Polygamy: should it be legal?

I was reading an article on MSNBC not too long ago that hinted how polygamy might become legal in about 20 years or so. That totally made me think. I mean, doesn't it make women feel more like a baby factory or something and not a wife? Anyways, what are your thoughts of polygamy, should it be legal?

No. Polygamy is a cultural thing. In this day and age, it would be way too complicated to have men and women legally married more than one person. Marriage between two people is already strenuous.

Indeeeeeed, and how do you explain that to the kidds? 'Well this is your daddy but this woman he's married to isn't your mommy, and this is your daddy and this is your mommy and this is your sister but your father's other children AREN'T your brothers and sisters'? Think how that's going to screw the kids up for life.

I don't support it at all and think it's unfair and counterproductive, but if there are adult women who would consensually AGREE to being one of a mans many wives, then I see no reason for the law to say no. I'm a firm believer in consenting adults making their own choices, so long as it does not hurt anyone else!

I don't care if they legalize polygamy or not but if our society ever does, same sex marriage better be too.

Polygamy shouldn't become legal, that's the dumbest idea I've ever heard.

alan smithee wrote:I don't care if they legalize polygamy or not but if our society ever does, same sex marriage better be too.

Oh that will come first. Polygamy will come next cause there'd be no way to say no to it. Then of course, all of these marriage benefits will become unsustainable because anybody and everybody would have access to them. Legal marriage would either be done away with or be insanely regulated.

There is no way i am sharing MY MAN with a bunch of bitches!!!

Forgiveness_Man wrote:Oh that will come first. Polygamy will come next cause there'd be no way to say no to it. Then of course, all of these marriage benefits will become unsustainable because anybody and everybody would have access to them. Legal marriage would either be done away with or be insanely regulated.

Sorry, but your slippery slope argument has been proven false in every country and state that has legalized marriage equality. It is true that in the Netherlands, legalizing (or recognizing) plural marriages is just beyond the horizon, but the cause of that is not that they legalized (or recognized) marriages of gay and lesbian couples first, it's the result of a very progressive and tolerant government.

In America, polygamy is illegal and has been for over a century. Marriages between gay and lesbian couples have never been illegal, just not recognized. The government found a compelling interest in restricting marriage to two people. Several, actually, if my memory serves me correctly. And our current legal system is not prepared to handle plural marriages. Questions of custody, inheritance, social security benefits, end-of-life decisions; all of these and the laws that regulate them are based on a two-person per marriage system. Overhauling that system would be egregiously time-consuming and cost billions, and all for something that our government has found a compelling interest to deny.

That said, polygamy IS "traditional" marriage. The 1950s version of a marriage that all Americans like to idealize is not traditional in the least. And it no longer exists, as women are no longer considered property, and marriage doesn't offer (or impose) coverture any longer. Polygamy has endured longer than any other form of marriage and is still practiced today in many countries. It is notable that the countries in which polygamy is practiced are the countries that have the poorest record of human rights and women's rights in the world. Perhaps that is one of the "compelling interests" the government found in forbidding it.

LVJoel wrote:
Sorry, but your slippery slope argument has been proven false in every country and state that has legalized marriage equality. It is true that in the Netherlands, legalizing (or recognizing) plural marriages is just beyond the horizon, but the cause of that is not that they legalized (or recognized) marriages of gay and lesbian couples first, it's the result of a very progressive and tolerant government.

In America, polygamy is illegal and has been for over a century. Marriages between gay and lesbian couples have never been illegal, just not recognized. The government found a compelling interest in restricting marriage to two people. Several, actually, if my memory serves me correctly. And our current legal system is not prepared to handle plural marriages. Questions of custody, inheritance, social security benefits, end-of-life decisions; all of these and the laws that regulate them are based on a two-person per marriage system. Overhauling that system would be egregiously time-consuming and cost billions, and all for something that our government has found a compelling interest to deny.

That said, polygamy IS "traditional" marriage. The 1950s version of a marriage that all Americans like to idealize is not traditional in the least. And it no longer exists, as women are no longer considered property, and marriage doesn't offer (or impose) coverture any longer. Polygamy has endured longer than any other form of marriage and is still practiced today in many countries. It is notable that the countries in which polygamy is practiced are the countries that have the poorest record of human rights and women's rights in the world. Perhaps that is one of the "compelling interests" the government found in forbidding it.

No it hasn't. lol It just hasn't been proven correct yet. It will in time. America will legalize polygamy. There just isn't a reason not to. "Progressive" eh? Well I think sometimes people would progress off of a cliff. Being "very progressive" just sounds like another political distraction word to fool people. But I am sure "polygamy" can be easily labeled progressive with a good lawyer. Heck I am not lawyer and I could probably do it.

And your point is? Right now that's the case. If marriage can be between any 2 people, there's no reason to not change that down the road to include more than 2 people. There would be no good arguments against it. It would take a while, but it would happen. Polygamy would come. Trust me, it would. Nobody would be able to find legitimate ways to be against it. If they tried to, they'd be bigots.

Those analogies are poor. I don't even support polygamy and I can refute them. I think it's closeminded to think that the arguments that apply to same-sex marriage cannot be applied to polygamy. They can, and they will. Monkey see, monkey do. Same-sex marriage will come first, and then polygamy will come. Not saying it will happen the next day. But it will come.

But I do find it interesting how the "everyone has a fence" quote is revealing itself to be oh so true.

Absolutely not. Once allowed, polygamy will facilitate the practice of forced marriages. This also creates marital ‘double jeopardy’ - a) forced marriage b) to a member of one’s own family, keeping children within the closed community structure polygamy so often creates.Indeed, where polygamy is found, a wealth of other offences follows. Child abuse, rape, welfare fraud, incest - all staples of the polygamous communities in the USA, along with the broader exploitation of women.