I support gay marriage and also predicted that polygamy would be next. If government doesn't have a role in who you marry - government doesn't have a role in who you marry. I sure as hell don't want two or three wives, talk about compouded interest on kvetching... but if you are in to it, why not?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those are legal arguments, not arguments against letting consenting adults exercise their right to marriage as they wish.

Marriage from a governmental perspective is only about legal arrangements.

Then why is government standing in the way of marriage equality for all? Why ONLY 2 people? Where in the constitution does it state marriage is limited to only 2?

Since most polygamists in the US are conservative mormons in Utah, I think it's up to them to carry the banner on this issue. When they stand up for it, we can talk about it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those are legal arguments, not arguments against letting consenting adults exercise their right to marriage as they wish.

Marriage from a governmental perspective is only about legal arrangements.

Then why is government standing in the way of marriage equality for all? Why ONLY 2 people? Where in the constitution does it state marriage is limited to only 2?

Where in the US constitution does it state anything about marriage?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those are legal arguments, not arguments against letting consenting adults exercise their right to marriage as they wish.

Marriage from a governmental perspective is only about legal arrangements.

Then why is government standing in the way of marriage equality for all? Why ONLY 2 people? Where in the constitution does it state marriage is limited to only 2?

Because while many of our legal structures are easily adapted from heterosexual marriage to homosexual marriage, it may be far more complicated to modify those structures to handle plural marriage. Mostly those concepts are related to what happens when the relationship ends - how are assets distributed, how is responsibility for child rearing handled (you think custody battles are bad now, think about what they will be like with multiple mothers and fathers), who gets to make life/death medical decisions (Terri Schaivo case on steroids), how are Social Security and other benefits allocated? Etc.

These are all logistical questions that can be solved, but they are complicated questions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those are legal arguments, not arguments against letting consenting adults exercise their right to marriage as they wish.

Marriage from a governmental perspective is only about legal arrangements.

Then why is government standing in the way of marriage equality for all? Why ONLY 2 people? Where in the constitution does it state marriage is limited to only 2?

Anonymous wrote:Those are legal arguments, not arguments against letting consenting adults exercise their right to marriage as they wish.

Marriage from a governmental perspective is only about legal arrangements.

Polygamy could be socially beneficial, such as in communities where there is a shortage of responsible male providers.

Those are legal arguments, not arguments against letting consenting adults exercise their right to marriage as they wish.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The property issues aren't really more complicated than they are when people marry, then divorce, then remarry, then divorce, and so on. They could be handled by contract to the extent people want to specify what happens with their stuff, and there could be default distributions otherwise, the same as there is with two-parent families.

It would be way more complicated. In the case of marry, divorce, remarry, divorce, etc. each time the divorce occurs the assets are divided. So on your second/third divorce the assets you gave up on your first divorce are not yours to consider in a subsequent divorce. Also, when splitting assets in a marriage much attention is given to assets obtained while your were married. This is one of the main reasons for having a prenuptial agreement. In the case of polygamy/polyandry/polyamor it would be much more complex because the length of time you were married to each spouse will most likely be varying. If you did have prenuptial agreement, you would need multiple agreements with each spouse having ones against each of the other spouses. Then if one spouse files for divorce you really would be divorcing multiple spouses and you would need to take into consideration length of time each spouse was married to the other spouses and how long each spouse was married to you. I'm sure it could all be figured out but it will be multitudes more complex and highly susceptible to multiple lawsuits.

And you never even touched on the complexities involved in life decisions like health and children decisions.

THIS

Anonymous wrote:The property issues aren't really more complicated than they are when people marry, then divorce, then remarry, then divorce, and so on. They could be handled by contract to the extent people want to specify what happens with their stuff, and there could be default distributions otherwise, the same as there is with two-parent families.

It would be way more complicated. In the case of marry, divorce, remarry, divorce, etc. each time the divorce occurs the assets are divided. So on your second/third divorce the assets you gave up on your first divorce are not yours to consider in a subsequent divorce. Also, when splitting assets in a marriage much attention is given to assets obtained while your were married. This is one of the main reasons for having a prenuptial agreement. In the case of polygamy/polyandry/polyamor it would be much more complex because the length of time you were married to each spouse will most likely be varying. If you did have prenuptial agreement, you would need multiple agreements with each spouse having ones against each of the other spouses. Then if one spouse files for divorce you really would be divorcing multiple spouses and you would need to take into consideration length of time each spouse was married to the other spouses and how long each spouse was married to you. I'm sure it could all be figured out but it will be multitudes more complex and highly susceptible to multiple lawsuits.

And you never even touched on the complexities involved in life decisions like health and children decisions.

Anonymous wrote:OP here. I think polygamy should be illegal because of the legal morass it can create. Who has property rights, who has the right to "pull the plug", how do you weed through custody issues in a multi parent family.... I think it would unduly burden our courts to have to sort this all out if there are multiple parties to a legal marriage.

Agree that animals cannot consent and thus cannot marry.

As for blood relatives, it is already illegal to marry or divorce for financial or tax considerations. My parents are also fixated on the idea of inter-family marriages as a way to protect inheritance. I said I'd be delighted to marry whichever of them does not pass away first

The fact is that there is no good reason to ban polygamy in the United States. The property issues aren't really more complicated than they are when people marry, then divorce, then remarry, then divorce, and so on. They could be handled by contract to the extent people want to specify what happens with their stuff, and there could be default distributions otherwise, the same as there is with two-parent families.

As for family members marrying - look, this is where I start to feel grossed out. But I really don't think that people's most important life choices should be constrained by what grosses me out. People should be free to do what they want, up to the point it starts hurting other people (or animals) - and in this case, it's hard to see how other people are hurt if people are allowed to marry their siblings. (Yes, potential for kids to have genetic problems - but we as a society allow other people who are likely to pass on genetic problems to marry and have kids, so that can't be dispositive.)

Would any of this convince your parents that they weren't right? No, my thinking here - which I think is in line with what a lot of people who supported gay marriage all along think - would probably bolster their belief that we are all a bunch of heathens who want to destroy everything they hold sacred. The point is that their examples of what might come next are not actually all that scary. It's great that they are living the life they want. They should butt out and let others do the same.

Anonymous wrote:What's a "throuple"?

How would incorporating compare to marriage as a legal arrangement for two or more people cohabiting?

three + couple

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
So the republicans are against freedom of religion? If the government let's some corporation or person claim that it is against their religious following to supply birth control, why should it stop another from polygamy?


Or, marrying a dog?


The problem with marrying a dog, or legalizing or decriminalizing marrying a dog, is that dogs aren't able to give consent. So sex with a dog is, by definition, rape. It's not equivalent to saying that consenting adults should be able to pair or group off as they wish without the law interfering.



But if marriage isn’t only about having sex, what is preventing it?


Animals cannot consent to marriage, whether or not sex is included.

Dogs and animals in general are agnostic. The point is if one says it is part of his/her religion why would republican support a government prohibition against it? Mormons(use to) and other religions do allow polygamy.

Who said anything about "agnostic"? Animals can't consent to a marriage. They can't enter into any binding legal contract, at all.

Not yet, but top legal scholars, including Cass Sunstein have advocated for animal rights, including the right to bring suit against anyone who causes them harm, as this would reduce suffering. Could marriage equality be fundamental to animals as well? Sunsteinand other brilliant minds make a com peeling case: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cass_Sunstein

For someone gleefully jumping into the fringes of animal rights, you sure do like to beat a dead horse.

Animal rights, even legal standing in a court, is not the same as the ability to enter into a contract.

^^^^ Cass is the husband of Ambassador Samantha Powers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
So the republicans are against freedom of religion? If the government let's some corporation or person claim that it is against their religious following to supply birth control, why should it stop another from polygamy?


Or, marrying a dog?


The problem with marrying a dog, or legalizing or decriminalizing marrying a dog, is that dogs aren't able to give consent. So sex with a dog is, by definition, rape. It's not equivalent to saying that consenting adults should be able to pair or group off as they wish without the law interfering.



But if marriage isn’t only about having sex, what is preventing it?


Animals cannot consent to marriage, whether or not sex is included.

Dogs and animals in general are agnostic. The point is if one says it is part of his/her religion why would republican support a government prohibition against it? Mormons(use to) and other religions do allow polygamy.

Who said anything about "agnostic"? Animals can't consent to a marriage. They can't enter into any binding legal contract, at all.

Not yet, but top legal scholars, including Cass Sunstein have advocated for animal rights, including the right to bring suit against anyone who causes them harm, as this would reduce suffering. Could marriage equality be fundamental to animals as well? Sunsteinand other brilliant minds make a com peeling case: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cass_Sunstein