Do you support Polygamy?

I personally have no problem with a polygamous marriage because it's between consenting adults, just like gay marriage. But for many, the definition of marriage will remain as "One man and one woman."

But Silhouette's constant threads about the DOMA ruling and her posing the question of polygamy legalization has prompted me to create this thread. So what do you guys think of polygamy? Do you think it's wrong or right, and do you think it should be legalized?

 

If 5 women want to marry each other, or five women want to marry one man, or five men want to marry one woman or whatever, that's fine. They can do it with or without the blessings of a church, they can do it with various kinds of binding legal agreements, again, whatever. Just keep the government out of it.

"To be governed is to be watched over, inspected, spied on, directed, legislated at, regulated, docketed, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, assessed, weighed, censored, ordered about, by men who have neither the right nor the knowledge nor the virtue." - Pierre Joseph Proudhon

 

if gay marriage can pass then by all reasons polygamy ought to also. I support polygamy. I wonder if we could get all pro gay marriage people on this boat, or if they suddenly are the people that want to refuse 'a basic human right for people who love eachother'.

Seriously, people that want gay marriage but not polygamy are in a moral pickle.

 

I don't see a problem in the concept of many partners...
When it comes to things like tax breaks, and other benefits, there needs to be more thought.

 

Like any person opposed to bigotry, I support polygamy. Sadly, many leftists cannot let go of their religious bigotry long enough to support this civil right.

 

Doesn't bother me in the slightest. How people choose to organise their personal and intimate lives should be of no concern to anyone but themselves-and definitely not busy-body Bible-bashers; many of whom need to look a little closer to home before launching accusations of immorality at others. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy_in_Christianity#Old_Testament_polygamy

 

I am fiercely against any form of marriage .

 

Interesting POV, given how so many PF liberals support gay marriage but not polygamy.

 

For most, the legal definition of marriage and the issue of equality concerns couples, but that is only the prevalent view in advanced states and western nations, none of whom sanction multiple-party unions.

In nations under sharia law, however, polygyny (one male, multiple females simultaneously) is sanctioned, whereas same-sex couples are strictly prohibited from marrying.

If polygamy were to be legalized in any state or western nation, equality would dictate that polyandry (one woman, multiple males simultaneously) also be permitted. That would undoubtedly be opposed by proponents of sharia law in America and elsewhere, both in their advocacy of polygyny and their fierce opposition to equality for monogamous couples.


Under the democratic process, advocates of such a traditionally Islamic custom are free to petition their congressional representatives to propose such legislation. Perhaps it will be incorporated as a featured policy of the GOP's outreach efforts. I would wish them well.


(One of the bogus matters some who are anguished over gender-equality for couples cling to in desperation is multiple marriage. If someone feels that the American and National Baseball Leagues should adopt equality in the matter of the designated hitter rule, it would mean both would either adopt or reject the option of having one designated hitter. An opponent of the rule would be dismissed as wildly irrelevant if he though he could mount a cogent argument by proposing nine designated hitters. Equality would not demand such a disparate modification of the rules.)


.

 

Get government out altogether... That is hard to argue against.

 

So what's the limit to how many people can marry - 10, 100, 1000, 10,000?

 

there is no limit? Do you want the government to limit how many cars you can have too? how many cats, how many x, how many y? As long as it's consentual, and not violating the rights of others there is no limit; No limit except love.

 

So let's say 10,000 people are married and have 1 child, and they divorce - how does the court determine custody rights for 10,000 separate people?

 

I am indifferent to it. I do not support it actively, but if there was a movement to pass it I would not stand in their way.

 

I'd guess the biological parents would have highest priority. Having many mothers, as in your father having several spouses, doesn't mean you have several biological mothers. Your example wasn't the best. But even if it were, would that be any reason to put a limit on this; people marrying polygamous voluntarily? In my view, no.

 

Let's assume the kid was adopted then, - how the hell would courts work out custody arrangements between 10,000 'parents'?

 

I don't know; I don't have any experience at all with those matters. your example is one that will never happen to begin with, and even if it did I'd say that this custody hell that comes from ten thousand parents isn't a good reason to ban polygamy. You can create troublesome scenarios like this for gay marriages and straight marriages, but it doesn't weigh more than not violating basic rights.

 

Interesting results. Geez, and here I thought that only right wing Presidential candidates approved of polygamy. Their hypocrisy never ceases to amaze me.

 

There's nothing to stop multiple adults from living together in that kind of relationship anyway, so who cares if they're technically married according to some arbitrary authority, right?

- - - Updated - - -

I'd say there's no point in even trying to set that limit. People will work it out for themselves.

 

The Communist is the only one who is honest when he says he is opposed to all marriage. That is the Communist agenda to abolish all forms of marriage, and the liberal/gay alliance is working toward the Communist agenda. That is because Communists tell them what to do, and they obey.

 

Even though I am not a religious person, marriage is a religious contract between one man, one woman, and God. That's it. Anything else is garbage.

I have come to realize that I envy my grandfather who died more than 40 years ago, that he never had to see what a sh!thole the world has become.

 

Further disintegration of established moral order. It should not be legalized. Practitioners should be arrested.

- - - Updated - - -

Further disintegration of established moral order. It should not be legalized. Practitioners should be arrested.

 

I am betting opponents to interracial marriage said the exact same thing. Probably verbatim.

 

Not ones with the moral compass guiding me. Being black is not sexually deviant behavior.

I'm not some small minded fool just because I do not agree with your agenda.

Reds against moral disintegration. The workers cause takes precedence over the cause of sexual deviants.

 

Race mixing was once considered sexually deviant.

Who gets to represent the interests of the Workers? Who gets the final say as to what is sexually deviant?