Legalizing Polygamy?

[RainbowsAndGumdrops]

Would you support a law that legalizes polygamy? Consenting adults of course.

[Ciara]

No. I believe marriage is between One man and One woman.
Polygamy annoys me because its always the men with multiple wives and never the wives with multiple husbands, plus the men would never allow it.

[RainbowsAndGumdrops]

I voted yes. I believe there is scriptural support for polygamy throughout the ages. I think it is illegal and therefore should not be practiced. If it were legal, I wouldn't have an issue with it, given the adults are consenting.

I don't think that polygamy is about power and control.

I also think that if polygamy is lived well, everyone could be happy in that environment.

[Glow]

had to vote yes even though it goes against my personal feelings.

It is that whole Pandora's box thing.

I personally believe marriage is best defined as one man one woman. I think we have made a mockery of that in this country and it no longer means that at all. People either have affairs while married, or get divorced and remarry multiple times.

Then there are people that are gay. They point to the sham that heterosexuals have made of marriage as well as their own (some of the time) stable relationships and ask for the legal protections and advantages that go along with marriage be extended to them.

If we legalize two men getting married or two women getting married how can we possibly say no if a man wants to marry his several women all at once? Especially when the women agree?

Another thought, poygamy was allowed for by God and I dont think he would have allowed for it, if it were inherently harmful to humans.

In short, I think we have lost the "right" to tell men and women that marriage can only consist of two people at one time, just as we are losing the right to tell people of the same sex they cant marry.


I feel the government does have a clear and distinct right to not have to fund polygamy by paying out for the children and extra wives it creates.

[Ciara]

[quote=Glow;2364655



I personally believe marriage is best defined as one man one woman. I think we have made a mockery of that in this country and it no longer means that at all. People either have affairs while married, or get divorced and remarry multiple times. (quote)

Not all people Glow...there are plenty of long standing happily married couples too, even on this site alone and I know quite a few in real life. It all depends how seriously they take marriage and if they see it as sacred like I do.



If we legalize two men getting married or two women getting married how can we possibly say no if a man wants to marry his several women all at once? Especially when the women agree?I hope this never happens

Another thought, poygamy was allowed for by God and I dont think he would have allowed for it, if it were inherently harmful to humans. I dont know about whether it is harmful or not if at least the woman agrees BUT I know that there are women whose husbands take the other wives against the first wife's wishes. My own neighbour's mother being one example. She almost went demented over it but her husband ignored her wishes and brought the other wife into the home anyway. Thats harmful



I feel the government does have a clear and distinct right to not have to fund polygamy by paying out for the children and extra wives it creates. I totally agree with this

[Ciara]

Well I sure managed to mess my last post up! I have no idea why my blue writing didnt work or why it looks like that or even how to fix it. I just tried about ten times!!!:waitasec::waitasec::waitasec::waitasec:

[PSUfan]

I voted yes. I believe there is scriptural support for polygamy throughout the ages. I think it is illegal and therefore should not be practiced. If it were legal, I wouldn't have an issue with it, given the adults are consenting.

I don't think that polygamy is about power and control.

I also think that if polygamy is lived well, everyone could be happy in that environment. I voted no, but after reading your post, maybe I am not so sure.

Why not just let them call it "spiritual marriages"? Why does it have to be recognized by the government? It would be a nightmare with medical insurance, taxes, etc etc.

[LinasK]

If we legalize two men getting married or two women getting married how can we possibly say no if a man wants to marry his several women all at once? Especially when the women agree?

Easily. One (gay marriage) has nothing to do with the other-polygamy. That's why bigamy laws exist. Even if the women are adults, they are being subservient, and it throws off the balance for other males and creates welfare situations.

[RainbowsAndGumdrops]

I voted no, but after reading your post, maybe I am not so sure.

Why not just let them call it "spiritual marriages"? Why does it have to be recognized by the government? It would be a nightmare with medical insurance, taxes, etc etc.

I actually had to think quite a while about the tax issue. I came to the following conclusion. They would all be one household. As such all incomes combine for the household income and the dependants are all claimed as a group. If however, they choose married filing seperately, those that file seperately would have to have their income and dependants not counted as part of the group.

Insurance... I didn't think about that. Hmmm. If large families paying only 1 family insurance premium took over the world our premiums would skyrocket. I think the number of polygamists would be so minimal that the impact to others would be minimal.

[RainbowsAndGumdrops]

I personally believe marriage is best defined as one man one woman. I think we have made a mockery of that in this country and it no longer means that at all. People either have affairs while married, or get divorced and remarry multiple times.

Then there are people that are gay. They point to the sham that heterosexuals have made of marriage as well as their own (some of the time) stable relationships and ask for the legal protections and advantages that go along with marriage be extended to them.

If we legalize two men getting married or two women getting married how can we possibly say no if a man wants to marry his several women all at once? Especially when the women agree?

Another thought, poygamy was allowed for by God and I dont think he would have allowed for it, if it were inherently harmful to humans.

In short, I think we have lost the "right" to tell men and women that marriage can only consist of two people at one time, just as we are losing the right to tell people of the same sex they cant marry.


I feel the government does have a clear and distinct right to not have to fund polygamy by paying out for the children and extra wives it creates.

Glow's post changed my opinion from yes to "NO". I feel that marriage should be between a man and a woman. That right is only maintained as long as we keep it. While I wouldn't have much problem with consenting adults entering a polygamous marriage relationship, I would have a problem loosing the right to say that marriage is between one man and one woman. I think that is a right worth standing up for. When that right is lost it cannot be restored.

I change my vote to "NO"

[RainbowsAndGumdrops]

Easily. One (gay marriage) has nothing to do with the other-polygamy. That's why bigamy laws exist. Even if the women are adults, they are being subservient, and it throws off the balance for other males and creates welfare situations.

I have to say that I am a bit confused by this post. I agree that gay marriage and polygamy are not related - except that they change the marriage laws in the us and redefine what a marriage is. Legalizing polygamy would change bigamy laws just as gay marriage would change the laws on who can get married. I think that is the point GLOW was making.

The issue of subservience - I don't think women have to be any more subserviant in a polygamous relationship than in any other. This question is if everyone has free choice in the situation and is consenting. I do see subserviance as a problem in the relationships currently.

Now for the end of your post - the whole reason I replied. I don't think that polygamy is going to be so popular that it throws off the entire male female balance in the world. It seems to me there are more gays and lesbians that would throw off the balance (more gays than lesbians or more lesbians than gays etc). Polygamy throwing off the balance only seems to be a problem in a closed society (such as the FLDS ranches).

Ok, I just talked my way through my logic and talked myself out of all my points that I wanted to make...:waitasec:

[yolorado]

Absolutely not. I look around and if I see polygamy, in general I see women with fewer rights than they should have, arranged marriages, talk of freedom with precious little to actually be had. How can a family send 40 kids to college? How can a man know and cherrish 5 women and 28 children? How can a man be a good husband if he doesn't even know his chilren's names or who their mothers are...or recognize his kids on the street. I see women barefoot and preggers applying for welfare while men with stockpiles of heavy equipment work 12 year old kids on construction crews. Invariably, men seem to dominate, control, boast a hotline to God and, way too often, way too young brides seem to get thrown into that equation.

For me, marriage should be a relationship between two people---friends, lovers, companions, mating for life, equals in a primary, exclusive relationship, throwing their lot in together for life (and/or eternity), pulling in double harness, leaving their mothers and fathers and cleaving to each other, together forming a supportive unit which underpines the family and the society. In our day and time, it's the structure that can potentially offer stability and security to the greatest degree for greatest number of people and the one that creates the least strife, poverty and misery while affording the greatest potential for human freedom and for glorifying God according to new testament principles.

[yolorado]

Glow's post changed my opinion from yes to "NO". I feel that marriage should be between a man and a woman. That right is only maintained as long as we keep it. While I wouldn't have much problem with consenting adults entering a polygamous marriage relationship, I would have a problem loosing the right to say that marriage is between one man and one woman. I think that is a right worth standing up for. When that right is lost it cannot be restored.

I change my vote to "NO"

Here, hear! Precisely.

[PSUfan]

Glow's post changed my opinion from yes to "NO". I feel that marriage should be between a man and a woman. That right is only maintained as long as we keep it. While I wouldn't have much problem with consenting adults entering a polygamous marriage relationship, I would have a problem loosing the right to say that marriage is between one man and one woman. I think that is a right worth standing up for. When that right is lost it cannot be restored.

I change my vote to "NO" So funny that your original posts had me considering changing my vote to "yes".

I love to read different opinions on this.

I think my final answer is NO. Marriage is for one man and one woman. If your religion calls for something different, then just go ahead and have a hippie commune lifestyle, and be sure to legally prepare for your death with a will, and make enough money to pay for health insurance for all of you wives. Unless they work, of course.

[SewingDeb]

Nope. If a person is not going to be faithful to one person, what is the point of marriage?

[mrsjonnob]

Tough question- I think if we are going to pass laws support gay marriage, then we have to consider passing laws that support plural marriage in the cases of consenting adults. Plural marriage is hardly exclusive to the FLDS- there are tons of websites dedicated to those seeking sister-wives and a huge chuck of those folks are not affiliated with any off-shoots of the LDS church. If men can legally marry men and women can legally marry women, they what is the harm of men marrying multiple women who are at the age of consent? I am not saying I support this at all, just playing devil's advocate here.

As far as the fear that it will create more welfare issues because of men having children with multiple wives-- HELLO!! We have this problem already- men have children with multiple women (often at the same time) every day in this country!! Don't y'all watch Maury and Jerry? The difference is these men are not married to all (or any) the baby-mamas, which IMO, is actually more of a burden on the welfare system in this country. At least if the men are legally bound to these women and children, it will be easier to go after them to support their offspring.

[poco]

Would I support it??? --- you mean vote FOR a law that legalizes it - probably not.

Do I care if they pass a law that allows it - no, not really.

[LI_Mom]

Isn't it already "illegal?"

Obviously, that makes no real difference to people who choose to live that lifestyle. So whether the govt. officially sanctions it or not is rather beside the point.

My ONLY problem concerning this is that some people might be forced into the lifestyle against their free will or because they are 'brainwashed' & actually believe they are exercising free will.


Until the govt. is prepared to pass laws that actually PREVENT adults from living together unless they have an officially recognized marriage certificate, what are they actually preventing?! lol Nothing!


We shouldn't be fooled into believing we can judge the 'sanctity of our own marriages' against the lives of other people & their personal relationships. If someone else lifestyle choices are affecting YOUR marriage/family.... it's probably a real good time to examine your own life.

[SewingDeb]

If polygamy becomes legal, will employers have to insure all the spouses?

[LI_Mom]

If polygamy becomes legal, will employers have to insure all the spouses?

It would make it a lot harder to find a job, if so.

But I suppose that's one of the little things you have to deal with when you have multiple wives & a million children. lol

[yolorado]

If polygamy becomes legal, will employers have to insure all the spouses?

It would probably create a situation where employers eventually wouldn't insure any spouses. Or, maybe they'd give you a number---as in each employee could get insurance for 3 family members beside themselves.

[mrsjonnob]

If polygamy becomes legal, will employers have to insure all the spouses?

My Dh has worked for several companies over the years and I am not certain any of them legally HAD to pay the premiums for their employees (and spouses and families). That is all part of the negotiations process when accepting a job. Some companies have paid for all of our premiums and other companies only paid a small fraction.

[Linda7NJ]

yes, between consenting adults

[CASuzk]

Hmm, I'm wondering how you can really define polygamy and make a law against it in modern society.

US Adults can live with whomever they choose, right? Bigamy is using the state legal process to marry more than one person and that is against the law; but nearly all polygamists are not using any legal method of marriage contracts to call themselves married. Polygamist weddings are religious affairs and without state documentation.
As for the children, any two people who acknowledge themselves at the time of the child's birth on a birth certificate as the mother and father are therefore the parents of that child and they do not have to have any state order to be the legal parents of that child unless there is a DNA finding to prove otherwise.

We can argue that the state's definition of marriage is based on religious (biblical) teachings: one man, one woman and sexual exclusivity but is it so?
If we insist that marriage is a legal contract and then assign it a biblical root, can we then make any marriage where one partner is unfaithful null and void?

[Trino]

Just a thought from an occasional lurker...

If the US had national health care coverage, no problem...

[czechmate7]

I voted yes...It isn't my business what consenting adults want to do(whether it be gay marriage or polygamy). To each his own.
I consider myself a Christian...Real Christains do not judge people and their choices. Real Christians accept people for who they are, not who or how many people they sleep with/or are married to. I know folks will argue that it isn't what the church teaches...but I thought the church taught to be forgiving and accepting? If God didn't want homosexuals or polygimst then why did he create them?
Just my opinion...

[EastSideOfSaddness]

Tough question- I think if we are going to pass laws support gay marriage, then we have to consider passing laws that support plural marriage in the cases of consenting adults. If you believe that being gay is a preference rather than feelings that you are born with I can see why you'd say this. I don't however, believe that people CHOOSE to be gay (personal experience). Plural marriage is a CHOICE.

[ginzy]

I voted not sure, but the more I think about it...I think NO...but that is my personal religious beliefs. Yes God did permit polygamy in the old testament, but with Jesus and the new trestament things changes. Polygamist were not just married to numerous wives they were also having marital relations at the same time with there numerous wives. This apparently went against the laws of "nature". God realized this and found that that would be breaking the thou shalt not commit adultry commandmendts.
I would have to look up the scripture to post to be more presice.

[Trino]

I agree that legalizaing pologamy is adultrous, but, at least, the pologamists are open about it. No one is prosecuted for adultery any more nor is this a legal reason for most divorces, so adultery has become more of a religious no-no. My only concern is that children will be indoctrinated in this life-style and see little choices for themselves once they become adults.

[southcitymom]

had to vote yes even though it goes against my personal feelings.

It is that whole Pandora's box thing.

I personally believe marriage is best defined as one man one woman. I think we have made a mockery of that in this country and it no longer means that at all. People either have affairs while married, or get divorced and remarry multiple times.

Then there are people that are gay. They point to the sham that heterosexuals have made of marriage as well as their own (some of the time) stable relationships and ask for the legal protections and advantages that go along with marriage be extended to them.

If we legalize two men getting married or two women getting married how can we possibly say no if a man wants to marry his several women all at once? Especially when the women agree?

Another thought, poygamy was allowed for by God and I dont think he would have allowed for it, if it were inherently harmful to humans.

In short, I think we have lost the "right" to tell men and women that marriage can only consist of two people at one time, just as we are losing the right to tell people of the same sex they cant marry.


I feel the government does have a clear and distinct right to not have to fund polygamy by paying out for the children and extra wives it creates.

This is a very interesting thread and this post comes closest to stating my thoughts on the subject.

I did love the poster who pointed out that we rarely see plural husbands (Gah - can you imagine more than one Husband!!!!????:eek: No thanks!)

[PhoneBoothBandit]

I vote no... While I believe that gay people should have the right to marry, I still think the union of marriage should between two consenting parties.

It gets difficult enough bringing another person into a relationship, imagine if we all had the free will to marry when we pleased.

[Spangle]

They don't practice real Polygamy. If they did, when a man is kicked out of the group, his wives and children would be required to go with him. Instead, he is forced to leave his wives and they are reassigned to other men still in the group.

Even if Polygamy was legalized, the marriage would have to be filed with the state. To disolve such a marriage, a divorce would have to be asked for. Which would make the 're-assigning' of wives at whim.. rather impossible. Which is why I don't think the marriages would be filed with the state anyway, even if it was legal. Making it all a moot point.

[RainbowsAndGumdrops]

Good point.

[LaLaw2000]

I voted NO.

[PolyGraph]

I voted yes. I believe there is scriptural support for polygamy throughout the ages. I think it is illegal and therefore should not be practiced. If it were legal, I wouldn't have an issue with it, given the adults are consenting.

I don't think that polygamy is about power and control.

I also think that if polygamy is lived well, everyone could be happy in that environment.

I do not agree, I do not think the 'majority' of women would be happy, look at the current polygamist wives fighting over their husb ands now? they are clearly jealous and establish a pecking order...at least this is what has been said. There may be some women who are okay with sharing their husbands, but I am not one lol, Im not married but If I were, I wouldnt share my man with anyone! I think its vile and disgusting and I would not be able to sleep with someone who just slept with someone else grooossss.

[Luminous]

I voted yes, between consenting adults.

I know several people in polyamorous relationships who would have legal plural marriages if they could, and I feel they should have the right to marry who they love, as should all consenting adults, regardless of gender, religion, ethnicity, etc.

[darcedarce]

No. One man and one woman.

[WholeLottaRosie]

I voted yes, but, the but is that it needs to be legal for women to have multiple husbands as well as men having multiple wives.

[Lola]

I voted yes, but, the but is that it needs to be legal for women to have multiple husbands as well as men having multiple wives.

What woman in her right mind would want multiple husbands? :waitasec:

[daisy.faithfull]

I voted yes. I don't think that is the type of marriage involved that makes a marriage healthy or not, it is the people involved.

[PattyCake]

I've voted no. I think there has not been a fair balance of examples shown where the women are completely unhappy & miserable in these circumstances.

You have to understand FLDS to know that the women are brainwashed into believing IF THEY DO NOT do this, they will go to hell! They are told that from day one. Beyond that, if they DO agree to it, their husbands will obtain a level of a GOD in the next world by the number of wives he takes.

There needs to be a full education regarding this entire situation in order for others to understand the full ramifications of this practice. Rarely are there ever happy content peaceful unions under these circumstances.

[Spangle]

I totally agree. I read a book once that was written no long (historically) after they got to Utah. A writer from the East went for the purpose of writting about the many wives, how it all worked, how they got along.

He didn't find the happy familys one would expect. HE did find different various of households. One type, the lead wife was the boss. She liked the idea. The othe wives did as they were told, by her. Those sorta worked. The other ones, where everything was fair and equal, didn't work out. The home belonged to no one and none of the women took pride in it. Things didn't get done, and it was always someone elses fault. Kinda like children/teenagers. Drove the men crazy.

Joseph liked the idea of sleeping with more then 1 woman. He historically that men did have more then 1 wife because the Bible talks about it. And then there are the Harems. But he didn't know how such would work. Most likely didn't think about it.

This model that these later groups are using, don't work. IT's also contingent if the Husband stays in good standing with the leader of the Church. Other wise the wives can be taken away from him and given to someone else. Just like the property they are considered. That isn't marriage, that is slavery. So why is the question about Polgamy which is a marriage state??

[kittenish]

I voted yes...It isn't my business what consenting adults want to do(whether it be gay marriage or polygamy). To each his own.
I consider myself a Christian...Real Christains do not judge people and their choices. Real Christians accept people for who they are, not who or how many people they sleep with/or are married to. I know folks will argue that it isn't what the church teaches...but I thought the church taught to be forgiving and accepting? If God didn't want homosexuals or polygimst then why did he create them?
Just my opinion...

Although I don't believe in that God fellow, I absolutely adore Christians like you. I always thought that Christianity was supposed to be an accepting and forgiving religion. Unfortunately the ones with the loudest voices don't seem to show it.

[claudicici]

yes,i voted yes,because it is between consenting adults...and of course that would go for women as well who would desire multiple husbands...and no,i don't think any of us would actually want that...it's just a biological fact ,men have a lot they would like to spread around,us woman are cautious and once we have children we would rather tend to their needs and our own needs for once.i got divorced from my husband when my daughter was 10 and omg i could not have ever been happier,yet i think if he would have chosen a new wife,that i could have been friends with,i would have been just as happy...

[Glow]

Really good post claudicici!


This is a complex issue and it arouses a lot of feelings doesnt it? I really liked the points you made though. As we get older, our feelings on things do change dont they?

[gogrannypop]

Personally, I would LOVE to have 2 husbands. I already have my second picked out...just in case. :chicken:

[Spyglass]

So if you isolate girls from birth and expose them only to one sect, their paternalistic teachings, and polygamy, is that freedom?

Do these children grow up to be adults who are capable of making independent decisions: free to choose their lifestyle, free to choose monogamy or polygamy, free to choose their life partner(s), and capable of exercising the rights and responsibilities of a free society?

Obviously, I voted "no" in the poll. I am personally against any policy or law which empowers these cults to continue to isolate and enslave their followers. I am also against continuing to subsidize these groups with tax dollars.

[RainbowsAndGumdrops]

I have to wonder why so many answers are no and can't help but think that most of the answers are due to an association people have with the words polygamy and cult. Legalizing polygamy may get rid of the "need" these groups have for isolation. I actually think we'd be surprised in the US by how many people would practice polygamy if it were legal. It is practiced widely around the world. I think there is a stigmatism of oppression and entrappment around the word, yet if it were legal and between consenting adults, I'd imagine it could be as good as any other relationship. I think that a very strong case could be made for legalizing polygamy - about as strong of a case as is made for gay marriage.

I still vote no, but I'm surprised by how many people aren't willing to consider a yes.

[claudicici]

...that makes sense ,when I thought of my answer I was just considering how I personally feel about,I did not think about it as part of a cult or religion....in that case I would say no also,and I also believe people that grew up within such a cult or got into it because they were somehow brainwashed are not making a decision...so it wouldn't matter for them if it was legal or not...

[Glow]

I have to wonder why so many answers are no and can't help but think that most of the answers are due to an association people have with the words polygamy and cult. Legalizing polygamy may get rid of the "need" these groups have for isolation. I actually think we'd be surprised in the US by how many people would practice polygamy if it were legal. It is practiced widely around the world. I think there is a stigmatism of oppression and entrappment around the word, yet if it were legal and between consenting adults, I'd imagine it could be as good as any other relationship. I think that a very strong case could be made for legalizing polygamy - about as strong of a case as is made for gay marriage.

I still vote no, but I'm surprised by how many people aren't willing to consider a yes.

Me too. I think you are right in that when peoples ears hear words like "cult" and "polygamy" their minds leap to a whole package deal of assumptions.

It also surprises me that as a culture where infidelity and divorce are rampant that we cannot see ourselves as "clearly" as we see the polygamists.

Men are still sleeping with multiple women. Ditto for the women. Babies are being born and dumped or just aborted at the get go. For a girl to hit high school age and not have had a sexual experience is rare but drug/alcohol abuse is common.

And we are morally offended by what exactly?

[MaxHeadroom]

No. I believe marriage is between One man and One woman.
Polygamy annoys me because its always the men with multiple wives and never the wives with multiple husbands, plus the men would never allow it.

In the early days of New France (Canada) there were many men, and extremely few women..It was somewhat common in the hunting and logging camps for the women/woman to have several "husbands", without the benefit of actual marriage of course..

[believe09]

I just returned from Borders Book store where I finished reading "Under the Banner of Heaven" cover to cover.

Amazon.com: Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith: Jon Krakauer: Books

This book was written by the man who also wrote "Into Thin Air." What makes it relevant is not just the story of a fundamenalist murder of a woman and her 15 month old, but also the theology behind "revelations" and polygamy. Riveting does not cover it. The men who killed this woman and her child were the bio-brothers of her husband. Essentially the motivation was two fold-she would not shut up and defer to the men in that family, and she ENCOURAGED their wives to resist the pull of polygamy-she assisted the wife the oldest brother in escaping with her six children across the country to freedom.

What made the book so impressive to me was the intense frustration of current generation prosecutors and legislators when trying to punish those who force polygamy and incest upon their family members-most of these men "marry" their stepdaughters between the ages of 12 and 16. If the male dies, then another comes to take his place. Just following the geneology in the area alone is mind blowing. And there is a whole bunch of information on the Jeffs family....

Back to lurking....oh but before I leave, polygamy is not victimless. Not the way it is done in these sects as far as I can see-the victims are the children...either because they are raised to believe this is all they are born to do, because they are victimized by predators that have become synonomous with the concept (not unlike the climate in the Catholic Church) or because if they are not the children of a powerful wife they can be treated unmercifully. JMO.

[Truthwillsetufree]

I have to wonder why so many answers are no and can't help but think that most of the answers are due to an association people have with the words polygamy and cult. Legalizing polygamy may get rid of the "need" these groups have for isolation. I actually think we'd be surprised in the US by how many people would practice polygamy if it were legal. It is practiced widely around the world. I think there is a stigmatism of oppression and entrappment around the word, yet if it were legal and between consenting adults, I'd imagine it could be as good as any other relationship. I think that a very strong case could be made for legalizing polygamy - about as strong of a case as is made for gay marriage.
I still vote no, but I'm surprised by how many people aren't willing to consider a yes.

I respect everyone's opinion on this subject so far. I don't understand, however,(The part I bolded in your post) I do not see the correlation of gay marriage and polygamy. Most gay people who choose or want to marry one another want to be in a monogamous relationship. So I am not getting the relating the two, polygamy/gay marriage. I think the two are on different ends of the spectrum.JMO..of course.

[believe09]

In the early days of New France (Canada) there were many men, and extremely few women..It was somewhat common in the hunting and logging camps for the women/woman to have several "husbands", without the benefit of actual marriage of course..

IIRC correct MH-the women followed the loggers for a purpose-ultimately they were kept together body and soul by the men they relied upon, so I am not sure this is a fair comparison. The concept of polygamy, to me, is still based around a sense of ownership. You are mine. Then, if a husband takes multiple wives, it is we are yours. If a woman takes multiple husbands, the same...but I do not believe there is truly much of that.

I don't see, quite frankly, why there needs to be a law to put into place a practice where the balance of power is far outweighed by one partner over the other.

To me, polygamy was born during a time when the man who ultimately crystallized it's concept wanted to knock boots with women he found attractive and he needed to provide a palatable way to do so give societies repressions at the time. Hence the concept of a "spiritual marriage" with the woman or child he was focused on.

The anchient concept of polygamy is based around procreation and your status right?-I can have many wives, many children and support them. Creating your own army as it were. Where is the relevance in our modern day society where there is not enough to go around and the people who live like this within the United States live on welfare...some to the tune of millions?

JMO.

[believe09]

I respect everyone's opinion on this subject so far. I don't understand, however,(The part I bolded in your post) I do not see the correlation of gay marriage and polygamy. Most gay people who choose or want to marry one another want to be in a monogamous relationship. So I am not getting the relating the two, polygamy/gay marriage. I think the two are on different ends of the spectrum.JMO..of course.

I am, respectfully, with you on this. Men and Women have the right to marry one another in the United States. In only a handful of states can men marry men and women marry women. I do not see the comparison either.

[justthinkin]

Polygamy is illegal in all 50 states. Unfortunately, it may not hold up in court since a precedence was set by a case, Lawrence v. Texas, involving a homosexual couple. Homosexuality was at the time, illegal in Tx, but the court ruled against the state's right to interfere in the private relationships of its citizens. I respect the decision by the court as a validation of human rights.


Ever looked at the death statistics in Saudi Arabia? Men outlive women there. If polygamy could be dissociated from religion, then I see it as viable. Otherwise, no. In its present context it exists as the oppression of women's rights.

[Peliman]

Male here, why even have marriage if it can't be defined? I'm not married and don't really care what other people do, it's their life. I also don't intend to pay for people who make choices in life I'd never consider. The next right you will hear when things don't work out is "but it's for the children." It's almost the same call as "we should have the right to marry who we want" soon enough there won't be reason to marry anymore because it won't really mean anything. So I'm a one man, one woman kinda guy. <in the long run>

I don't need the governments approval for the choices I make, neither do others when it gets down to it. IMO

So we get around to that sticky issue of I deserve the same rights and legalities as anyone who's married does. Put me on the same insurance and SS benefits and pay for my behaviour and pay my partner survivor benefits while your at it and don't question me. Remember it's for the children.

So what happens when a whole clan of polygamist become infected with aides, do we let them just die? So really, I only want my sanity, define marriage for me so when it comes down to the legalities of who's paying for what, I can have a clue. I thought I had one once but then I lost it.

Can't even make sense to myself anymore. :confused:

[Glow]

Nice post Peliman. You make some good points.

[akashana]

I am very liberal, but I believe that marriage should be between only two consenting adults of either sex. I know of at least one alternative relationship where the woman was married to one and a wife to another in everything but name, and everybody is cool with it. They travel together, have investments and businesses, and she divorced the one guy and is living with the second. And they all still travel, hang out, etc. together. Whatever works, you know. As far as I'm concerned it's fine. In a legal standpoint however, I think that there should be one recognized spouse only. This would restrict benefits to the wife only. Children born of other unions can be acknowledged like any other out-of-wedlock child and provided for accordingly. This way if one chooses to live an alternative lifestyle with two or more spouses, the taxpayer isn't footing the bill for any additional benefits. And those who choose polyamory can provide for their own.

[ClueMan]

I voted yes and here is why.

According to the Ethnographic Code Book using as a base the 1231 societies around the world, identified in George P. Murdock's Ethnographic Atlas there are only 186 societies that practice monogamy, 453 that practice occasional polgyny and 588 were polgyny was practiced more often and 4 were polyandrous (Gray, 1998).

Why should the minority be telling the majority how they can live their lives? I know several people that live in polygyanous situations and even one family that is polyandrous. Just like gay marriage its an issue of "live and let live" and for me I prefer to let folks lead their own lives as long as all involved are consenting and the age of majority.

Gray, J. Patrick (1998) Ethnographic Code Book Retrieved August 22, 2009 from http://tinyurl.com/lj5cbf

[Glow]

Thank you for sharing those statistics Clueman and welcome to WS!

[Idaho4Groenes]

If the polygamous relationship is between LEGAL AND CONSENTING ADULTS, then yes. Why not. It's not something I would choose, but for some people, the more the merrier. As another poster already mentioned, some people are simply polyamorous, and a polygamous relationship would have nothing to do with religion, domination over women, etc. If all parties involved are okay with it, then sure.

One thing I do find kind of puzzling is the number of posters saying "one man, one woman", based on religious beliefs. First of all, these are your personal beliefs and interpretations of what the Bible says. If that is what you believe, that is completely fine. You have that right, as well as the right to your opinion. But obviously other people have different religions and different interpretations of the Bible. Why shouldn't they be allowed the same freedom of religion that you and I have? As long as the relationships are, as mentioned above, between legal and consenting adults...we really have no right to interfere.

[Miss_Scarlett]

I guess the reason I'd be against it, which doesn't mean that it should definitely be illegal, is that it's usually used, certainly historically, as a way of oppressing women. That concerns me.

[songline]

I voted NO NO NO :no: :no: :no:

If adults want to live in a commune style living and they are consenting adults let them do just that, live commune style, why bother to marry...they can even get a room size mattress and have a party.:crazy:
He can even get 7 rooms and 7 women one for every day of the week.:crazy: Fine if that is what they like.

Unfortunately; Polygamists take children as a 2nd or 3rd wife.
they also teach their Children to serve some Pig that wants to bed a child and make it legal. :banghead:
NO....There is nothing in Polygamist men that is better then a Philip Garridos caliber (Jaycee's offender).

As long as they want to bring a child into the world,
A child should be raised in a "Normal" family setting as often as possible.
(I realize many single parents have a great home for their kids).
Other wise commune living should be their ticket.

I hope it will never become legal. :rant:
:nono: :nono: :nono:

[songline]

I voted yes and here is why.

According to the Ethnographic Code Book using as a base the 1231 societies around the world, identified in George P. Murdock's Ethnographic Atlas there are only 186 societies that practice monogamy, 453 that practice occasional polgyny and 588 were polgyny was practiced more often and 4 were polyandrous (Gray, 1998).

Why should the minority be telling the majority how they can live their lives? I know several people that live in polygynous situations and even one family that is polyandrous. Just like gay marriage its an issue of "live and let live" and for me I prefer to let folks lead their own lives as long as all involved are consenting and the age of majority.

Gray, J. Patrick (1998) Ethnographic Code Book Retrieved August 22, 2009 from http://tinyurl.com/lj5cbf

These statistics do not make it good/right/healthy/proper/spiritual/ethical.
Just because there are allot of pervs does not make it OK.
It surly is not ordained by God. I have not read this section of the bible since I was a kid, but I do remember this; feel free to correct me.
As I recall God Told Abraham to take Sarah and make her his wife.
He did not tell him to make more then one wife.
I know Abraham also bed ed Agar who gave him his first child; that was at Sara's request because
she could not bare a child. But nowhere was he to marry the 2nd one.

I have to add that these people do grade my skin, I get sick from this as a religious concept. :puke:
I Do not think it is a religion at all. :hand:
I think it is a sick men world coupled with women who have very low self worth, if any at all.

[Miss_Scarlett]

Not to mention that's the Old Testament, which while informative was superseded by the New Testament and God's grace.