Marriage

So How About That Polygamy? Time to Talk About It?

Perhaps we shouldn't be afraid of this particular slippery slope

|

­­

Don't be rude to a polygamist. Their slaps really sting.
Credit: margot.trudell / Foter.com / CC BY-NC-SA

Is it time for a discussion of polygamy as a viable life choice tolerated by the federal government? With the Supreme Court striking down the Defense of Marriage Act, it may be the time to start publicly considering whether the state has any legitimate interest in monitoring the number of people in a marriage, not just the gender. And unlike spouses in same-sex marriages, polygamists can go to jail.

Will Wilkinson, blogging at The Economist, makes an argument that as with prostitution, our criminalization of polygamy often does the opposite of what's intended and increases the victimization of women and children because of its shadowy status in culture:

As a former tour-guide at Mormon historic sites, I have encountered more than one fundamentalist Mormon family in which the strutting husband seems to regard his flock of servile wives like glorified property. We're not wrong to want to discourage this. Moreover, those remote compounds in which exile fundamentalist communities brainwash their girls and discard their surplus boys are intolerable horrors. But this is all the more reason to bring polygamy out from the margins of our society. As with sex work, the horrors here have little to do with anything inherent in the practice and almost everything to do with the fact that we've made it illegal and dishonorable. …

If a man can love a man, a woman can love a woman and a man. And if they all love each other… well, what's the problem? Refraining from criminalising families based on such unusual patterns of sentiment is less than the least we can do. If the state lacks a legitimate rationale for imposing on Americans a heterosexual definition of marriage, it seems pretty likely that it likewise lacks a legitimate rationale for imposing on Americans a monogamous definition of marriage. Conservatives have worried that same-sex marriage would somehow entail the ruination of the family as the foundation of society, but we have seen only the flowering of family values among same-sex households, the domestication of the gays. Whatever our fears about polyamorous marriage, I suspect we'll find them similarly ill-founded. For one thing, what could be more family-friendly than four moms and six dads?

Well, I imagine a family court judge trying to figure out what to do when things fall apart will be tearing out his or her hair, but that's really a logistical issue, not a particularly legitimate one. There have been some hitches in the courts when dealing with same-sex monogamous families when there are custody disputes, but having actual licensed marriages diminishes the problem somewhat (is this partner truly one of the child's caretakers?). Polygamy will bring some interesting challenges to family court, and the solutions that countries that permit polygamous marriages use sometimes involve treating women and children in ways the United States (or other Western countries) probably doesn't want to emulate.

Advertisement

NEXT: Former East German Stasi Officer Stunned by Extent of NSA Snooping

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I’ve always thought that the best arrangement was a 4-way marriage. Two women and two men. It would work well if everyone is laid back and cool, but would disintegrate quickly if any one of them was a selfish bitch.

    1. but would disintegrate quickly if any one of them either of the women was a selfish bitch.

      1. This is why there are no female libertarians….

      2. Really? You don’t think dudes are capable of getting butthurt in a situation like that? That seems a little ridiculous to me.

        1. See, Dagny, here you are getting all bitchy, just like he predicted. If you don’t want to be in his polygamist family, just get a divorce!

          1. Sorry. I ruined a perfectly good “women are awful” thread. Again. 🙁

            1. As soon as both you and nicole show up on a thread at the same time, BAM! RUINED!

        2. As someone who has been involved in the Polyamory and on the fringes of both the BDSM and Swingers communities for more than 20 years my experience has been that it is actually the men who more often have issues in these types of arraingements.

          Basically what I have seen is that men are more likely to want to get into this scene at first and women more reluctant to but once in it women handle jealousy issues much better. It is also much more common to see a couple get involved in Poly or Swinging at the guys suggestion (typically because he’s hoping for some hot FMF action) and then split up when he realizes it doesn’t work that way but his now ex has decided that she likes it a lot better. I have never encountered a couple where the reverse happened.

          1. I have heard that. And most of these arrangements don’t last. I think there is very little danger of polygamy ever becoming common. The only places where it is, are places where they have managed to make it part of the religion giving people a reason to do it even though it doesn’t work.

            The danger here is that the SCOTUS will further rape the Constitution and decide that polygamy is a constitutionally protected right.

            1. In your opinion, is there any right that is not currently protected by the constitution?

            2. You are right Polygamy would not become common, especially since the economic rationale that makes it attractive to women (much better odds of landing with a man who can take care of you) are no longer relevant.

              However that does not mean that other forms of plural marriage such as triads (FMF or MFM), Quads (2 couples), and variations on line marriages could not become somewhat popular.

    2. Your last sentence seems to contradict the first.

      A fundamental attribute of good engineering is stability.

  2. About fucking time. We need to get this legal while I’m still alive.

    1. Dunno if it’s just me, but it seems like there is a lot more interest in and acceptance of various types of polyamorous arrangements, just in the last few years. I think it’s great, in terms of more people getting greater satisfaction out of their relationships.

      1. Keeping everyone happy at the same time with two parents and a couple of kids is hard enough. I can’t really imagine keeping multiple adults and lots of kids all happy at the same time, unless you try to maintain separate households for different parts of the family.

        But I am a firm believer in letting people pursue happiness in which ever direction they want.

        1. Actually it can be easier with multiple adults, there is more flexibility for roles in the family to be split up and you don’t have to worry about being your single spouses sole support system.

          Obviously it can be harder in ways too, but I’ve known triads and quads that have lasted more than 20 years and still going.

          1. It must be kids that cause all the problems 😉

            1. No usually it is everyone outside the family who causes problems.

              The 2nd most common reason I have seen for long term poly relationships to end is from outside pressure, typically families/friends not accepting the relationship and driving a wedge into it.

              The first is cheating, just because your marriage is plural or even open does not mean that it is impossible to cheat and unfortunately some guys (almost always the men) are drawn to that lifestyle because they can’t keep it in their pants when they should.

              1. I was just joking. My life became remarkably simple after the kids grew up and moved out.

                Friends and family members can ruin pretty much any kind of relationship if they put their minds to it.

                1. One of my oldest friends and his wife, whom I’ve also known for about 25 years, have an open marriage. They seem to like it and it works for them, so who am I to judge?

                  They’re a helluva lot happier in their marriage than I am, that much is for sure.

      2. The one stable one I know is MFFF and its basically 3 date nights, 3 “family nights” and 1 night where the dude gets to hang out with just guys. So basically, he has 4 super committed nights a week. Which is not to say that the women don’t work hard to make it work, I just don’t like any part of relationships enough for that level of scheduling.

  3. First, the line marriages. Then, the destruction of the tax code.

    “Inheritance? What inheritance? Grandpa’s money is father’s money is my money is son’s money.”

    MUWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA!!!!

    1. Line marriage refers to the kind that Heinlein writes about The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress and a few other books, right?

      Where the family is basically a clan?

      1. Correct.

      2. Yes that is the one

    2. The Statists will never allow that.

  4. Will Wilkinson is the Hugo Schwyzer of market-socialism.

  5. Polygamy runs smack dab into the part of human biology that pumps out boys and girls approximately 50/50.

    For every extra female claimed by a high status male–and those are the ones who can afford more than one wife–there’s one male of lesser status or wealth or desireability out there. And no society is good with a surplus of pissed off young men who see little prospect of getting a wife.

    1. You assume that polygamy only refers to one man having multiple wives.

      It can also refer to the reverse situation.

      1. Polygamy is one man and multiple wives

        Polyandry is one woman and multiple husbands

        Generically it is polyamorous.

        1. Polygyny is one made and multiple wives.

          Polygamy is strictly “plural marriage” while polyamory is “plural love”.

          And, yes, historically, polygamy has been polygyny.

          1. one maid?

          2. Thank you for the clarification.

        2. I think that’s where his confusion comes from – most use *polygamy* to mean *polyamory* in addition to polygamy’s correct definition.

          Mainly, I think, because polygamy is the most commonly noticed form of polyamory.

    2. You assume that there won’t be women with multiple husbands.

      1. Polyandry is very rare, and it won’t even come close to balancing out polygyny. I doubt legalizing it will make it more popular.

        I’m all for people marrying whomever they want, but we have to operate in reality of birth biology and as a society. I don’t think any of us want to live with a society of millions of lost boys.

        1. You won’t. Not a lot of chicks are going to go for being in a polygamist marriage. Because you can do it now, you just don’t have legal recognition. And pretty much no one does it except for those with religious reasons.

          So your fears are totally overblown.

          1. Exactly. I would never consent to a polygamous relationship, but I have no problem if other people want to have one. The people who want that kind of relationship are already doing it, they’re just doing it extralegally, same as the gay “marriages” that happened for years before any states recognized them. And just as legalizing/socially accepting gay marriage didn’t make straight people suddenly start turning gay, I don’t think legalizing polygamy would make people inclined towards monogamy suddenly change their views.

          2. And pretty much no one does it except for those with religious reasons.

            I know a few couples that rotate through live in “housekeepers”. It’s probably a little more common than you think, it’s just kept quiet.

            In the cases I know, the housekeeper has always been female. So I think the issue with too many single males is real. But that’s a simple fix. Video games and porn. Men are fairly simple creatures after all.

        2. Polygamy is allowed in Muslim societies and it is still rare.

        3. It may be rare, but polyamorous groupings have been common throughout history.

          Those are usually pretty close to a 50/50 split, just among more than two people at a time.

          In any case, even among polygamous cultures, most groupings are still two people simply because of inter-personal issues and funding.

        4. “I don’t think any of us want to live with a society of millions of lost boys.”

          Well… that’s why gay marriage is out there.

  6. Well, I imagine a family court judge trying to figure out what to do when things fall apart will be tearing out his or her hair, but that’s really a logistical issue, not a particularly legitimate one.

    Cue John telling us what a disaster this will be…

    1. you called it

    2. It’s like you can see the future (look down).

    3. Well… it kind of will be. Colonial experience in Africa (and post-colonial experience in places like S Africa) have had a difficult experience incorporating polygamous unions into the existing body of family law in a satisfactory manner. Even in Islamic societies where polygamy has an upper limit (only up to four wives; no polyandry) there have been some difficulties in the countries which have committed themselves to a recognition of negative rights.

      Much more confused an issue than SSM from a legal standpoint.

  7. Make it all contractual. Have boilerplate contracts that people who want to get married while drunk in Vegas can use, and completely custom contracts can be made by others. But everything about what happens if there is a breakup has to be spelled out beforehand. Any number of people can be signatories to the contract. Essentially, a marriage of any type becomes the equivalent of a partnership.

    There you go, you just eliminated Family Court.

    1. Well you still need to interpret and enforce the contracts.

      1. Sure. In the same court that enforces business contracts.

        1. Dude, here in MA the family court is the probate court. Although the judges seem to spend 99% of their time on divorce.

    2. You would still have to have family court to settle the contracts. Just because we have business contracts, doesn’t mean we don’t have courts.

      And the problem with that is, the government would never leave well enough alone. Look at how they fuck with every other kind of contract. You don’t think they wouldn’t do the same with marriage?

      You can’t sign a loan contract in this country without the government telling what the terms have to be. You sure as hell are not going to ever just be able to create your own marriage contract and by extension your own private family law.

      Maybe you could if you are a Muslim or something and can get the Courts to feel sorry for you and grant you a special right. But the rest of us no way.

      1. good point john the government does fuck up contracts, therefore we should also ban business contracts. If you want to do business with people you can just go to some other country that feels sorry for you and wants to grant you a special right.

        1. No you fucking moron. The government is going to control contracts the same way they do family law. So therefore, having marriage contracts isn’t going to change a single thing or in any way reduce the governments power.

          Why does the subject of marriage make every libertarian retarded? It is not that fucking hard.

          1. John, what you don’t realize is that it makes you retarded. And all of us can see it.

            1. No Episiarch. You are so retarded on this subject that you think anyone has a lick of sense is retarded. It is one of the side effects of being retarded.

              Think of it this way. In any other area, you would know immediately that just because it is a contract doesn’t mean the government wouldn’t step in an fuck with it. But you can’t understand that here. Why? Because this subject makes you retarded. Like super retarded.

              Do you want some cake?

              1. No John everyone here except you already realizes this problem with government we talk about it a lot. We also know that having the government fuck with a contract is still a massive improvement over it banning the contract. You’re being retard not us.

              2. Think of it this way. In any other area, you would know immediately that just because it is a contract doesn’t mean the government wouldn’t step in an fuck with it.

                It’s retardation at an even more fundamental level in thinking that marriage is a contract in the first place.

                It’s not, end of story.

                1. Actually, it is a contract, end of story. And that is not up for debate.

                  1. Marriage is ownership of your spouse’s genitalia.

    3. Oh dear, I can see you weren’t on the earlier thread about divorcing marriage from the state. YOU CAN NEVER ELIMINATE FAMILY COURT.

      1. Your relentless pessimism is getting to be a real drag, nicole. This is why you are the worst. Well, just one reason amongst many.

    4. Until somebody signs a contract that they later think isn’t fair.

      1. Exactly Ted. But no this Libertarian land where “contract” is a religious article that no one would ever try to get out of or the government would never control.

        People on here crack me the fuck up on this subject.

      2. That’s called being SOL.

        1. That’s called being SOL.

          Not if you have a good lawyer and a sympathetic judge.

          1. Well gosh, the system may not be perfect. Better give up entirely.

  8. I remember when people said court mandated right to gay marriage would never lead to polygamy. What a shock, they were lying.

    The problem with polygamy is that it creates enormous societal problems because you end up with people who can’t get married. There are not enough women for everyone to have five wives or even two wives. Every society that practices it is both enormously misogynistic and has a large supply of pissed of an generally uncontrollable young males.

    But I don’t see how you stop it, beyond the SCOTUS just deciding they like gays but don’t like polygamists. The fact that it has been illegal for the entire history of the country and that most of the country doesn’t want it being legal means nothing. You could say all of that about gay marriage. And it is still a “right” under the equal protection law.

    At this point, it is kind of a pointless debate. Are there five members of the Supreme Court who think this is a right? If there are, then it is. I don’t honestly see any other relevant issue here. Certainly the history and meaning of the Constitution are not longer things that matter.

    1. The fact that it has been illegal for the entire history of the country and that most of the country doesn’t want it being legal means nothing.

      Correct.

      1. It’s like John is getting it!

        1. I know Episiarch. Letting the Supreme Court decide the Constitution means whatever the fuck they want it to is a great idea. What could possibly go wrong!!

          1. So I guess the 2A means no post-1789 firearms eh?

      2. So that means that it must be a “right” in the Constitution. Clearly the people who wrote the 14th Amendment meant it to protect the right to do something that they considered a crime. Right?

        Oh you mean that times have changed and we can decide it means that now. Okay. Good luck with that. I am sure the court will never use that power to do anything but create puppies and rainbows. They would never decide that free speech doesn’t mean what we thought once did or that the 4th Amendment really doesn’t apply in this new age of terror. Nope.

        1. So that means that it must be a “right” in the Constitution.

          If not, so what?

          Clearly the people who wrote the 14th Amendment meant it to protect the right to do something that they considered a crime. Right?

          I don’t care what they thought in 1868.

          Oh you mean that times have changed and we can decide it means that now. Okay. Good luck with that. I am sure the court will never use that power to do anything but create puppies and rainbows. They would never decide that free speech doesn’t mean what we thought once did or that the 4th Amendment really doesn’t apply in this new age of terror. Nope.

          So freedom shouldn’t ever be increased because some people want to decrease freedom. Ok.

          1. So freedom shouldn’t ever be increased because some people want to decrease freedom. Ok.

            So you fucking half wit. The Constitution means something and its meaning shouldn’t change because the fashion of the judges changes. Once you give the judges the power to change the meaning of constitution, there is no controlling how they do it.

            Once you do that, you don’t have a constitution. You have rule by a few judges.

            1. So one day in the future, judges might have the power to change the meaning of the constitution? I’m sorry, but that’s just so unrealistic that I can’t take it seriously.

              How about this? When freedom increases, does it matter that the US Constitution doesn’t say anything about the issue at hand? When freedom decreases, does it matter if the Constitution condones it? IOW, which is more important to you? Freedom or law?

              1. So one day in the future, judges might have the power to change the meaning of the constitution?

                No. They do now. And you just supported giving it to them you idiot. You can’t say that on the one hand judges should ignore the intent of the framers in one case but not in others.

                And your freedom isn’t always going to increase. If equal protection means polygamy, why can’t “reasonable search and seizure” mean mass NSA spying? Every argument you can make for polygamy, someone else can make for spying.

                You think that the world goes one way. It doesn’t. IF the Constitution means what judges say it is, it is likely that judges will read in ways that will make you much less free.

                1. “You can’t say that on the one hand judges should ignore the intent of the framers in one case but not in others.”

                  right but what we can say is I support this position or that position and not give a damn what their intentions were.

                  1. right but what we can say is I support this position or that position and not give a damn what their intentions were.

                    Which is another way of saying that you have no principles and just want the document to mean what you would like it to mean.

                    I want my Pony usually doesn’t work out very well.

                    1. “Which is another way of saying that you have no principles and just want the document to mean what you would like it to mean”

                      no it means I have different principles than you. Also that I don’t give a shit what the document means.

            2. So if the 2nd amendment originally said no citizen of the united states shall ever be allowed to own any sort of gun and the justices today ruled that maybe in some cases it is okay for people to own guns you would be complaining about violating the constitution?

              “You have rule by a few judges.”

              And that’s worse than being ruled by dead guys?

              1. So if the 2nd amendment originally said no citizen of the united states shall ever be allowed to own any sort of gun and the justices today ruled that maybe in some cases it is okay for people to own guns you would be complaining about violating the constitution?

                Yes. Of course it never said that and wasn’t intended to say that. But if it did, that would be wrong.

                I would rather have a constitution that meant something that to have a Constitution that meant whatever top men told me it did. I don’t give a shit if I do get an occasional pony from them.

                That is called having principles. Something I though Libertarians had. But wow was that wrong.

                1. Uh, the libertarian principle is that people can do what they want unless it harms someone else (more or less). Not that the constitution is the greatest. People can be punished for polygamy now. That is wrong. Whether the government needs to recognize polygamous marriages is another issue.

                  Anyway, I think it really is an equal protection issue. If the government is going to grant special privileges to some marriages, it must grant them to all marriages.

                  And we don’t know that polygamy would lead to bad things in modern US society. It is stupid to have a law forbidding something that is not known to be a problem. Let people do what they want. If it becomes a big problem that harms a lot of people, then we can talk about making laws restricting it.

                  1. Zeb,

                    The Constitution is not there to stop every unjust law. There is a difference between saying “this law is bad” and “this law is unconstitutional”. The answer to one has nothing to do with the other.

                2. I agree with John. The job of a judge is not to change law, but to interpret it. Just as a work of literature can be interpreted to arrive at the meaning of that work, the same can and should be done with a body of law. Judges are not to be philosopher-kings — and if they were, their philosophizing would likely not be to libertarians’ liking.

                  1. and if they were, their philosophizing would likely not be to libertarians’ liking.

                    No, judges will only use their power to increase freedom. And supporting their arbitrary uses of their power to increase freedom would never set the precedent that they could later use it to decrease freedom. Never.

                3. “I would rather have a constitution that meant something that to have a Constitution that meant whatever top men told me it did”

                  top men wrote it, you can’t get away from top men and their opinions even with a constitution, it doesn’t just appear by magic or as a law of nature.

                  “But if it did, that would be wrong.”

                  look who else doesn’t have principles all of a sudden lol.

                  1. look who else doesn’t have principles all of a sudden lol.

                    No. I was saying if it did say that, then that is what it would mean. I meant the current interpretation is wrong. Sorry not to be clear.

                    top men wrote it, you can’t get away from top men and their opinions even with a constitution, it doesn’t just appear by magic or as a law of nature.

                    Yes, and if it means something, then it provides at least a floor of protections that can’t be changed by some judge. If it means nothing, like you advocate, then it doesn’t provide any protections beyond whatever the judge thinks we are worthy of having.

                    No thanks.

                    1. The SCOTUS did not just say ‘we like gayz so gayz are cool’. They actually wrote a legal decision John. Using The Constitution. It’s all Law, you’re just too butthurt to engage that decision beyond sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming nah-nah-nah!

                    2. If being a libertarian means giving the top men the final say in whatever legal whimsy they happen to embrace at the moment, then count me out.

                      I can’t believe I am reading multiple posts from different people actually defending the notion of ignoring a foundational constitution. Look at what all the top men are doing as we speak, and you guys want more of that?

                      John is dead on.

                    3. For the Constitution to work, it has to be interpreted by Top Men. The only reason you and John are bitching is because the Top Men did not reach your preferred decision.

                    4. John is actually a moron. He is arguing that laws that were unjust and unconstitutional 150 years ago should be inviolable and unchanging. The constitution is a negative rights document. The powers not enumerated are left to the states and people, respectively. The constitution, aside from spousal immunity in court and freedom of association, doesn’t have anything to say about marriage or relationships. That petty tyrants at the state and local level sought to meddle in interpersonal relationships and give certain kinds a stamp of approval from the government 200 years ago doesn’t mean that the constitution endorsed their views. That it took a long time for those views to be challenged on constitutional grounds (largely because the fedgov was once so small that marriage avoided its purview), doesn’t mean that the laws as they existed previously were constitutional. This isn’t “re-writing” the constitution. It is applying and interpreting the constitution within a legal context that didn’t previously exist. John’s argument is as excruciatingly stupid as saying that pornography and flag burning should be outlawed because the founders opposed obscenity and supported the Alien and Sedition Acts. Well and good, and perfectly true. That they were somehow able to live with the cognitive dissonance of supporting laws that violated the principles they articulated at the constitutional convention is no indication that we should maintain their fallacy.

    2. Meh. Not in a country like ours, John. We are already seeing more people experiment with non-monogamous arrangements. There is not going to be any societal collapse (in America) because of angry, sexually frustrated young men. For one, not enough women would dig a polygamous scenario for it to really get out of whack.

      1. Very similar argument to the people who say if we legalize heroin everyone will use it.

      2. Yes, but there are pockets in the US, specific communities, where polygamy would basically be the norm. And look how well they work out now.

        And don’t we owe young men a fair shot? Polygamy is unfair to them.

        1. Look man, just don’t be so beta.

          1. Hey. My mighty junk will attract many sister wives.

        2. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

          OK, you’re spoofing, right?

          1. I sure hope so. It is spot-on perfect. These poor lil’ troopers just want a fair shot, that’s all! Those other guys are hogging all the women! You, in particular, have probably exceeded your quota, Epi. No more women for you. Fairness!

        3. It’s a few weirdo Mormons. Otherwise, not many polygamous marriages will happen.

        4. “Yes, but there are pockets in the US, specific communities, where polygamy would basically be the norm. And look how well they work out now.”

          Isn’t that like saying that drugs are impure and dangerous to procure and so they should remain banned? I.e. you’re pointing out what happens to polygamy under a censorious regime and saying “that’s the norm”.

          Plus, *unfair*? life isn’t fair and, quite frankly, every attempt we’ve made to make it fair through legislation has turned to shit.

        5. You know markets have a way of sorting this out

          1. You know markets have a way of sorting this out

            Are you suggesting we auction the wenches?

        6. “Yes, but there are pockets in the US, specific communities, where polygamy would basically be the norm. And look how well they work out now.”

          Good point in that last sentence. Prohibition clearly isn’t working.

      3. What albo said. The problem is that legalizing it would just enable a few backward communities to really fuck people over.

        But fuck it. Libertarians think it is cool, so the Constitution must protect it.

        1. Your butthurt is so epic here, John, that I have the feeling it ill be entertaining me for months yet to come.

          1. I am waiting for the next thread on the commerce clause and hearing everyone of you fucking morons waxing philosophical about how the founders never intended it to authorize such a huge government.

            You dumb mother fuckers would give the liberals the robe to hang you with if you thought you would look cool doing it.

            1. More, John. Give me more. You’re so upset about this. I love it.

              1. I have to dumb it down for you Epi. You are on full retard here. Trying to explain meaning and Constitutional interpretation would go right over your head.

                Want some cake?

                1. John you just went full retard not Epi. You just gave the ‘you got it right’ to a spoof. You are every butthurt whiny SoCons hypocrite.

            2. Sell the rope, John, not give.

        2. John, polygamy *wasn’t illegal throughout US history – throughout most of the early country there weren’t any laws against it. Granted that was because no-one thought there was a *need* but still – in the US if it ain’t forbidden its allowed.

          And its not against the constitution – no-where in the constitution will you find a polygamy prohibition.

          The SC *has* ruled polygamy unconstitutional – but the reasoning is pretty specious and counter to a lot of the logic behind many of their other decisions and is ripe for overturning.

          Basically the SC interpreted the 1st amendments religious bit as only applying to religions that existed *when the constitution was written*.

          Using that logic, we would only have an absolute right to speak in person, print on a hand press, no firearms more advanced than muskets, and no protections against GPS tracking, email reading – oh wait this is starting to look bad.

          1. John, polygamy *wasn’t illegal throughout US history – throughout most of the early country there weren’t any laws against it. Granted that was because no-one thought there was a *need* but still – in the US if it ain’t forbidden its allowed.

            Bigomy and by extension polygamy was always illegal. If polygamy was not illegal, why did people go apeshit over the mormons?

            You cannot argue that the Constitution was ever intended to protect a right to polygamy. To say that it protects it, you have to say that it protects it because the Constitution means something different now than it was when it was drafted.

            If you think that, then stop bitching about liberals raping the commerce clause. You are no fucking better.

            1. You cannot argue that the Constitution was ever intended to protect a right to polygamy

              No mostly because the Constitution is meant to empower the USG to do X Y and Z.
              Where does the Constitution empower the USG to ban polygamy?

              1. Seriously, John has got the whole gay marriage and polygamy thing backwards. The question is not where in the Constitution are those things protected. The question is where in the Constitution is the federal government given the power to ban them (nowhere)? If we were talking about state governments, he’d have a point

                1. The question is where in the Constitution is the federal government given the power to ban them (nowhere)?

                  BINGO! Fucking negative rights, how do they work?

    3. “The problem with polygamy is that it creates enormous societal problems”

      they always say that about everything, gays, drugs, mechanized assembly lines.

      1. Except that we have a history of that happening. Go look at Saudi Arabia sometime. This is not speculation.

        1. Or Colorado City. And those families are all on welfare.

          1. I know, and think of all those black people who destroyed society when Jim Crow was repealed.

            Or the mess made of things when Segregation was made illegal.

            Or when slavery was ended.

            Or mandatory conscription.

            or no-fault divorce.

        2. You’re comparing the US to a devoutly Islamic country where polygamy has long been a part of the culture, women have a long history of being oppressed regardless of whether they’re in a polygamous or monogamous relationship, and where polyandry is illegal?

          Seriously John, I want you to actually think about what you just wrote. Maybe study up on how to make valid comparisons

          1. Here is Reason Magazine’s take on it circa 2006:

            For reasons that have everything to do with its own social dynamics and nothing to do with gay marriage, polygamy is a profoundly hazardous policy.

            Here is something else to consider: As far as I’ve been able to determine, no polygamous society has ever been a true liberal democracy, in anything like the modern sense. As societies move away from hierarchy and toward equal opportunity, they leave polygamy behind. They monogamize as they modernize. That may be a coincidence, but it seems more likely to be a logical outgrowth of the arithmetic of polygamy.

            1. I don’t care what Reason said in 2006, nor do I see how that’s relevant to anything I said. Legalizing polygamy would not turn our country into a polygamous society. Most people have no interest in it, legal or not. Also, the “there’s never been …” is a fallacy, it doesn’t mean there couldn’t be. There weren’t any liberal democracies at all 300 years ago. Not to mention that says nothing about how it would affect a society that is already a liberal democracy.

    4. I always said it would. And I said it would allow siblings to marry as well.

    5. Dude, *right now* there are people who can’t get married. *getting married* isn’t a right, being able to is.

      And to talk about the huge societal consequences – if that were reason enough to oppose this then we should have never ended slavery – hell we should have never seceded from Britain.

    6. The fact that it has been illegal for the entire history of the country and that most of the country doesn’t want it being legal means nothing.

      Good.

      the history and meaning of the Constitution are not longer things that matter.

      The first set of italics ARE THE MEANING OF THE CONSTITUTION.

    7. “I remember when people said court mandated right to gay marriage would never lead to polygamy. What a shock, they were lying.”

      I’m not seeing how a writer on a libertarian website writing an article means that gay marriage will lead to polygamy. Not that I oppose legalizing polygamy, or that I think your point is valid, but we’re certainly not on the brink of that.

      “The problem with polygamy is that it creates enormous societal problems because you end up with people who can’t get married. There are not enough women for everyone to have five wives or even two wives. Every society that practices it is both enormously misogynistic and has a large supply of pissed of an generally uncontrollable young males.”

      Just because it’s legal doesn’t mean it’s going to be widely practiced, and I think it would be very uncommon. Also, who said these relationships all have to be one man and multiple women?

      “At this point, it is kind of a pointless debate. Are there five members of the Supreme Court who think this is a right? If there are, then it is. I don’t honestly see any other relevant issue here. Certainly the history and meaning of the Constitution are not longer things that matter.”

      It’s been that way for a long time. Not to mention the court made the right decision striking down DOMA Section III and it has nothing to do with the Fourteenth Amendment, but rather the Tenth

    8. There could easily be enough women….

      Under the new immigration law a man could sponsor as many women as they wanted from another country. Viola! Seems simple enough to me.

      1. Viola! Seems simple enough to me.

        The Viola is not so simple, my friend…

  9. I’ve always had fun asking gay rights people about polygamy or incest, they usually say well that’s different because it’s disgusting or it would wreak havoc on society or only freaks do that stuff. iow all the same arguments people use against gays. It’s also a good way to tell if people just go along with the flow or if they actually think about what they support.

    1. Very few people think about what they support.

    2. What do you think about someone like me who thinks polygamy should be legal, but not same sex marriage?

      1. interesting, I think all three should be legal. Why do you favor poly over ss?

        1. The laws against polygamy are statutory restrictions on willing people’s freedom. Each marriage a polygamist has still comports with the customary understanding of marriage, it’s just that the polygamist has more than one marriage at a time.

          OTOH same sex marriage asks that the customary meaning of the word (& related words such as “spouse”) be changed by law. That’s a usurpation of liberty too. It’s like when gov’ts decreed that whatever certain bankers called a “dollar”, etc. had to be accepted as that, even though the customary meaning of the word was a certain weight of silver.

  10. I think now we’re getting back to the usual argument: one can say that X is bad for society, but should it be illegal?

    Sure, monogamy might “work” the best – depending on what metric you’re using, but if you’re not free to try something different, even if it’s consensual, are you really free?

    1. but if you’re not free to try something different, even if it’s consensual, are you really free

      Polygamy has massive negative externalities–there simply aren’t enough women.

      1. You keep peddling this bullshit. It’s getting tiresome.

        1. Your Meh, don’t worry” hand-waving-away-arguments technique is unstoppable.

          1. EXTERNALITIeS!!!11 on the other hand is an absolutely brilliant reasoning, especially on a libertarian website.

        2. I know Episiarch. Math is just bullshit bourgeois truth. How fucking dare we use it against you.

          I know most libertarians go full retard on the subject of marriage. But I honestly thought you were smarter than that.

          1. This is the same line of thinking as “but if we legalized drugs, then everyone in the country will turn into hopeless drug addicts”. JUST BECAUSE SOMETHING IS LEGAL, DOES NOT MEAN EVERYONE WILL PARTICIPATE. Not sure how many times it needs to be said before you will get it through your head.

            And furthermore, even if polygyny DOES become legal and becomes the hip new thing, and all the women got married off leaving large portions of the male population with no hope of marriage… who gives a fuck? We are talking about consenting adults. There are tons of men out there now who go their entire lives without ever finding a suitable mate, and polygamy is illegal.

            1. It’s like there’s this assumption that every woman is here as a birthright for any man to fuck or marry.

              Here’s a tip for the anti-polygamy crowd: it’s none of your business what anyone else does in terms of marriage or mating and they’re not on the planet to make your life comfy. Fuck off slavers.

          2. Keep digging John. Math =/= an argument

      2. I’m inclined to agree with you.

        I’m just pointing out that’s the same argument that arises with many of the issues we discuss here.

        Issue X can have bad consequences, but if the circumstance are entered into voluntarily, then no one’s rights are violated so the government shouldn’t prohibit it.

      3. Stop assuming that every woman in America will be snatched up into polygamy.

        1. Heh heh, snatch.

      4. That assumes that polygynous polygamy would be common. Which seems unlikely. Even in places where polygamy is officially permitted, it is pretty rare. Most people want to pair off, and I think that it probably how it will always be. You don’t just forbid consenting adults to form certain types of relationships just because you think it might end up bad.

      5. Why would you assume that polygamous relationships won’t start to produce a surplus of women to meet the new societal demands for multiple wives?

        1. What about a woman’s right to be in the sort of home she would prefer?

          Maybe she would prefer half a stable, well-off husband to a whole deadbeat.

  11. By the way:

    poly = greek

    amore = latin

    it should either be multiamory or polyphilia.

  12. So Mitt Romney wins anyway…

  13. I’m teh disappoint. Why not go the full hog and call for bestiality, incest, necrophilia and child marriage? What reason is there to oppose them? /Not Sarcasm

    1. Well I’m fine with gay, incest, poly, necro.

      As for bestiality I don’t support animal cruelty and I think in most cases that would be highly distressful for the animal*

      As for child marriage I don’t really know what age the line is but at some point you get to a place where you have someone who might be biologically incapable of understanding the consequences of their actions. In this case I don’t think they should be allowed to make decisions that will have long reaching and serious consequences such as raising a child or being coerced into other unpleasant actions by a manipulative adult.*

      * disclaimer in case he only cares about lbtns views, I don’t consider myself a libertarian.

      1. “As for bestiality I don’t support animal cruelty and I think in most cases that would be highly distressful for the animal*”

        Um, wouldn’t that depend on whether the animal was the one being penetrated or doing the pentrating?

        1. It might, I guess some of it depends on the animal and the conditions of its welfare but I would at least want the animal regularly checked for markers of stress or abuse by a vet or inspector from an animal rights organization. maybe regular photos of the animal online to ensure there isn’t a rogue vet just check marking any animal that comes through even if it is obviously in distress.

        2. Not really – but I don’t think it matters much.

          How distressful can screwing a goat be compared to cutting its throat and hanging it up to drain the blood?

          The latter is completely legal and the former is not.

          Personally, I’d rather be kidnapped by STEVE SMITH than Hannibal Lecter.

          1. “The latter is completely legal and the former is not.”

            “but I don’t think it matters much.”

            See to me that would be like saying “how distressful can rape be compared to getting torn apart by dogs” in the good old days. Just because we do something worse now doesn’t mean it doesn’t matter or that it should be legal.

      2. Animals do not have rights, only people do. Therefore bestiality should not be illegal. Children can’t consent. Adult sibling can but bearing offspring from such a union should be illegal and must be killed before its first breath.

        1. I disagree I’m not sure what your criteria for having or not having rights are. The ability to feel pain and suffer are included in mine.

        2. “Adult sibling can but bearing offspring from such a union should be illegal and must be killed before its first breath.”

          Wouldn’t it be better to make the policy if the fetus shows evidence of an abnormality or if the couple are predisposed to certain diseases? Because two people with a recessive disorder but are not related would have a much higher chance of giving their kid the disease than two siblings with no known traits.

    2. Children can’t enter contracts. Maybe they should be allowed to. But that’s another whole topic. The rest of it, sure, why not? Maybe not necrophilia. Depends on who owns a corpse, I guess.

      1. really you have more of a problem with necrophilia than bestiality? In one there is no chance of causing pain and suffering except to yourself, can’t say that for the other.

      2. What about the marriage age and the need for parental consent?

    3. Well, at least for child marriage there’s the whole “consent” issue.

      As for the others, as disgusting as I find them, its hard to come up with a reasonable argument as to why they should be illegal.

      Another problem is that in the current legal climate you can’t *refuse* to do business with someone who disgusts you. So its not like you can shun ’em.

  14. Look I say this as someone who is polyamorous and in an open marriage, you are wrong, gay marriage will not lead to “legal” plural marriage.

    There are simply too many places where laws touching marriage are written with a built in assumption that 2 and only 2 people are involved. Expanding legal marriage to gay individuals required absolutely no changes to any of those laws. Plural marriage however would cause them all to break down in a myriad of ways and the complexity of changing all of the laws necessary at both the state and federal level simultaneously while drafting the changes in such a manner that does not violate anyone’s equal protection rights by granting one group greater or lesser rights than another would produce an Obamacare level debacle.

    Furthermore even if they wanted to legalize plural marriage there is still a role for laws against Bigamy because it is entirely legitimate that an existing spouse would have some say over whether you had the right to marry another.

    The best we should hope for is them to pass laws that explicitly legalized private plural marriage contracts while only recognizing a single “legal” marriage for any individual at a time.

    So you couldn’t be jailed or lose government benefits or have your kids taken away from you for having 2 spouses but only 1 of them could be your legal spouse

    1. I expect that laws against cousins marrying and even siblings marrying will fall before plural marriage becomes legal.

    2. How do you give spousal benefits to someone who has three partners? If I am an employer I am signing up for each of my employees having one spouse. Having more? That could be a problem.

      So I probably would just stop doing it. Outside of super happy Libertarian land, the goal of a lot of people pushing polyandry is to destroy marriage and with it the family so that it can be replaced by the state.

      1. Um, seriously this is your argument for wanting to lock people up for a relationship you don’t like?

        Or did you just not read my post?

        If I am allowed to sign any contractual agreements I want with as many people I want but could have only 1 legal spouse then it stands to reason that only 1 of my partners would get those benefits

        1. Um, seriously this is your argument for wanting to lock people up for a relationship you don’t like?

          Who said I want to lock anyone up? You can have polygamy now. You just can’t have the government recognize it or force anyone to recognize it.

          You can totally do what you describe now. And I am fine with that.

          But what the people I refer to want is not that. They want government sanctioned polygamy and the ability to use government force to ensure people recognize it.

          1. You can have polygamy now

            Nope, it’s a crime.

            1. Only if you hold yourself out as married. You can cohabitate with anyone you want.

              1. Only if you hold yourself out as married.

                Thanks the whole point John.

              2. Wow, just like gays always could!

          2. “Who said I want to lock anyone up? You can have polygamy now. You just can’t have the government recognize it or force anyone to recognize it.”

            You can, if you want the threat of jail time hanging over your head since bigamy is a crime in all 50 states, also if you want the threat of having your kids taken away at a moments notice if they mistakenly mention your living arrangements to a teacher who reports it to DSS.

            Otherwise I’m guessing you didn’t read my post past the first sentence and assumed I was advocating for “legal recognition” of plural marriages.

            I did not, I said the most we would see (and I would be happy with this) is if they passed laws specifically removing the laws against it and guaranteeing your rights if you choose that path but still left it so that only 1 partner could be recognized as your legal spouse

            1. “You can, if you want the threat of jail time hanging over your head since bigamy is a crime in all 50 states, also if you want the threat of having your kids taken away at a moments notice i”

              no no rasilio, what you don’t understand is that when there’s three people in a relationship not having your kids taken away is a special privilege because john thinks you’re icky. It’s only a natural right if you are a good old fashioned man and woman.

            2. It’s as if John is projecting his own cluelessness onto the rest of us.

              1. I also think he’s contradicting himself. Upthread, he warned about the horrors of living in a polygamous society, and that we’d turn into one if it was legalized. Now he seems to say that he would like to see it decriminalized, but just doesn’t want the government to recognize it.

                Won’t that destroy the fabric of our society? /sarc

      2. “If I am an employer I am signing up for each of my employees having one spouse”

        What, you mean you might stop discriminating against your single employees?

    3. On the other hand – pressure to make this sort of thing legal could lead to a HUUUGE legal reform, with much less government direction as to the terms of a marriage contract.

      Or, you know, it could go the other way.

    4. Rasilio makes an important point. One doesn’t have to support “the state performing polygamous marriages” in order to support ending “the state jailing people for off-books polygamous marriages.”

    5. If a spouse in an existing marriage agreed to a polygamous relationship (if legal), then the spouses agreed to legally share the other spouse. If he or she objects, then there’s no polygamy. Where does the law get involved?

      If polygamy is a legitimate civil rights issue, then the laws would have to change, no matter how inconvenient it might be.

      In a good (religious?) polygamous relationship, the wives are effectively “sisters”. They take care of each other’s children and such. It might take some effort, the government should be able to modify laws to treat them as a larger family unit or a multiple monogamous marriages.

    6. Furthermore even if they wanted to legalize plural marriage there is still a role for laws against Bigamy because it is entirely legitimate that an existing spouse would have some say over whether you had the right to marry another.

      No it’s not.

      The closest legal analog to marriage is a business partnership. And being involved in a partnership does not give the partners veto rights over other partners freedom of association. At worst it could be used as grounds to eject a partner. But ideally, other partners should be able to do that at any time anyway.

  15. This is a fairly pointless debate. Unlike same-sex unions or a hypothetical recognition of incestuous unions, recognition of polygamous unions would require a massive overhaul of family law. Even countries with well-established and broadly accepted polygamous traditions have enormous trouble incorporating polygamy into family law; there’s not a chance that the US will go through the process of going through a complete overhaul of law in this regard to satisfy a couple thousand folks.

    Besides, polygamists aren’t popular like gays are. So who cares, right?

    1. Besides, polygamists aren’t popular like gays are. So who cares, right?

      That probably ends the debate. The question of whether it will be recognized as a right hinges upon how popular polygamists are with the Supreme Court. And I can’t see them being popular any time soon.

      So if it ever did get to the court, you would get some total bullshit decision explaining how polygamy just isn’t like being gay and this is different and so forth.

      1. There is actual historical evidence of plural marriages. Whereas, gay marriage is a total fabrication of modern liberal concepts.

        1. Sort of. I see gay marriage as a pretty natural, and overall positive, result of acceptance of gay relationships as normal and not perverted or pathological.

          1. I said many times in the past that legal marriage should include any collection of consenting adults that want to claim that they are married. So gays, no problems. Siblings, no problem. Plurals, no problems.

        2. It is a fabrication, but legally speaking it’s rather simple to implement.

          1. see above.

        3. Gay marriage occurred in ancient Sumaria, so bullshit.

          1. There’s also the Sacred Band of Thebes, which if it wasn’t gay marriage, was pretty damn close to it.

        4. Whereas, gay marriage is a total fabrication of modern liberal concepts.

          Utterly false. There is even a famous king whose name I’m sure you know who publicly married not one, but TWO of his male lovers.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sporus

  16. Let’s set one thing straight.

    There’s a difference between decriminalizing bigamy (which is a case of negative rights on which all libertarians should be unified) and recognizing polyamorous unions in family law (which is a question that libertarianism strictly speaking cannot admit on a first principles basis as it has nothing to do with NAP).

    I find the SSM debate fairly tedious and pointless; much more relevant to the question of marriage was no-fault divorce and I already lost on that one. *shrugs* SSM is easy to implement and not much family law will have to change. Fundamentally, it’s a minor issue which libertarians seem to have latched onto as a way to differentiate themselves from conservatives, even though neither ideology should have a philosophical stake in the issue.

    Recognizing polygamy in family law, however, is just full bore stupid. It is difficult to implement (esp custody issues), benefits only a very small portion of the population, and has the potential of dramatically changing current family law for regular marriages in a tremendously adverse way.

    1. All great points. But what do you want to bet Libertarians jump on the Polygamy is a right bang wagon? They just won’t be able to help themselves.

      1. We have this thing with contract rights and the like. I know right? Fuck us!

        1. Apparently, John thinks contract rights cease to exist when people decide to call that contract “marriage” (or if other people would call it that). In that case, only unions with government licenses with government-approved terms are ok

          1. Marriage isn’t a contract.

    2. “There’s a difference between decriminalizing bigamy (which is a case of negative rights on which all libertarians should be unified) and recognizing polyamorous unions in family law (which is a question that libertarianism strictly speaking cannot admit on a first principles basis as it has nothing to do with NAP).”

      Exactly, and at least among the Polyamory crowd I can tell you that a majority would be fine with that. Remove the legal sanctions against it and allow us to use the courts to resolve any contractual disputes that arise from our living arrangements (as everyone else is free to do) and then leave us to our own devices.

      I’m sure some would also want a bone thrown to them in making it so that you can’t lose your job just for being in a plural marriage but most really don’t care about actual legal sanction.

  17. I think we all know at least one guy who would have happily stayed unmarried if he could have lawfully patronized a hot call girl whenever the urge (and his wallet)struck. Legalized prostitution would seemingly be a way to eliminate all sorts of societal problems that occur when men grudgingly married and finally decide to divorce and abandon their offspring.

  18. Why are some arguing against legalizing polygamy because of the administrative difficulties it might cause? WTF?

    The real question should be whether it’s moral to outlaw consenting adults from making any particular arrangement (account for negative externalities, where they actually exist). AFAIK, all libertarian philosophies say “NO!”

    Pointing out consequences you don’t like falls in the statist camp.

    1. The real question should be whether it’s moral to outlaw consenting adults from making any particular arrangement (account for negative externalities, where they actually exist). AFAIK, all libertarian philosophies say “NO!”

      Nonsense. Per the law, one cannot indefinitely contract away one’s rights to be used at the discretion of another (i.e., slavery). In the case of family law where children are involved, there isn’t even the presumption that we are always dealing with consenting adults. How one handles administrative difficulties and logistics are what separate competent governance from incompetent; ideologically speaking competent government should be paired with respect of rights but one does not preclude the other. There are many cases where there is no first principles argument involved and in such cases the government should not undertake ambitious or high-concept legal projects which conflict with established norms — it’s just common sense.

      1. Per the law, one cannot indefinitely contract away one’s rights to be used at the discretion of another

        So…change the law…

      2. The court shouldn’t have that much trouble figuring out who the dependents are or who should be paying child support in a polygamous marriage. Divorce could be tricky.

        How does one enter any sort of marriage without consent?

        If you’re sharing a SINGLE husband (or wife) with multiple spouses, then you probably have to agree to provide for the children of your “sister” and vice versa. That’s the only real complication that I see, but if the consent is there and the SC recognizes such relationship, then the headaches involved in modifying family law is moot point.

  19. My last thought on the subject:

    The way that the topic of marriage is debated indicates a polar shift on the purpose of the institution. Marriage is no longer about childrearing, a sense of responsibility to your partner, or a way to encourage restraint or commitment in a romantic relationship; it is a way to publicly affirm romantic sentiment.

    It strikes me that this shift has reprecussions for the status of the family unit as an autonomous unit in society: in effect, there is no longer an institution devoted to creating and sustaining families; they just happen. This in turn has reprecussions for society, as the government continues to usurp functions and freedoms typically delegated to parents and families. This mentality isn’t the fault of gays or gay marriage; it predates debate on the topic and enabled the low and highly emotional quality and terms of debate.

    1. People pursuing their own happiness in novel ways =/= government takeover.

      1. I didn’t say it was a government takeover. I do think that weakening a sphere of influence outside of the government is a bad move even if it is voluntary, in the same way that millions of people voluntarily joining the Obama Blueshirts would be a bad thing.

        1. I do think that weakening a sphere of influence outside of the government is a bad move even if it is voluntary,

          I can barely understand what if any point you are trying to make here but one thing stands out:

          Point 1. You assume that the existence of gay and other non-straight-monogamous marriages is somehow “weakening” the ‘family unit’, and thus an important ‘sphere of influence outside of govt’. You need to prove your work, not just assume your outcome for your own argument’s sake.

          Point 2: You need to define what you mean by “weakening”.

    2. Marriage is no longer about childrearing, a sense of responsibility to your partner, or a way to encourage restraint or commitment in a romantic relationship

      It ceased to be about those things, or at least exclusively about those things, the minute somebody decided that it needed to be licensed by the state (now including the central government). If all you are concerned about is pairing up to raise a child and having a committed and monogamous relationship, you don’t need the government’s permission – just go do it.

  20. 2004: Jennifer has two daddies
    2014 Jennifer has two daddies and three mommies
    2024 Jennifer is happily married to three transesxuals , two sheep, and a goat<?i

    1. fail to see the problem here.

  21. That actually makes a lot of sense dude. WOw.

    http://www.Go-Anon.tk

  22. The problem with polygamy is that it creates enormous societal problems because you end up with people who can’t get married. There are not enough women for everyone to have five wives or even two wives

    And at the same time most men probably shouldn’t be married anyhow. How is this a problem?

    At any rate, how is it *my* problem?

  23. Also, I’m already effectively married to one woman, and I can barely tolerate her. Why the fuck would I be so stupid as to marry *another* one that will bitch at me all day too?

    1. This.

      I believe that the reality of plural wives would only accentuate the negatives and minimize the positives. I understand that there are examples of it working but I’ve seen boatloads of examples of two people married that just barely work – or not work at all.

      1. – Sorry…

        Not that I think it should be illegal for people to fuck up their lives if they so choose to do. From the evidence a lot of people do make that choice.

  24. Before this goes down the memory hole, let me quote some SSM supporters who are against state-recognized polyamory.

    Jonathan Rauch: “Same sex marriage leads away from polygamy, not for it….The problem with polygamy, historically, and there’s tons of literature about this, Michel – polygamy is the oldest form of marriage and the most predominant form of marriage in human society – the problem with it is that it almost invariably means one man, multiple wives, and when one man takes two wives, some other man gets no wife.”

    Eliayahu Federaman in the HuffPost: “The arguments against polygamy don’t stem from Judeo-Christian-Muslim values against same-sex marriage (values that historically permit polygamy!) but rather from the provable societal dangers associated with polygamy.”

    “Jeffery L. Bineham in the Minnesota Post: “The slippery slope arguments against marriage equality make sense only if gay and lesbian marriages are analogous to bigamy, polygamy, incest, and bestiality. They are not. …”

    Igor Volsky in ThinkProgress: “Santorum’s “slippery slope” argument is ultimately a red herring….That question has been left to the states and six that have extended benefits to same-sex couples have not, as Santorum so proudly predicted, legalized polygamy or incest ? recognizing those relationships has never even been considered.”

    https://reason.com/blog/2013/03…..nt_3610608

    1. when one man takes two wives, some other man gets no wife.

      Zero sum thinking knows no fucking bounds, does it?

  25. Time to bring polygamists in from the shadows!

  26. You forget that polygamy happened in history ONLY for wealthy men! You could/can only add more wives to your household if you could/can afford them. It has historically been a symbol of wealth.

    What you forget to add in this mix is that we are now a WELFARE SOCIETY and polygamy will not be practiced in the U.S. because the man can afford three or four wives, but because TAXPAYERS will support the three or four wives. Look at what happens with Muslims in Dearbornistan, Somalians in MN, Somalians now invading Cheyenne, WY of all places (!!)…look at what happens in the Mormon offshoot group living at the AZ/UTAH border…they are polygamists, they are also all on WELFARE!! Food stamps, housing, welfare checks, additional child income tax credit (where they can get a huge “refund” on money they never paid in! Illegals use this tax credit to the tune of $4.2 billion a year, imagine how much legal citizen polygamists can make! http://www.redstate.com/dhorow…).

    Polygamy as it exists NOW in the U.S. is basically a pimp situation where the pimp adds on more sources of income (wives and kids), and the pimp becomes abusive toward said sources of income if they don’t allow for the production of more welfare income. It will become another welfare scam situation. Fine, have polygamy, but first we have to remove the welfare state. I don’t see removing the welfare state anytime soon.

    1. I don’t see why having 50 families composed of a man, a woman, and 2 kids sucking down welfare cash is less bad than having 20 families composed of a man, 4 women, and 5 kids sucking down welfare cash. They’re going to get the benefits either way. Because teh childrunz!!!

    2. Wow that is a different way of looking at things, but I do have to agree. There are many ways the idea of polygamy is practiced in the U.S, just like men having multiple girlfriends.

  27. I really like what you have got the following, really like accurately what you’re revealing and how anyone condition the concept.ice maker

  28. I really love to stay around this website and be a part of where I can get a lot of valuable and beneficial advice from other experienced people that share this information.ice maker

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.