure every guy should be allowed five wives. Just kind of evens the playing field, know what I'm saying?? Just kidding... ;-)
Originally Posted By u k fan Add me to the list that thinks that it might be better to make "marriage" a church only thing and have civil unions for all. Regarding polygamy it's similar to gay marriage for me in that if it makes you happy go right ahead!!!
