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

[dead0man]

I think it should be legal, for liberty reasons.  You?

[President of the great nation of 🏳️‍⚧️]

Provided all spouses consent, option 1.

[This account no longer in use.]

I see no reason not to, besides muh traditional values.

[Goldwater]

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

[NeverAgain]

Leebartah!

[Intell]

God No, mainly for moral reasons, how it will harm womenand complications that it will inevitably cause.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

There's no 'no, for multiple reasons' option.

[ElectionsGuy]

Leebartah!

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Sounds degenerate to me tbh but I don't really care what people do in their own home.  I'm not too keen on the government legitimizing it for legal purposes.

[Blue3]

Work out the legal issues first (obviously), but then yeah. Live and let live. Doesn't affect me. It's not like it doesn't happen unofficially now anyways with open marriages.

[Mr. Smith]

Sure, why not.

I can't win no matter what long-hand explanation I put on this (Typical Post 1890's Mormon).

[Zioneer]

Sure, why not.

I can't win no matter what long-hand explanation I put on this (Typical Post 1890's Mormon).

I don't want to empty-quote, but basically this.

I do think there should be polyandry if there's polygamy.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

It should be legal in the sense of not being banned as an informal arrangement, but I'm not sure if it  should be officially legitimized by the state as a civil marriage.  There may be a special value to society, and to woman and children in particular, in encouraging one-on-one committed relationships, and polygamy forms its own sorts of problems. Whether polygamy has it's own benefits as well, I'm not completely sure, and maybe the state shouldn't be the judge of that. I think if people are in a polygamous arrangement, they should be able to make some sort of joint contract or civil union to provide for inheritance, custody, hospital visitation and the like.   I'm a bit conflicted on this one.  We need to strengthen marriage and rediscover its meaning and value, but how to do that in a pluralistic society is a big task and not entirely clear.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Write-in: No for feminist reasons *and* b/c it'll have terrible psychological effects on any children produced by such a relationship.

[Mr. Smith]

Write-in: No for feminist reasons *and* b/c it'll have terrible psychological effects on any children produced by such a relationship.

Seriously?!? That's your argument?!? After all the attempts to dismiss "psychological effects on children" as an argument against gay, interracial, multi-cultural, transgender relationships through the years and you pull that card now just because you dislike some groups of people that practice it?

Give me a freaking break!

[Intell]

Write-in: No for feminist reasons *and* b/c it'll have terrible psychological effects on any children produced by such a relationship.

Seriously?!? That's your argument?!? After all the attempts to dismiss "psychological effects on children" as an argument against gay, interracial, multi-cultural, transgender relationships through the years and you pull that card now just because you dislike some groups of people that practice it?

Give me a freaking break!

Comparing Equality, to marrying multiple people, which has had disastrous impacts in the world, particularly with the oppression of women, and them being kept as a lower level, as well as children not being adequately taken care after.

[dax00]

Yes, for liberty reasons. Just give the marriage the standard marriage benefits but in proportion to the number of persons married therein

I do think there should be polyandry if there's polygamy.

The term 'polygamy' implies more than 2 persons in a marriage with no reference to gender. Historical polygamy has usually been polygyny.

[Mr. Smith]

Write-in: No for feminist reasons *and* b/c it'll have terrible psychological effects on any children produced by such a relationship.

Seriously?!? That's your argument?!? After all the attempts to dismiss "psychological effects on children" as an argument against gay, interracial, multi-cultural, transgender relationships through the years and you pull that card now just because you dislike some groups of people that practice it?

Give me a freaking break!

Comparing Equality, to marrying multiple people, which has had disastrous impacts in the world, particularly with the oppression of women, and them being kept as a lower level, as well as children not being adequately taken care after.

Write-in: No for feminist reasons *and* b/c it'll have terrible psychological effects on any children produced by such a relationship.

Seriously?!? That's your argument?!? After all the attempts to dismiss "psychological effects on children" as an argument against gay, interracial, multi-cultural, transgender relationships through the years and you pull that card now just because you dislike some groups of people that practice it?

Give me a freaking break!

Comparing Equality, to marrying multiple people, which has had disastrous impacts in the world, particularly with the oppression of women, and them being kept as a lower level, as well as children not being adequately taken care after.

So? Interracial marriages and relations also have had disastrous impacts on the world depending on the context (I am in this case referring to explorers who took women with them, and no, not just Westerners did this). Homosexual relations also kept women down, once again depending on the context (In this case Ancient Greece).

But, in those contexts, those societies were not prepared to deal with treating anyone besides the ruling class with respect.  And in places where women still face the absolute worst,  there are far greater issues to address.

But here and now in the Western world, with all the human rights laws, the diversity, and many relationship types that are forced  to be worked with, such marriages could be legalized and well regulated to work so as to work around the shortfalls (Ex: Create a new limit to avoid incest, tighten consent laws, allow polyandry and polygyny both, etc.).

Also it should be noted that women in 19th century Utah fared better than the average 19th century American woman (especially in the case of The South), and it was because, not in spite of polygamy that this was the case.

So yeah, your argument is literally bunk.

[DemPGH]

Haha, yeah, time for these to cycle around again.

Anyway, nope, no way. Feminist/equality reasons, social health reasons, and ick reasons.

[SWE]

Yes (Feminist)

[Mr. Reactionary]

It should be legal in the sense of not being banned as an informal arrangement, but I'm not sure if it  should be officially legitimized by the state as a civil marriage.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

If it's voluntarily (and I'm not only referring to a man having more than one wife or a woman having more than two husbands), why on earth would I care?

Trying to ban such informal relationships is just point dumb.

[Boston Bread]

No, for (secular) moral reasons.

[SATW]

No, for (secular) moral reasons.

[Seneca]

There won't be legal categories of marriage once we smash the state. As far as polyamory goes, people should do what they want. I'm not interested, but I'm not going to try and stop people from trying out that balancing act.