I don't know the answers, but I like the fact that we are looking at an issue and recognizing that tradition is not always rational. Women working, women voting, blacks and whites equal, these are all counter to what was once traditional.

Personally, I don't see any fundamental problem with a group of more than two people being committed to each other and living as a unit. What their genders are, who has sex with whom, those are none of my business as long as they are all consenting adults (along with their children, presumably). Obviously some laws will need to change; but then don't most of us feel the tax laws need revision anyway?

Anonymous wrote:I view this “polygamy” concept as yet another way to marginalize the traditional family - one father and one mother to raise a family.
I see it as dangerous and not beneficial to anyone.
Call me old fashioned. I believe that children do best in a loving home with a father and a mother.
The efforts to undermine this model and to promote non-traditional families will do nothing but create more societal problems.

Marriage is a bond between two people. It is not a club with its prestige based on its exclusivity.


The only way someone else's marriage detracts from yours is if you let it.

Anonymous wrote:I view this “polygamy” concept as yet another way to marginalize the traditional family - one father and one mother to raise a family.
I see it as dangerous and not beneficial to anyone.
Call me old fashioned. I believe that children do best in a loving home with a father and a mother.
The efforts to undermine this model and to promote non-traditional families will do nothing but create more societal problems.

You are actually ignorant rather than old fashioned. It has been proven time and time again that there is no difference to the child's well-being and future success whether we was raised by two mothers, two fathers or a father and a mother. (Actually, children of gay parents are out-scoring those of straight parents in all academics).


I personally will be in favor of polygamy when I see one wife who has three or four husbands.

Anonymous wrote:I view this “polygamy” concept as yet another way to marginalize the traditional family - one father and one mother to raise a family.
I see it as dangerous and not beneficial to anyone.
Call me old fashioned. I believe that children do best in a loving home with a father and a mother.
The efforts to undermine this model and to promote non-traditional families will do nothing but create more societal problems.

You're old fashioned. And way way way out of touch.

I view this “polygamy” concept as yet another way to marginalize the traditional family - one father and one mother to raise a family.
I see it as dangerous and not beneficial to anyone.
Call me old fashioned. I believe that children do best in a loving home with a father and a mother.
The efforts to undermine this model and to promote non-traditional families will do nothing but create more societal problems.

I loathe plural marriage. I feel the multiple (usually female) spouses are treated much worse than when it's just two people. But that's anecdotal, of course. But I'm starting to think there's no real good reason to outlaw it. Plenty of straight, two person marriages are completely fu*** up.

My two American friends who are second wives to Egyptian men will be able to get them visas to come here, I guess. As second wives, their marriages aren't recognized here.

jsteele wrote:Why are you arguing about polygamy? Won't we get that anyway once Obama implements Sharia?

I know I'm arguing about polygamy because it's a way to procrastinate on book revisions. Can't speak for anyone else.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Such a tiresome comment. You do know, OP, that polygamy is against the law for all persons including gay persons, right? So where is the inequity? Where is the correlating issue?

Same with marrying your pet or marrying your son and any of the other ridiculous comparisons made to marriage equality.

You do know that up until recently marrying someone of the same sex was against the law in every society throughout the world, right? You honestly don't see the correlating issue??

No I don't and neither does anyone with a triple digit IQ. Marriage is a legal contract that makes "kin" out of two unrelated adults. The fact that same gendered persons demanded to enter into this established contract has no bearing on the cost of apples any more than it has bearing on polygamy or marrying your pet or car. The right to marry and claim legal benefits provided by our government was denied to ONE group of persons and now that has been righted.

Yes, and once marriage was a legal contract that made "kin" out of two unrelated opposite sex adults. That was changed. So why can't marriage change once again to a contract that makes " kin" out of more than two unrelated adults?

Anonymous wrote:It's time to change the rules - to benefit single moms and polygamists too

what rules?

Why are you arguing about polygamy? Won't we get that anyway once Obama implements Sharia?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:according to an op-ed in Politico.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/06/gay-marriage-decision-polygamy-119469.html?ml=po#.VY33M43bLIU

That didn't take long, did it?

I said over 5 years ago that when you change the definition of marriage you will open the door to polygamy. How can the SCOTUS grant the right to marry to one group then deny the rights of those who want plural marriage?

The legal reasoning in the same sex marriage case doesn't clearly open the door to judicial recognition of poly marriage. There may still be good policy reasons to legalize poly marriage.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Committed triads (or throuples) and other arrangements between consenting adults are private matters in which the government has no business.

You could say the same about gay marriage.

You could say the same about STRAIGHT marriage.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't have to approve of what consenting adults are up to. You want to marry 1 person or 2 people or a person of the same gender, go for it, not my problem.

And the children? Not your problem?

Then why is it republicans are responsible for every unwanted child out there?

Wait - what? You mean the children of these couples or triads or whatever group of people is raising them? How did they go from multiple parents to needing Republicans to take care of them?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Such a tiresome comment. You do know, OP, that polygamy is against the law for all persons including gay persons, right? So where is the inequity? Where is the correlating issue?

Same with marrying your pet or marrying your son and any of the other ridiculous comparisons made to marriage equality.

You do know that up until recently marrying someone of the same sex was against the law in every society throughout the world, right? You honestly don't see the correlating issue??

So? Women being allowed to vote was also prohibited by every Democracy until it wasn't. That does not mean we have to allow our pets, infants or cars to vote.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Such a tiresome comment. You do know, OP, that polygamy is against the law for all persons including gay persons, right? So where is the inequity? Where is the correlating issue?

Same with marrying your pet or marrying your son and any of the other ridiculous comparisons made to marriage equality.

You do know that up until recently marrying someone of the same sex was against the law in every society throughout the world, right? You honestly don't see the correlating issue??

No I don't and neither does anyone with a triple digit IQ. Marriage is a legal contract that makes "kin" out of two unrelated adults. The fact that same gendered persons demanded to enter into this established contract has no bearing on the cost of apples any more than it has bearing on polygamy or marrying your pet or car. The right to marry and claim legal benefits provided by our government was denied to ONE group of persons and now that has been righted.