Thread: Should Polygamy be legal?

Originally Posted by Elric Randall

Exactly what it says on the tin. Should Polygamy be legal?

Personally, I'm for it...or rather, I'm not against it.

In the U.S. we'd need some updates to tax law and employers would probably only pay for two people in the relationship, but other than that? It's people. Any problems unique to polyamorous relationships have likely been worked out by the people already living that life.

What about you all? Yea or nay and why?

Well... I join my fellow Milwaukeens and respectfully ask that Pimp Snooky be freed. After all, the gentleman has 23 children and he provides for all of them. Now that is reproductive success. We should all be advocating for Charles Darwin.

YouTube - Doe Boi-The making of "Ounces, Grams, Gwap, Bands"

I wouldn't mind three of five wives with one or two of them transsexuals with well shaped bums.

Originally Posted by Eluixa

And Alan, I appreciate always having to pull up a new page to define words in your posts, I really do.

<3

Originally Posted by Eluixa

Seems kind of dangerous if you consider one man divorcing three wives with possibly 10 or more kids total and having to pay child support. He would not be able to afford to get remarried for freakin' ever! Lol, I'm sure there could be situations/ matches that might be less fraught with disaster ...

Wow, that's pretty sexist. First off, it implies the relationship is purely focused on the male, rather than an agreement between four consenting adults to live in a communal and loving relationship. Second, why would the man be the only one paying child support? It would be in the best interest of the children for all four adults that joined in this union of their free will to continue splitting the cost of the child support.

Finally, any man having survived trying to live with three women would likely be looking for a husband, not a wife.

As a Christian, I'm completely against polygamy. Everyone should have one marital partner - otherwise, it's not personal, is it? Marriage is a covenant between two people, and there aren't any loopholes to include a third, fourth, fifth or millionth person there. God intended men to have one wife, and women to have one husband, until death does them part. I'm with him.

Just glancing through here...

I'm a bit resentful at the 'protective' attitude toward women in this discussion. I'm assuming women have brains and can make their own decision as to whether or not to get involved in such a relationship, whether it's being a wife among many or having several husbands. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's the premise I usually go with when discussing adults and life choices. Nor do I think there's a problem with half-siblings living together - happens all the time.

I kept trying to think of reasons why it shouldn't be legal and it seems like every time I did, I realized the same problem occurs every day with 'single' couples. People get married, have kids, get divorced, get married again, have another set of kids, yada yada - who says they can't get remarried unless they can support their first set of kids? Who says they can't have more kids even if they aren't supporting their first kids? And there's abuse and neglect and drugs and alcohol and illness and jealous lovers - you name it.

If nobody's being coerced, what the heck? They could just live together, but at least legalizing it would give the spouses some protections.

I don't know. I'll have to ask my wives.

If they want to do it, why the hell not?

It's not within our rights to forbid a group larger than two to enjoy married life together. At the very least it should not be outlawed.

By the way, I was wondering. Is a relationship of two-three women and two-three males considered polygamy? This could totally solve love dodecahedrons!

Originally Posted by Cadence

As a Christian, I'm completely against polygamy. Everyone should have one marital partner - otherwise, it's not personal, is it? Marriage is a covenant between two people, and there aren't any loopholes to include a third, fourth, fifth or millionth person there. God intended men to have one wife, and women to have one husband, until death does them part.

Ummm, just how many wives did some of your greatest biblical heroes have? I recall your wise Solomon and the heroic David filling their palaces with many such trophies of a feminine nature. I don't remember whether their was an exact number, but didn't one of them exceed the ton mark?

Originally Posted by shadowwalker

Just glancing through here...

I'm a bit resentful at the 'protective' attitude toward women in this discussion. I'm assuming women have brains and can make their own decision as to whether or not to get involved in such a relationship, whether it's being a wife among many or having several husbands. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's the premise I usually go with when discussing adults and life choices. Nor do I think there's a problem with half-siblings living together - happens all the time.

Dude, don't go there, I tried to tell people that and I'm quite sure I'm branded a philistine for it.

And yeah, there is absolutely no reason why polygamy shouldn't be legal.

Originally Posted by Mystery

Dude, don't go there, I tried to tell people that and I'm quite sure I'm branded a philistine for it.

And yeah, there is absolutely no reason why polygamy shouldn't be legal.

It's illegal for the same reason Title 9 and Affirmative Action are legal: sometimes groups with particular beliefs are able to forward their own legal agendas with total disregard for basic human rights.

Yes, there is a potential for abuse in any marriage or family situation, so their thinking doesn't wash. We have laws against under age sex and holding people against there will etc. and other negatives associated with polygamy -- and those should suffice.

Ummm, just how many wives did some of your greatest biblical heroes have? I recall your wise Solomon and the heroic David filling their palaces with many such trophies of a feminine nature.

Yes, Solomon did that. It was wrong. What's you're point?

Not everyone in the bible was a magical perfect pixie with the exact way we should live our lives. Solomon was wrong to do that, and through that God shows us that even the wisest people fall for the temptations of lust.

David was just keeping up appearances. We know to whom his true love flowed.

Back on topic: of course, while one's personal religious viewpoint ought to inform whether he or she personally chooses to enter into a polygamous relationship, such religious beliefs have no place in the policy considerations of a legislative body.

Originally Posted by alanmt

Back on topic: of course, while one's personal religious viewpoint ought to inform whether he or she personally chooses to enter into a polygamous relationship, such religious beliefs have no place in the policy considerations of a legislative body.

This. Certainly, basic ideas of 'morality' (murder, most obviously) are used to formulate laws, but there is a limit. When the intent or basis of a law is purely religion-based, then we need to take a step back and look again.

such religious beliefs have no place in the policy considerations of a legislative body

I would disagree. Our spiritual outlooks on life should invigorate our physical being - what are laws other than physical? If a religion says 'don't do that', and the people want their laws to follow that religon, then the law is 'don't do that'.

So, what is the law of our country based on? If it's what we think is best, then I'm not in the 'we' pile most of the time.