Personally, I'm in favor of marriage. The public declaration of fealty steers the focus of any marital problems onto resolution rather than dissolution. However, I don't think the question should be, "Should gay couples be allowed to marry?". It should be, "Why is the government involved, AT ALL, in how people wish to structure their households?".

We should be relying on government for assistance in enforcing contracts. But how these contracts are structured should be entirely up to the people involved. This, of course, includes people who wish to structure their households around participation by more than two individuals.

I guess there needs to be a set of default contracts (to protect children and establish ownership of chattels, etc.) which are deemed to be in effect when people share a household; but, other than that, the government should have no role. 

I know that polygamy facilitates some injustices that never occur in "traditional" marriages <joke>, but is polygamy sufficiently evil by its nature to require the government to ban it?

Views: 2259

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Our government in the USA are still under the assumption that we are still all Puritans.

What consenting adults choose to do, should never been banned by the government.

Polygamy is no different. If their marriages could be done legally, they could pay a family premium for each spouse. This way the children and spouses could be covered by insurance and not have to use medicaid.


When will the insanity end???


I concur.
Why institutionalized marriage to begin with? Why does there need to be a government sanction at all? A basic contract between partners should suffice, shouldn't it? I can't get over how disturbing that sounds, two people (or more) who wish desperately to be together not for any other reason than love must inevitably enter a contract.

Someone posted this link in another discussion somewhere around here and I thought you might find it interesting. I did :)

Thanks.. It was very interesting... 

Alot of families are 3 generations. I have my mother and kids living with me. Mom's old and sick and the kids aren't ready financially to leave...It would be awesome if they recognized that in some way.

They don't even recognize that people are born gay ... They claim it's a life syle choice. Just like being an addict is a weak character flaw. 

They dispute science for religion when it suits them.

Its just unbelievable... like their god

Thanks. Yep, just what I had in mind.

Another interesting thing (sort of in reply to Steve, above), I didn't count but by way of a quick squiz I'd say that 80% of the signatories are women.

No, *religiously mandated polygamy* facilitates some injustices, just like *religiously mandated monogamy* does.  It's the religion that's the problem here, not the multiple partnerships.


Banning polygamy is ridiculous.  We already have laws against rape, against child molestation, against incest, against marriage to a minor, and against abuse.  These are the problems that are usually responsible for polygamy making the news.  What we need is better enforcement of actual abuse, regardless of the relationship structure.


If we did not live in a society that protected religion and religious beliefs, to the point of giving them exemptions from adhering to secular laws, these kinds of abuses would not go under the radar as often as they do ... and make no mistake, these exact same abuses happen in monogamous relationships as well, particularly those that are religiously mandated.


When you remove the special protection from religion, and you prosecute the actual abuses, then the structure of the relationship becomes irrelevant.  When the participants are of sound mind and legally consenting, without the social stigma that comes with certain insular religious sects that practice certain forms of polygamy that forces people to adhere to that form of abusive and barbaric "marriage", then how many people are in the relationship is not inherently harmful any more than monogamy, with its history of arranged matches, patriarchal structures, religious pressure, and contractual obligation is "inherently" harmful.

Hear hear!
I fully agree, Joreth. One problem lies however in that injustices such as marriage to a minor, abuse, sexual abuse and incest are highlighted as being the norm in plural relationships while being presented as being the exception in monogamous relationships. People tend to paint all polygamist situations with the "abuse brush" while giving different consideration to these grievous acts that happen in monogamous relationships.
Completely agree, which is why I'm making the posts that I do :-)

I agree, but that's a huge social change. One that's certainly desirable for many other reasons too.


But if you just reform the way relationships are recognized, you don't change anything in that area. Religious people will still treat their wives and female children like crap, and some extremists will have more power to do so.


Though realistically, any kind of reform here isn't going to happen in the current quasi-theocracy. It requires a truly secular society first.

Agreed on both counts, which is why I make the various posts and do all the news interviews that I do.  I am attempting to educate people that we should attack the actual disease, not the superficially-resembling structure.  Go after the abuse itself, get to the root of the problem, and then the structure will attend to itself.


Reform *does* and *is* happening, however.  It's just very slow and often hard to see when we steep ourselves too deep inside the issue.  I've seen lots of other activists convinced that we're still living in the last century, blithely ignoring all the strides we really have made over the generations of fighting.  We're not done, no matter which battle you pick, but progress *is* made.


© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service