we ain't done this one in a bit, POLYGAMY!

[RFayette]

No, for (secular) moral reasons.

This, though I'm OK with people living in such an arrangement, I just don't think it should be recognized as a marriage.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I'm sure if state recognized it'd be used far more frequently by people trying to abuse the law than as actual "marriages". Yeah I know some people screamed the same thing about gay marriage but that didn't allow for any type of marriage of convenience that wasn't already possible between a man and a woman.

[RFayette]

I'm sure if state recognized it'd be used far more frequently by people trying to abuse the law than as actual "marriages". Yeah I know some people screamed the same thing about gay marriage but that didn't allow for any type of marriage of convenience that wasn't already possible between a man and a woman.

Agreed,

The primary difference is that a gay marriage is still a lifetime binding unit of two people, albeit of the same gender.  So the same legal framework used for centuries with respect to marriage could still apply easily.  One salient one is the permanence of marriage - while divorce is always an option, it does bind one partner to another in a legal fashion, just like a heterosexual marriage.

One of the problems of polygamy, that you're correct to point out, is that since one person can be "married" to multiple others, the basic pillars of marriage - mutual commitment, fidelity, etc.  - have the potential to be eroded strongly.  I could still see a case in favor of it, but it certainly has far more ramifications than the SSM debate.

[dax00]

One of the problems of polygamy, that you're correct to point out, is that since one person can be "married" to multiple others, the basic pillars of marriage - mutual commitment, fidelity, etc.  - have the potential to be eroded strongly.

It is not for the state to determine what a marriage should entail. I'm of the opinion that the state shouldn't recognize marriages at all.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

One of the problems of polygamy, that you're correct to point out, is that since one person can be "married" to multiple others, the basic pillars of marriage - mutual commitment, fidelity, etc.  - have the potential to be eroded strongly.

It is not for the state to determine what a marriage should entail. I'm of the opinion that the state shouldn't recognize marriages at all.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

I support getting the government out of marriage period and granting everyone a recognized civil union for tax purposes. So for the sake of preventing fraud and whathaveya, I oppose it. Want to have a bunch of wives/husbands and live together communally for religious reasons or just for giggles? Fine by me. But don't expect a tax credit for each additional spouse.

[ingemann]

I get why some people support polygamy out of some kind of liberal belief in freedom, and I could come with a lot of reasons why it's a bad idea.

But instead I will just show this map over where polygamy is legal.

[Goldwater]

I get why some people support polygamy out of some kind of liberal belief in freedom, and I could come with a lot of reasons why it's a bad idea.

But instead I will just show this map over where polygamy is legal.

Because guilt by association is the best argument!

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I get why some people support polygamy out of some kind of liberal belief in freedom, and I could come with a lot of reasons why it's a bad idea.

But instead I will just show this map over where polygamy is legal.

Aren't Zuma and Mswati polygamists?

[politicallefty]

Insofar as all parties are in absolute full consent above the age of majority, I have no objections. (I do not condone religious cults like the FLDS that force children into marriage that is essentially tantamount to child rape.) I have no moral qualms about polygamy (regardless of gender, whether it be polygyny, polyandry, polygynandry, or any other form of group marriage). However, considering there is no constitutional basis for such a right, I have serious trouble seeing how it works within any current Western legal framework. Until it can be shown to be easily integrated into Western law, I think polygamy should probably remain on the back burner in terms of liberty issues. However, to be honest, I really cannot make predictions on the issue until the first Western country moves forward with legislation.

To ask a bold question here: what will be the first Western country to legalize polygamy in a secular context (and, fwiw, I do not think that day is too far away)?

[ingemann]

Because guilt by association is the best argument!

People argue against a whole lot things based on guilt by association, I don't see why this should be different. Countries or cultures which have polygamy tend to be sh**ttier than those which have not. Let's just compare polygamous Mormon with non-polygamous Mormon, the latter group are clearly superior to the first.

But let's look at it from a practical POV. Polygamy reduce women to objects, having several wifes becomes a way for a man to show his wealth, no different than having a expensive car, a rolex or other objects of wealth, and as such the women become a object to buy or sell. We also see that it becomes harder for young and poor men to get married, which create social problems.

So I get the whole ...FREEDOM, LIBERTY, INDIVIDUALISM ETC... way of thinking, which makes people think that polygamy should be legal. But it doesn't change the fact, that legalising polygamy won't do anything positive for society, women or even most men. It makes women property, keep many men from getting married and create more unstable societies.

[ingemann]

Aren't Zuma and Mswati polygamists?

Yes but polygamy is not legal in either South Africa or Swaziland, but neither is it fully illegal. Wikipedia have articles about both countries rules for polygamy, if people are interested and I'm not an expect on their laws on the subject.

[Potus]

I'm confused as to what pro-polygamy folks think will happen to the large, large contingent of the population that can't find a significant other after the normalization of polygamy because the people you find desirable all gravitate toward the class of people who are universally desirable. I know this sounds asinine, but when we profile terrorists, they are secluded, lonely, angry twenty to thirty something males. The actual, real destruction of marriage would create a whole lot more of those people.

I have always said it's a stretch to suggest that including gay couple's in matrimony would cause social breakdown. However, legal polygamy has the potential to create a class of people whose only real emotions are a cocktail of envy, bitterness, anger, and seclusion. This doesn't sound like a recipe for social stability or a healthy society.

[Clark Kent]

Opposed for all of the above (voted religious reasons).

[DINGO Joe]

No, for sanity reasons.  A man who thinks he wants two wives should be found mentally incompetent.

[Illiniwek]

My legal reasons conveniently line up with my ick-i-ness feelings. How far does it go? Can you marry hundreds or thousands of times? How do you handle assets and benefits and inheritances? If everybody in some backwards town married everybody else in town, then what is the point? If 1 and 2 are married, and 3 comes along into the picture, does 3 marry just 1? or both 1 and 2? What if 23 wants to marry 1-14 but not 15-22? How can anyone be willing to go into this massive maze inside of a can of worms? This creates a contractual nightmare that goes against everything contractual marriage stands for. I would be much more willing to abolish legal marriage then try to create a system where polygamy was allowed.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

It seem like the contractual/legal issues could get complicated, but I have no moral issues against it.

That's where I stand. A legal agreement between two people is tough, an agreement between three or more is a nightmare. Do whatever makes you and your partners happy, but the legal minefield from the Government's perspective is a little too convoluted for me

[Ebowed]

I don't have a problem with polyamorous relationships.  My solution to preventing the sort of polygynous structures that oppress women and children in fundamentalist religious sects is to ensure that all members of a plural marriage are indeed married to each other, rather than one man marrying everyone else.  The fundamentalists tend to have a homophobic streak and would likely continue not to register the true nature of their relationships with government authorities, regardless of what happens with laws against polygamy.

Of course, this is a rather simplistic argument, but it suitably quells my main concern with legal polygamy, which has always been a historical one of oppression rather than any moral judgement on polyamory itself.

[jaichind]

yes, for liberty reasons

[Santander]

I think this map speaks for itself. We live in a civilized society, and we should not have any tolerance for such disgusting practices.

[RaphaelDLG]

I get why some people support polygamy out of some kind of liberal belief in freedom, and I could come with a lot of reasons why it's a bad idea.

But instead I will just show this map over where polygamy is legal.

Because guilt by association is the best argument!

How many of these countries also allow polyANDRY?!?

*****

If people want to be polygamous and will raise any associated children dutifully and responsibly, then god bless.  But the contractual issues are too great probably and ripe for abuse - mobsters would all marry each other so they couldn't testify against each other or something.

[Kingpoleon]

^RaphaelDLG, your argument about "mobsters marrying each other" sounds quite a bit like conservative arguments against SSM.

"We can't legalize gay marriage because then two mobsters could marry each other and be unable to testify against each other."

[RaphaelDLG]

^RaphaelDLG, your argument about "mobsters marrying each other" sounds quite a bit like conservative arguments against SSM.

"We can't legalize gay marriage because then two mobsters could marry each other and be unable to testify against each other."

20 people can't get married to each other because of SSM, though.

The issue is numerical.  Two people (rarely) exploited marriage for legal reasons before SSM, now during SSM two same sex people can do it, not a big difference.

Now that I think about it, though, the OP probably meant a 3-person polygamous or polyandrous relationship which isn't that exploitable.