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.