[maxiep]

I'm not talking about underage girls being taken by grown men, I'm talking about consenting adults, all over the age of 18.

I bring this issue up because every time I discuss gay marriage, someone will respond with the slippery slope argument of polygamy. Regardless of the fact that I think government should get out of the marriage business altogether (and just offer civil unions), I've come to the conclusion that polygamy doesn't bother me a whit. If a woman wants to marry three guys and they're cool with it, why should I care?

[STOMP]

by the terms you lay out, nope. Regardless of whether I would do something like this, I'm for adults making their own decisions on how to live their lives.

STOMP

[Talkhard]

Originally Posted by maxiep

If a woman wants to marry three guys and they're cool with it, why should I care?

I don't think polygamy works that way. It's always a guy marrying three women, or more.

How do you feel about brothers and sisters marrying each other? Should we care about that?

[e_blazer1]

There was an old fellow of Lyme
Who lived with three wives at one time.
When asked, 'Why the third?'
He replied, 'One’s absurd,
and bigamy, sir, is a crime.'

[crandc]

Those who raise polygamy in opposition to marriage equality are raising a fake scare, like Rick Santorum's "man on dog".

As to adult polygamy, I dislike it because of the subjugation of women involved. However, I am inclined to think adult polygamists should be left alone, while making sure the women do have other choices. The best answer is to continue to fight for equality for women so that they are less likely to go along with this kind of submission and are able to care for themselves.

[maxiep]

Originally Posted by Talkhard

I don't think polygamy works that way. It's always a guy marrying three women, or more.

How do you feel about brothers and sisters marrying each other? Should we care about that?

Why can't polygamy work the opposite way? And what's your objection with more than one woman marrying a man? What's your objection with more than one man marrying a woman?

I don't think incest should be allowed, simply because of the medical problems that result with their progeny. For example, I wouldn't have been in favor of FDR and Eleanor Roosevelt getting hitched.

[maxiep]

Originally Posted by crandc

Those who raise polygamy in opposition to marriage equality are raising a fake scare, like Rick Santorum's "man on dog".

As to adult polygamy, I dislike it because of the subjugation of women involved. However, I am inclined to think adult polygamists should be left alone, while making sure the women do have other choices. The best answer is to continue to fight for equality for women so that they are less likely to go along with this kind of submission and are able to care for themselves.

I find it amazing that as a seemingly empowered woman, you look to others to protect your sex. Are you and your sex incapable of protecting themselves from subjugation? And what about more than one man marrying a woman? Are you against that because of the subjugation of the men involved?

[hasoos]

Wow did you open up a can of worms.

First of all, you tell me that folks can't have multiple marriage partners, but I can have 18 girlfreinds living with me(and with kids if wanted), and that is legal. Whose business is it what we do in our private lives? If people are happy, who cares? Is it really any of our business?

Secondly I think the marriage laws shouldn't even be on the books, let alone actually causing controversy and or problems in somebodies life. Marriage for the most part, is religiously based. There is a separation of church and state for a reason, and that reason is so that the government does not interfere with how folks live their lives, it's the reason many people left Europe alone to come here and form their own way of life.

Yet here we are with laws on the books for marriage. So now what happens when people are asked to pass laws about marriage? They vote what their religious belief is for the most part. Considering there are well over 1000 known organized religions in the world, you are never going to come to consensus as to what the laws should be. So IMO, there should be none. Nobody should have a say over what somebody does in their life unless that person violates somebody else's rights.

But what has happened? The Government has got so stupid, they actually integrated marriage laws into our tax code. So if you change the marriage laws, you change the way taxes are collected. Nobody wants to go through all that just to get laws changed, because folks are lazy. What they should do is revamp the tax code first. Then on top of it, they have based laws for health insurance coverage and rules for such based on marriage. So now they would have to revamp those laws. The amount of laws that would need to be changed would be enormous and it would take years. What should the law be? It should be that if you and your dependants have the possibility to purchase medical insurance through you and your job.

The thing that I look at though, is that the longer we let this fester, the worse it is going to get. The laws can get more and more complicated, to the point of where it is very hard to revamp one law, because of all the others based off of it. Which is why it needs to be done sooner rather than later.

[crandc]

Originally Posted by maxiep

I find it amazing that as a seemingly empowered woman, you look to others to protect your sex. Are you and your sex incapable of protecting themselves from subjugation? And what about more than one man marrying a woman? Are you against that because of the subjugation of the men involved?

Maxiep, I find it amazing that you are apparently unable to read my posts.

Who did I ask to protect women? I said women need to have options to take care of ourselves so that they are not left with no choice. Women in polygamous communities often have little to no schooling and little to no contact with the outside world. That does not leave them with too many options to protect themselves.

Polygamy is by definition a man with more than one wife. Polyandry is a woman with more than one husband.
This thread was on polygamy.

[stockfire]

Better thread title: Does the idea of polygamy excite anyone?

[hasoos]

Yea I know it's hard for people to separate because all they think about when they hear about Polygamy is those groups out in Utah who are Polygamist but the real problem there is human rights and how folks are treated, which is about as close to being a slave as you can get. The fact is, the issues really should be separate.

[maxiep]

Originally Posted by crandc

Maxiep, I find it amazing that you are apparently unable to read my posts.

Who did I ask to protect women? I said women need to have options to take care of ourselves so that they are not left with no choice. Women in polygamous communities often have little to no schooling and little to no contact with the outside world. That does not leave them with too many options to protect themselves.

I believe it's clear who you expect to make sure the women you speak of are protected. I understood what you were writing just fine.

Originally Posted by crandc

Polygamy is by definition a man with more than one wife. Polyandry is a woman with more than one husband.
This thread was on polygamy.

Cool, I just learned a new word! This thread wasn't on polygamy, regardless of the term I used; it was on polygamy and polyandry. In fact, I used the example of one woman being married to several men.

I find it amusing that you still believe that your gender needs to taken care of and protected. Do men not need that same protection? What if men are left with no choice and not educated?

[maxiep]

Originally Posted by hasoos

Yea I know it's hard for people to separate because all they think about when they hear about Polygamy is those groups out in Utah who are Polygamist but the real problem there is human rights and how folks are treated, which is about as close to being a slave as you can get. The fact is, the issues really should be separate.

Bingo. I tried to do so in my root post, but clearly I failed.