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.
If you support gay marriage, shouldn't you in the same breath support polygamy? Please do not bring up underage marriage and pedophile etc. There have already been laws in place for those.
I am talking about consenting adults who want to practice polygamy.
I have no problem whatsoever with private, polygamous associations. It just doesn't make any sense in relation to civil marriage contracts. Those contracts create (to a degree) joint legal and financial entities to give a collection of joint rights and responsibilities to 2 people.
Would I be allowed to marry as many foreigners as I wanted and bring them all to the US under spousal immigration visas? If I joined the Army, would my 15 husbands all be entitled to on-base housing? Would they all get survivor benefits should I be killed in action?
Let's say I was incapacitated and needed a medical decision made on me behalf. If I had an even number of wives and there were evenly split on what to do, who has the legal authority to make that decision on my behalf? What if me and my 4 wives all adopted a child? Imagine that custody nightmare if we divorced.
Although it could work to my advantage. I could avoid paying unemployment insurance taxes on my employees wages simply by making them all contract a civil marriage with me (pre-nups of course).
If you support gay marriage, shouldn't you in the same breath support polygamy? Please do not bring up underage marriage and pedophile etc. There have already been laws in place for those.
I am talking about consenting adults who want to practice polygamy, both polygyny and polyandry.
By the way, if you want to spread the wealth of the rich people, polygamy is the way to go. In two generations, their wealth would be gone because they have to support all the wives and kids. :-)
Would that not be a better question put to those of the Mormon Faith? Rather than to supporters of civil unions?
Polygamy (called plural marriage by Mormons in the 19th century or the Principle by modern fundamentalist practitioners of polygamy) was taught by leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) for more than half of the 19th century,[1] and practiced publicly from 1852 to 1890 by a minority of families (between 20% and 30%).
In theory I have no problem with polygamy. Consensual adults in this country should be free to do most anything as long as it doesn't impinge on the rights of another.
Sadly, in practice polygamy does sometimes involve young children and religious wackadoos.
Good points, Hammer. The legal structure as it currently is wouldn't support more than two people.
Also think about medical decisions. Does first spouse get to make the decisions, or is a vote? In the case of death of a spouse do all get to collect social security?
Would everyone be married to each other, or would the spouses all be married to one person, and not each other? If the "lead" spouse dies who gets the house?
If you support gay marriage, shouldn't you in the same breath support polygamy? Please do not bring up underage marriage and pedophile etc. There have already been laws in place for those.
I am talking about consenting adults who want to practice polygamy, both polygyny and polyandry.
By the way, if you want to spread the wealth of the rich people, polygamy is the way to go. In two generations, their wealth would be gone because they have to support all the wives and kids. :-)
What does this mean? That a proponent of state-sanctioned (not religious) marriage recognition for same-sex couples must logically support expanding legal marriage rights to polygamists/polygynists/polyandrists?
I have no problem whatsoever with private, polygamous associations. It just doesn't make any sense in relation to civil marriage contracts. Those contracts create (to a degree) joint legal and financial entities to give a collection of joint rights and responsibilities to 2 people.
Would I be allowed to marry as many foreigners as I wanted and bring them all to the US under spousal immigration visas? If I joined the Army, would my 15 husbands all be entitled to on-base housing? Would they all get survivor benefits should I be killed in action?
Let's say I was incapacitated and needed a medical decision made on me behalf. If I had an even number of wives and there were evenly split on what to do, who has the legal authority to make that decision on my behalf? What if me and my 4 wives all adopted a child? Imagine that custody nightmare if we divorced.
Although it could work to my advantage. I could avoid paying unemployment insurance taxes on my employees wages simply by making them all contract a civil marriage with me (pre-nups of course).
I second this post.
Morally, I have nothing against polgyamy if CONSENSUAL.
Legally and practically, it just doesn't make sense within the existing legal framework.
Yes, I do support it... there may be some legal complications as mentioned above, but on a personal level I couldn't care less if you want multiple partners. Why did you assume we wouldn't support this?
But for the record, there is no rule saying if you support one you must support the other. They are separate issues, just as legalization of various drugs & alcohol are separate issues. Do you think if somebody supports legalizing marijuana, they're a hypocrite if they don't want cocaine legal? (personally I don't care if every drug is legal, but again there is no hypocrisy if I believed otherwise)
If you support gay marriage, shouldn't you in the same breath support polygamy? Please do not bring up underage marriage and pedophile etc. There have already been laws in place for those.
I am talking about consenting adults who want to practice polygamy, both polygyny and polyandry.
By the way, if you want to spread the wealth of the rich people, polygamy is the way to go. In two generations, their wealth would be gone because they have to support all the wives and kids. :-)
Yes. As I've said before, if gender isn't needed to define marriage, why should numbers be sacred?
I also want to point out that legalizing polygamy would shine the light on some of the darker corners of it, such as underage marriages and non-support of children.
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.
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.
