CDZ Do you support polygamy?

[September]

Powerful and beautiful men should take on multiple wives, or a wife and numerous concubines. Or multiple husbands. Powerful and beautiful women should do the same but with men. Or other women.

​

 

[Roadrunner]

So next we’ll face this, plural marriage. I feel I want it, I feel I’m polyamorous and I want to have at least two wives. Are there some points in plural marriage that are completely unacceptable to you? Are you for or against?

Whatever floats your boat.

I can't imagine having two or three women mad at me.

Then, what if one of them wanted to enter into ANOTHER marriage?

I am sure once multiple partner marriages are legal overlapping marriages will follow.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I expect it will win for the same reasons gay marriage did.

personally, I think it is better then gay marriage as children can be born in it and will probably have better resources.

No. Absolutely NO.

In the past, plural marriage has been very detrimental to both children and women.

Giving birth to children isn't some sort of magical fix and I'd rather see the children already in existence be adopted, loved, cared for, educated (by straight, gay, mixed parents) than just crank out more, a la Duggars' litter.

The poll is so slanted that there's no good answer but as with anything else, my vote is -- Between consenting adults and harming no one, its their business. MYOB.

So, I voted for promiscuity.

A better question is, why are so many people so damn intent on controlling the sex lives of people they don't even know?

MYOB

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Personally, I do not think I could handle it

Otherwise, I do not see where it harms me as long as it is between consenting adults

Men used to be able to handle it. Wonder what changed.

The sex is easy...anyone can handle that

Its all the emotional baggage...

Do you love me more?
I need to emotionally bond with you
Why aren't you listening to me?
Do these jeans make me look fat?

Who needs that from TWO women?

I've watched a few episodes of Sister Wives and

YUK.

The winner in that mess is the "husband". As near as I could tell, he doesn't do much of anything and is supported by the wives.

All those bastard kids will have to carry the burden of their parents' choices. Illegitimate kids doesn't seem to mean as much as it did in my day (look at Bristol Blech Palin announcing her second bastard because, apparently, she's too damn dumb to know where babies come from or what the meaning of the word "abstinence" is) so that may be nothing or it may be very toxic.

 

[auditor0007]

So next we’ll face this, plural marriage. I feel I want it, I feel I’m polyamorous and I want to have at least two wives. Are there some points in plural marriage that are completely unacceptable to you? Are you for or against?

If anyone is crazy enough to want two spouses, then have at it. It's Biblical anyway. I feel the same way about this as I do SSM; if it isn't hurting those involved, then why should we disallow it? Now there is a good argument against it, and that is that it is not permitted by anyone, gay or straight, you can't have more than one spouse. In other words, where those wanting SSM were being denied a right others enjoyed, nobody can legally have two spouses, so nobody is being denied a right that someone else has. Oh, anyone wanting to suggest that next it will be pedophiles and children, just bitch slap yourself for stupidity.

 

[Linkiloo]

I think it only serves to humiliate women and make men think that the sun shines out of their behinds.

Those women sharing a man are horribly jealous, repressed and competitive.

Sad for them.

 

[pauls]

Personally, I cannot understand why a man would want two wives when most men can't live with one. I also find it just as hard to understand why a woman would want two husbands when "picking up" after one is a full time job in and of itself.

Having stated my personal opinion I think it is a restriction of the freedoms, liberties and rights of the individual to prevent such marriages. Everyone has to learn their limits and making mistakes is how most of us learn. (some lucky few learn by watching the pain of others)

Governments are put in place to protect the freedoms, liberties and rights of the individual. Restraining individual choice only results in servitude and rebellion.

 

[ChrisL]

Personally, I cannot understand why a man would want two wives when most men can't live with one. I also find it just as hard to understand why a woman would want two husbands when "picking up" after one is a full time job in and of itself.

Having stated my personal opinion I think it is a restriction of the freedoms, liberties and rights of the individual to prevent such marriages. Everyone has to learn their limits and making mistakes is how most of us learn. (some lucky few learn by watching the pain of others)

Governments are put in place to protect the freedoms, liberties and rights of the individual. Restraining individual choice only results in servitude and rebellion.

Used to be quite commonplace and still is in some 3rd world countries.

 

[Kosh]

So next we’ll face this, plural marriage. I feel I want it, I feel I’m polyamorous and I want to have at least two wives. Are there some points in plural marriage that are completely unacceptable to you? Are you for or against?

If you truly believe in "equality" and you truly believe that "marriage" is a "right", then they should back this as well..

But for most it was not about a "right" is was about a political agenda, so you will suddenly see those that once claimed marriage is a :right" on this issue claim that marriage is NOT a "right"..

 

[NYcarbineer]

So next we’ll face this, plural marriage. I feel I want it, I feel I’m polyamorous and I want to have at least two wives. Are there some points in plural marriage that are completely unacceptable to you? Are you for or against?

Can you convince the courts that polygamy is sufficient similar to monogamy to entitle it to equal protection under the law?

 

[Kosh]

So next we’ll face this, plural marriage. I feel I want it, I feel I’m polyamorous and I want to have at least two wives. Are there some points in plural marriage that are completely unacceptable to you? Are you for or against?

Can you convince the courts that polygamy is sufficient similar to monogamy to entitle it to equal protection under the law?

And right on cue, another one that claimed "marriage" is a "right" and is now claiming that "marriage" is NOT a "right"..

 

[FA_Q2]

So next we’ll face this, plural marriage. I feel I want it, I feel I’m polyamorous and I want to have at least two wives. Are there some points in plural marriage that are completely unacceptable to you? Are you for or against?

Can you convince the courts that polygamy is sufficient similar to monogamy to entitle it to equal protection under the law?

That is irrelevant to the question of marriage being a right and people being able to marry who they please.

There is no difference in the polygamy argument than the gay argument - polygamous relationships are NOT offered the same rights that those not in polygamist relationships are. If we are to view marriage as a right and that you have the right to define who you want in that relationship without government interference (as is the crux of the gay argument - there is no sufficient governmental need to limit said marriages) than there is really no ground to stand on in denying polygamous relationships the same.

As to the age comments from some posters - that argument has nothing in common with the gay marriage issue at all. The question in legal age lies entirely in the ability to consent - something that is a given in traditional, gay and polygamous relationships. Consent is another issue entirely and not related.

 

[FA_Q2]

The poll is garbage BTW.

You either have/support both options or neither. Selecting one is bigoted by its very nature.

 

[pauls]

Most churches and the government (whoops!) agree that one must be single to marry. That kind of rules out polygamy but it is just more interference by the government. At least those under 18 and animals are safe - they cannot give lawful consent.

 

[danielpalos]

How is it good for women?

Then, there will always be enough "good men" to go around.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So next we’ll face this, plural marriage. I feel I want it, I feel I’m polyamorous and I want to have at least two wives. Are there some points in plural marriage that are completely unacceptable to you? Are you for or against?

Can you convince the courts that polygamy is sufficient similar to monogamy to entitle it to equal protection under the law?

That is irrelevant to the question of marriage being a right and people being able to marry who they please.

There is no difference in the polygamy argument than the gay argument - polygamous relationships are NOT offered the same rights that those not in polygamist relationships are. If we are to view marriage as a right and that you have the right to define who you want in that relationship without government interference (as is the crux of the gay argument - there is no sufficient governmental need to limit said marriages) than there is really no ground to stand on in denying polygamous relationships the same.

As to the age comments from some posters - that argument has nothing in common with the gay marriage issue at all. The question in legal age lies entirely in the ability to consent - something that is a given in traditional, gay and polygamous relationships. Consent is another issue entirely and not related.

Incorrect.

No one has argued that the right to marry is a right to define who you want in that relationship without government interference; indeed, that is exactly what same-sex couples sought, not 'interference,' but acknowledgment of the fact that same-sex relationships were eligible to enter into marriage contracts in accordance with state marriage contract law.

Moreover, as a fact of law, the two issues are completely unrelated, the Obergefell ruling has no bearing whatsoever on three or more people wishing to marry:

"With respect to this asserted basis for excluding same-sex couples from the right to marry, it is appropriate to observe these cases involve only the rights of two consenting adults whose marriages would pose no risk of harm to themselves or third parties."

“[O]nly the rights of two consenting adults,” not three or more – marriage is the union of two consenting adult partners not related to each other in a union recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex; no state's marriage law is written to accommodate three or more people, the Obergefell ruling did not 'change' or 'rewrite' any of the states' marriage laws, it only invalidates measures intended to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in.

Consequently, there are no 14th Amendment 'violations' denying three or more people to marry because no law exists to accommodate such a configuration.

 

[Roadrunner]

I think it only serves to humiliate women and make men think that the sun shines out of their behinds.

Those women sharing a man are horribly jealous, repressed and competitive.

Sad for them.

A strong woman could have more than one man.

WTF, if gays can marry, anybody should be able to marry.

Why should it be anybody's business if there are multiple partners, and/or overlapping marriages?

 

[presonorek]

Only if it means I can marry a 25 year old again.

Of course you could. Why not?

 

[featherlite]

If one poly is ok...they all should be. More choices for the people who want them.
...and just think all the guys with multiple baby mamas ( blk and white) can be a little family unit now. lol

 

[presonorek]

I thought polygamy was the same as a traditional committed marriage relationship. I am not familiar with the terms you used in the OP.

I think we should start with bigamy (two wives or two husbands) for a few generations to see if it works or not. Then we can readjust the laws accordingly.