Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-14-2011, 10:10 AM
 
7,871 posts, read 10,135,035 times
Reputation: 3241

Advertisements

I'm just curious, because I think anyone that wants more than one spouse is clinically insane, but what is the compelling state interest in banning polygamy?



Anti-gay marriage threads often list this as a potential "slippery slope" consequence of permitting gay marriage (along with a lot of other things that are just ridiculous).

Why should the government care if people want to be in a "plural marriage?"

Please don't respond with "because it changes the traditional definition of marriage", because that's just not really an argument.

Last edited by Strel; 12-14-2011 at 10:19 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-14-2011, 10:15 AM
 
Location: Land of Thought and Flow
8,323 posts, read 15,174,301 times
Reputation: 4957
Actually, allowing polygamy would be altering marriage closer to its traditional roots.

Aside from the problem of women getting in sync, I don't see an issue with polyamorous relationships or marriages.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-14-2011, 10:18 AM
 
20,728 posts, read 19,374,196 times
Reputation: 8293
Well what basically happened is the men who support multiple women often have trouble affording them so you need a cast system or some form of income stream that does not come from the man himself. In tropical climates it was less of a problem since this economic bottle neck was much less. Another way that allows it is if women have economic output of their own. However eventually you end up with disenfranchised bachelor clans so you either need an oppressive regime with religions dogma like radical Islam or Mormons. They are usually violent societies as well. Animals that pair off nicely tend to not have mate access warfare unlike elephant seals or lions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-14-2011, 10:20 AM
 
7,871 posts, read 10,135,035 times
Reputation: 3241
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rita Mordio View Post
Actually, allowing polygamy would be altering marriage closer to its traditional roots.

Aside from the problem of women getting in sync, I don't see an issue with polyamorous relationships or marriages.


I see LOTs of problems with it, just none that ought to be any of the government's business.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-14-2011, 10:23 AM
 
Location: West Coast of Europe
25,947 posts, read 24,756,050 times
Reputation: 9728
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strel View Post
I'm just curious, because I think anyone that wants more than one spouse is clinically insane, but what is the compelling state interest in banning polygamy?



Anti-gay marriage threads often list this as a potential "slippery slope" consequence of permitting gay marriage (along with a lot of other things that are just ridiculous).

Why should the government care if people want to be in a "plural marriage?"

Please don't respond with "because it changes the traditional definition of marriage", because that's just not really an argument.
Why are those people clinically insane? Unless you are lucky enough to have found the perfect match, thinking of other women or men will sooner or later become hard to avoid anyway. Maybe there are kids, so you don't want to get divorces because of them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-14-2011, 10:24 AM
 
939 posts, read 1,025,419 times
Reputation: 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rita Mordio View Post
Actually, allowing polygamy would be altering marriage closer to its traditional roots.
How so? Marriage was first defined as 2 people, 1 male--1 female.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling View Post
Why are those people clinically insane? Unless you are lucky enough to have found the perfect match, thinking of other women or men will sooner or later become hard to avoid anyway. Maybe there are kids, so you don't want to get divorces because of them.
My wife and I will celebrate 15 years together next year. I can honestly say I love her more today than the day I married her. I wouldn't trade that for anything. We dated less than a year before we got married, but we have made the conscious decision to love each other, and our relationship has grown deeper than we ever could have imagined. It's a mindset...not just chemistry.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-14-2011, 10:24 AM
 
7,871 posts, read 10,135,035 times
Reputation: 3241
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling View Post
Why are those people clinically insane?
I am a monogamist. More than one woman is just a bridge to far for me for a variety if reasons, mostly involving peace of mind.

Quote:
Unless you are lucky enough to have found the perfect match, thinking of other women or men will sooner or later become hard to avoid anyway.

Of course it is, but the difference between humans and animals is our ability to act against instinct for higher reasons.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-14-2011, 10:25 AM
 
7,871 posts, read 10,135,035 times
Reputation: 3241
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheoGeek View Post
How so? Marriage was first defined as 2 people, 1 male--1 female.
No, it was first defined as whoever happened to be in the cave at the time.

But I forget, you don't believe that version of history.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-14-2011, 10:27 AM
 
15,706 posts, read 11,780,658 times
Reputation: 7020
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strel View Post
I see LOTs of problems with it, just none that ought to be any of the government's business.
Isn't it more so the tax/economic issues, in addition to the inevitable inequality of the multiples in the marriage?

Hammertime has pointed it out before, but if a military veteran married multiple women, he would get multiple spousal bonuses that 2 person couples don't get.

I think the legal and financial challenges are the big issue. Although I agree with you, I view someone who would to as rather insane, but that's because I'm a jealous person and could never share my partner.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-14-2011, 10:28 AM
 
1,759 posts, read 2,030,247 times
Reputation: 950
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strel View Post
I am a monogamist.
So it's okay for you to be a monogamist,
but not for me to believe that marriage is between one man and one woman.

Alrightie, then.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:11 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top