Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

My dad posed this question to me. If homosexuality is legal, why isn't polygamy? Why can two men under their free will get married, but not, say, a guy and two girls who are also in love under their free will?

The literal morality of it is a grey area but one that could conceivably be acceptable, though it has issues to address there, like potential for abuse.

But the practicality of a legal union between more than two people is very complex indeed- we have tremendously tangled issues already with just two people re: custody, taxes and estates

If someone wants to consider themselves closely bonded under their culture, that is fine, but as far as this being an official system, regulated by the state, there is a good argument to keeping it to two people.

To sum up: The creed by which homosexual marriage is allowed is the base idea of two consenting adults whose union does not harm any other. There'd have to be quite a shift in that creed to include polygamy.

Polygamy is part of why we should have just taken marriage out of the legal/tax equation from the start.

I have no issue with polygamy just as I have no issue with homosexual marriage. What someone else chooses to do with their relationship possibilities is no concern of mine, so long as it involves fully consenting adult humans I say have at it.

As for the financial and estate issues, divide it equally among the parties. If a man/woman marries two men/women and eventually divorces one of them that one divorcee would be able to make claim on 33% of the estate and holdings barring a prenup or some other circumstances/conditions. If 4 parties in the union they'd have claim on 25% and so on.

Ush's post, which is a good summation of the complexities, handily leads into part of the reason I'm against government being involved in marriage at all. The other reason is that it literally legislates love; which, when you break it down to its basest element like that, seems stupid as **** to me.

But yeah, in a moral sense, I don't think polygamy is on any different standing than traditional marriage.

I don't have a problem with polygamy. I find it stupid because I can't see why anyone would want to romantically share their husband with another woman, sometimes several women.

But then we can't make it illegal because it is stupid, otherwise it would be illegal for people who have only known each other for a few weeks to get married.

As I've stated earlier, I wonder if the SCOTUS ruling on gay marriage opens the door up for polygamy.

Originally posted by psmith81992
As I've stated earlier, I wonder if the SCOTUS ruling on gay marriage opens the door up for polygamy.

It doesn't.

If that ever comes to pass it'll have to be its own battle.

Well the ruling was about being able to marry regardless of gender or sexual orientation. A polygamist is not a sexual orientation.

The issue with SCOTUS ruling is allowing consenting adults. I think if they changed the meaning of marriage between one man and one woman to 2 consenting adults, they can further change it to JUST consenting adults.

Eh, that might kill polygamy if legalized. Think about it. One guy with 2-3 women, a dream right? Okay, but now it is legal so what if they divorce? Dude has to pay 2-3 motherf*ckers alimony or some crap like that.

It will happen. So will others like being able to marry children and animals.

Beyond financial considerations I really don't see the issue with polygamy, and those financial considerations can easily be worked out.

Exactly, if assets can be split two ways, they can be split three or more.

The possible big issue is children, eg In a three-way marriage where all three parents have legal custody either via blood or legal filings. But that could also be worked out by splitting care and custody among three instead of two, if a divorce should happen. But this will probably be the wrecking ball the anti-polygamy crowd will use, "think of the children".

Not that I think this will happen anytime soon, it took a long time to get marriage equality for two people. I don't see legal polygamy backdooring its way in anytime soon. I'm all for it though, if it's between consenting adults.

Originally posted by MF DELPH
I have no issue with polygamy just as I have no issue with homosexual marriage. What someone else chooses to do with their relationship possibilities is no concern of mine, so long as it involves fully consenting adult humans I say have at it.

As for the financial and estate issues, divide it equally among the parties. If a man/woman marries two men/women and eventually divorces one of them that one divorcee would be able to make claim on 33% of the estate and holdings barring a prenup or some other circumstances/conditions. If 4 parties in the union they'd have claim on 25% and so on.
I have no problem with polygamy as long as it isn't a tool through which one gender oppresses the other, which it's often been historically.

(Hint: the one gender is male, the other is female)

Originally posted by Lestov16
My dad posed this question to me. If homosexuality is legal, why isn't polygamy? Why can two men under their free will get married, but not, say, a guy and two girls who are also in love under their free will?

Polygamists should be able to marry. The government should have nothing to do with marriage in my opinion.

Originally posted by psmith81992
As I've stated earlier, I wonder if the SCOTUS ruling on gay marriage opens the door up for polygamy.

You need a groundswell of support to reach the sort of tipping point that civil rights did decades ago, and LGBT is now. Polygamy doesn't have nearly enough vocal adherents to make that kind of cultural imprint.

But of course there are variations of this logic, the paranoid, delusional reactionist argument that leads to...

Originally posted by Flyattractor
It will happen. So will others like being able to marry children and animals.

...yup, there it is.

Originally posted by Digi




...yup, there it is.




People used to say that about Gay Marriage. And not that long ago either. Give it time. Enough money will start greasing Lawyers and Politicians palms to make it happen.

"Don't give blacks the vote. If we give blacks the vote we'll have to give Martians, duck eggs, and outhouses the right to vote."

So are you saying you never suck on eggs while you wipe your butt with pages from H.G Wells War of the Worlds while you hang out in your outhouse?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
"Don't give blacks the vote. If we give blacks the vote we'll have to give Martians, duck eggs, and outhouses the right to vote."

Why are you discriminating against whisky stills and hotrods

Because a moonshine still killed my pa.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Because a moonshine still killed my pa.

Did he get tired of his Slave doing a better job then him?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I have no problem with polygamy as long as it isn't a tool through which one gender oppresses the other, which it's often been historically.

(Hint: the one gender is male, the other is female)

Well, all parties would have to consent to marriage, so a woman being traded by her father for 10 oxen or mules would likely be out of bounds here in the U.S. (much to the chagrin of Ox and Mule Herders and some sects of Orthodox Theists nationally). I was thinking more along the lines of swinger couples where there's multiple men and women that all share in "everything". 3 men, 4 women under the same roof with 3 to 4 'bread winners'.

Plus, I'm a Trekkie, so I'm thinking of the Dr. Phlox/Denobulan scenarios where multiple pairings intermingle (husband and wife both having multiple husbands/wives). Hell, a marriage could become a corporation.

I rather marry 2 woman i love.....

They are both relationships that depend upon the willingness of the participants. Polyamorous relationships are just trickier, because more than two lives are involved. I don't see anything wrong with them as long as the people involded are responsible law abiding citizens.

Originally posted by MF DELPH
Well, all parties would have to consent to marriage, so a woman being traded by her father for 10 oxen or mules would likely be out of bounds here in the U.S. (much to the chagrin of Ox and Mule Herders and some sects of Orthodox Theists nationally). I was thinking more along the lines of swinger couples where there's multiple men and women that all share in "everything". 3 men, 4 women under the same roof with 3 to 4 'bread winners'.

Plus, I'm a Trekkie, so I'm thinking of the Dr. Phlox/Denobulan scenarios where multiple pairings intermingle (husband and wife both having multiple husbands/wives). Hell, a marriage could become a corporation.
The Moon is a Harsh Mistress by Robert Heinlein has a really interesting concept of multi-tiered marriages.

Morally, I have no problems with polygamy. I just see it as legally complicated. What if A B and C are married, but B decides they want to stay married to C and divorce A; while C wants to stay married to both A and B. How do you split marriage property? Would one divorce nullify the rest of the marriage? Who is designated legal next of kin? If A and B bear children, what rights does C have as a spouse?

Originally posted by Robtard
Exactly, if assets can be split two ways, they can be split three or more.

The possible big issue is children, eg In a three-way marriage where all three parents have legal custody either via blood or legal filings. But that could also be worked out by splitting care and custody among three instead of two, if a divorce should happen. But this will probably be the wrecking ball the anti-polygamy crowd will use, "think of the children".

Not that I think this will happen anytime soon, it took a long time to get marriage equality for two people. I don't see legal polygamy backdooring its way in anytime soon. I'm all for it though, if it's between consenting adults.


I never said they couldn't split it three ways. They could split it 10 ways if they want. What I'm saying is a dude would be crazy as all hell to get into a marriage where the dude would have to split his shit up with multiple women.

How about two men and a woman?

Likewise, why would a woman banging two diff dudes want to split her shit with them?

Love?

Originally posted by Surtur
I never said they couldn't split it three ways. They could split it 10 ways if they want. What I'm saying is a dude would be crazy as all hell to get into a marriage where the dude would have to split his shit up with multiple women.

Well, the majority of people don't go into marriages thinking "okay, this is going to end in divorce", at least it's reasonable to think that.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Love?

No. This is a thread about "Marriage"

Originally posted by Robtard
Well, the majority of people don't go into marriages thinking "okay, this is going to end in divorce", at least it's reasonable to think that.

Given the divorce rate in this country..they should be DEFINITELY thinking about what would happen in the event of a divorce.

This is why people have prenups and all that jazz. I mean, it's not the dividing of the assets specifically that I think is an issue. I more have an issue with stuff like alimony and the way child support is handled.