[Devolution]

From reading some of these posts, I'm not sure where people end talking about polygamy and begin talking about abuse; it seems to be one and the same for some. Heh, I thought GAF was progressive

Because that's the context of polygamy? Because child brides, brainwashing, abuse and coercion is still an issue? There is no way to outlaw fucked up religious cults but there are ways to limit what they can do in their own insular communities. Keeping polygamy outlawed is one of those things.

[dojokun]

Why does this distinction matter?

If I understand him right, what he means is that the particular people practicing it in our society just happen to be offenders of our society's current mores due to them being the religious cult variety. If polygamy were legalized, there's no reason to assume that newcomers to the practice of polygamy would automatically convert to the same practices of the current participants of polygamy.

Meaning, if we legalized polygamy, we wouldn't see a whole bunch of people from all the other religions suddenly start brainwashing women to be subservient wives to one man. It would come in a fashion built to their current mores. A woman would be able to have as many husbands as men can have wives.

[dude]

People would no longer have to divorce if they could just marry their mistress. It would make the honest working mother of 2 almost penniless if the dad leaves for another woman because he no longer has to divorce her to marry the new girl. Sense he is still married he has no child support and no alimony.

Why would she not divorce him...?
Women have the right to divorce, don't they? Then he'd have to pay her alimony even though he's now married.
If she doesn't divorce him, I'm guess they're both happy in their polygamous relationship.

[dojokun]

There might be consent but a lot of those girls who marry are under age and therefor illegal.

Then it's already illegal because of their age. The law against polygamy didn't help at all. If anything, other consenting polygamists in the same community who got married at a legal age might not have reported it for fear of their own persecution.

[speculawyer]

What is the origin of Polygamy?

(1) I think it started long ago in the mid-East when warring tribes killed so many men that they had extra women. And it made sense to marry off the extra women and keep the size of the tribe large.

(2) I think it go re-introduced due to Joseph Smith being a horn-dog con man.

The conditions of the first are no longer true so there is no need for the practice.
I think the second is silly but if you want to be a horn dog you can just sleep around and not marry everyone.

The real problem arises from religion. Religion is the great rationalizer that allows good people to rationalize bad things.

[Osietra]

TIL Gay Marriage = polygamy

Ahahahaha

[Ivan A Nguyen]

Why would she not divorce him...? Women have the right to divorce, don't they? Then he'd have to pay her alimony even though he's now married. If she doesn't divorce him, I'm guess they're both happy in their polygamous relationship.

Prenuptial states that she gets nothing if she divorces him cause he's a highly paid ski ball athlete. There is always a clause that says that affairs are illegal, but a marriage would get around that.

[speculawyer]

But these are fundamental religious groups. Polygamy itself isn't tied to religious dogmas.

Give an example of non religious polygamy. In theory it could exist but it is probably extremely rare.

[RDreamer]

Polygamy and polyamory should definitely be legal, but it'll be a while until that happens. The laws of inheritance and all that would need to be redone, completely, so there's a lot of hurdles. That and some shitheals have given it a bad name, unfortunately.

[Stumpokapow]

But again, all of that is based on the cases we know about, which in turn is limited, which is expect when no one in consenting polygamous marriages can feel safe reporting spousal abuse among other polygamous marriages in their community.

This is basically the Marxist false consciousness argument. It's impossible to defend against the assertion that the facts are false and that there's a set of secret facts that say something else, except we can't see the secret facts.

The "inviting me to argue my case before a judge" line is only used to try to shut down an argument without actually arguing it down. You can use that on just about anyone here on NeoGAF and of course no one where has the time nor incentive to bother having to jump through legal hoops, get court time, and make an argument before a judge when the court is only interested in hearing cases where there is a defined victim(s) whereas on the internet on a thread like this people are debating for philosophical reasons, not because of any particular victim(s).

The topic doesn't ask "If being gay is OK, why isn't being polyamorous?" it asks "If gay marriage should be legal, why not polygamy as well?" Notwithstanding the false relationship between gay marriage and polygamy posed in and by the OP, the only possible way to have this discussion is within a legal framework. In a legal framework, we are not concerned about a hypothetical person who may or may not exist but definitionally is hurt by a law, we are concerned with the real-world impacts of the laws on real people.

Laws arise situationally, in response to the historical and cultural circumstances they find themselves in. They are also overturned or repealed situationally. Our laws don't magically disappear every year and we need to keep re-debating why all of them are justified. Instead, our laws are on the books and stay on the books until a social-legal process occurs to remove them through the books. I discussed this process in my first reply to the thread. No such social-legal process exists with polygamy. Whether or not hypothetically people ought to be able to consent to multiple marriages does nothing to weaken the argument that in the real world there are no groups talking about the heartbreak and dehumanizing impact of the law, there are no groups protesting, and those few bands of people (far too informal to be considered interest groups or social movements) who do oppose the law on the grounds that it personally impacts them are by and large members of destructive and dangerous cults.

Also, going through different cultures around the world, you will not find 100% unanimous consent on a standard to define "forced" when it comes to monogamous marriages all across the globe. Parental pressure and power to influence the marriages of their children varies culture to culture.

But what is the purpose of invoking this?

First, it undermines your argument--marriage is different elsewhere--okay, if we judge marriages by the social standards of the place where they take place in, polygamy is not okay here, end of argument.

Second, if you're attempting to argue that polygamy works elsewhere, name the jurisdiction you think practices it in a way that is acceptable.

[Jason Raize '75 - '04]

Because that's the context of polygamy? Because child brides, brainwashing, abuse and coercion is still an issue? There is no way to outlaw fucked up religious cults but there are ways to limit what they can do in their own insular communities. Keeping polygamy outlawed is one of those things.

All of which can be demonstrated in monogamous marriages...

[Staccat0]

Because that's the context of polygamy? Because child brides, brainwashing, abuse and coercion is still an issue? There is no way to outlaw fucked up religious cults but there are ways to limit what they can do in their own insular communities. Keeping polygamy outlawed is one of those things.

Generally speaking, saying something should be illegal simply because other illegal/immoral activities are related to it is pretty shitty, and it has little to do with the hypothetical scenario of it being legalized in a country like the US. One could argue, that keeping everything above board and transparent would make it easier to prevent shady abuses of plural marriage.

I think it's better to approach the discussion from a practical standpoint rather than a moral one, because the action of 3 people loving each-other is inherently good. ITs other shitty stuff that fucks things up. Those things would remain shitty, illegal and discouraged.
Might as well say gay marriage should be illegal because you are afraid of the spread of aids and drug use or something crazy like that.

Full disclosure: I am the guy who was approached about having a plural marriage by a woman. My wife and I refused it. HAd a thread about it years ago. :)

[dude]

Give an example of non religious polygamy. In theory it could exist but it is probably extremely rare.

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

[speculawyer]

Polygamy and polyamory should definitely be legal, but it'll be a while until that happens. The laws of inheritance and all that would need to be redone, completely, so there's a lot of hurdles. That and some shitheals have given it a bad name, unfortunately.

Why? What is gained by it? Just fuck who ever you want. You'd just be creating a complex legal structure for a small number of people that want such a system.

[Devolution]

All of which can be demonstrated in monogamous marriages...

That's not a valid position nor does it refute what I'm saying. Polygamy laws are a necessary evil to curb bullshit within insular cult communities without infringing on privacy rights.

Generally speaking, saying something should be illegal simply because other illegal/immoral activities are related to it is pretty shitty, and it has little to do with the hypothetical scenario of it being legalized in a country like the US. One could argue, that keeping everything above board and transparent would make it easier to prevent shady abuses of plural marriage. I think it's better to approach the discussion from a practical standpoint rather than a moral one, because the action of 3 people loving each-other is inherently good. ITs other shitty stuff that fucks things up. Those things would remain shitty, illegal and discouraged. Might as well say gay marriage should be illegal because you are afraid of the spread of aids and drug use or something crazy like that. Full disclosure: I am the guy who was approached about having a plural marriage by a woman. My wife and I refused it. HAd a thread about it years ago. :)

You're not looking at in the context of keeping something illegal because of its social ramifications and likelihood of abuse. Should all drugs be legalized?

[dude]

Why? What is gained by it? Just fuck who ever you want. You'd just be creating a complex legal structure for a small number of people that want such a system.

"They are not a lot of people, therefore it's OK to disregard them."

[Ivan A Nguyen]

Generally speaking, saying something should be illegal simply because other illegal/immoral activities are related to it is pretty shitty, and it has little to do with the hypothetical scenario of it being legalized in a country like the US. One could argue, that keeping everything above board and transparent would make it easier to prevent shady abuses of plural marriage. I think it's better to approach the discussion from a practical standpoint rather than a moral one, because the action of 3 people loving each-other is inherently good. ITs other shitty stuff that fucks things up. Those things would remain shitty, illegal and discouraged. Might as well say gay marriage should be illegal because you are afraid of the spread of aids and drug use or something crazy like that. Full disclosure: I am the guy who was approached about having a plural marriage by a woman. My wife and I refused it. HAd a thread about it years ago. :)

This. If you follow the same logic then you'd say that guns should be illegal because they often result in death.

[RDreamer]

Why? What is gained by it? Just fuck who ever you want. You'd just be creating a complex legal structure for a small number of people that want such a system.

The fact that you think it's just about fucking means you do not understand.

And what is to gain from it? It's been said in this thread:

Spousal rights
Legality
Custody
Legitimacy
Marital Honesty
And wider social acceptanc

[speculawyer]

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

In modern U.S. cultures

Group marriage occasionally occurred in communal societies founded in the 19th and 20th centuries.
An exceptionally long-lived example was the Oneida Community

*click*

The Oneida Community was a religious commune . . . .

*click back*

The Kerista Commune practiced group marriage in San Francisco from 1971 to 1991.

*click*

Kerista was a new religion . . .


FAIL.

[Jason Raize '75 - '04]

That's not a valid position nor does it refute what I'm saying. Polygamy laws are a necessary evil to curb bullshit within insular cult communities without infringing on privacy rights.

Lol you're talking so much nonsense. Your logic is flawed, Dev. You claim polygamy is unethical because of XYZ even though XYZ is also apparent in monogamy. You do this without even acknowledging these issues are not inherent to polygamy and that you can find genuine polygamous marriages free of coercion and shadows, so you generalise it to fit your narrative.

I never want to see you about individual rights again. This has invalidated all your past and future comments about it.

This thread will be a treasure-trove for referencing in future discussions.

[mavs]

Laws aren't set in stone, we can change laws.

That's my argument.

But it's not much of an argument. Because I don't know what to change.

[dude]

This is literally the largest possible slippery slope argument. My argument: - On the balance, polygamy laws negatively impact very few people - On the balance, polygamy laws positively impact many people Your argument: - All laws negatively impact some people - All laws positively impact some people - Therefor you can never argue laws on the balance of their impacts

If we make laws "by the balance" we will not live in a liberal society.

FAIL.

Group marriage is also performed by secular people. I thought I remembered Wiki listing some... Well, no matter:

http://www.salon.com/2008/06/04/open_marriage/

http://www.unmarried.org/polyamory.html

[Devolution]

Lol you're talking so much nonsense. Your logic is flawed, Dev. You claim polygamy is unethical because of XYZ even though XYZ is also apparent in monogamy. You do this without even acknowledging these issues are not inherent to polygamy and that you can find genuine polygamous marriages free of coercion and shadows, so you generalise it to fit your narrative. I never want to see you about individual rights again. This has invalidated all your post and future comments about it. Lol this thread is hilarious

Can you cite me more instances in which polygamy isn't a way to shelter abuse of young girls?

[Stumpokapow]

All of which can be demonstrated in monogamous marriages...

Laws are judged on the balance of their impacts. All laws negatively impact the freedom of those who violate them, in exchange for protecting the rights of other individuals or groups. We collectively judge the proportion of both and deem the trade-offs to be acceptable or not.

The more people who are protected, the better. The harder it is to accidentally violate a law, the better. The fewer "innocents" ensnared by a law, the better. The greater the harm protected against, the better.

When the balance of the impacts of a law changes over time (for example, through new technologies), or when more information is made available to society (for example, through social movements--women were no less impacted by a prohibition against voting in 1776 than they would have been in 1976, and yet social awareness of those harmed by the prohibition and the lack of substance to the harm protected against by the prohibition occurred when a movement fought to raise awareness), society re-evaluates the law. This is not a teleological or directed process, it moves at variable speeds, in fits and spurts, and involves coming to a conclusion.

The argument that polygamy as practiced in North America is on the balance extremely harmful to its victims may or may not be true, and the argument that a prohibition against polygamy is the most precise tool that can be used to mitigate or punish the actual harmful processes (IE as opposed to magically being able to prove whether a person consents or not) may or may not be true.

But I don't think anyone is going to sincerely believe that the balance of coerced monogamous marriages and the difficulty of prosecuting that coercion is comparable to the balance of coerced polygamous marriages and the difficulty of prosecuting that coercion.

[Earthstrike]

Yeah, I'm fine with polygamy, so long as its allowed both ways. The thing is the way its currently practiced is inherently misogynistic, and I would like additional legislation to help somehow combat that.

[BeesEight]

This. If you follow the same logic then you'd say that guns should be illegal because they often result in death.

Well...

And what is to gain from it? It's been said in this thread: Spousal rights Legality Custody Legitimacy Marital Honesty And wider social acceptance

I'm... still not understanding how these values tie in with polygamy specifically? You can have legitimacy, custody, legality, spousal rights etc in a monogamous marriage. If you can already be married, why must you be able to have multiple spouses?

[dojokun]

This is basically the Marxist false consciousness argument. It's impossible to defend against the assertion that the facts are false and that there's a set of secret facts that say something else, except we can't see the secret facts.

That's why you can't be sure about the things you argued. I'm not arguing a solid assertion that the data would show the opposite of your assumption. I'm arguing that we can't be so certain of what you're assuming, and that legalizing polygamy would actually make this set of data less secret.

The topic doesn't ask "If being gay is OK, why isn't being polyamorous?" it asks "If gay marriage should be legal, why not polygamy as well?" Notwithstanding the false relationship between gay marriage and polygamy posed in and by the OP, the only possible way to have this discussion is within a legal framework. In a legal framework, we are not concerned about a hypothetical person who may or may not exist but definitionally is hurt by a law, we are concerned with the real-world impacts of the laws on real people. Laws arise situationally, in response to the historical and cultural circumstances they find themselves in. They are also overturned or repealed situationally. Our laws don't magically disappear every year and we need to keep re-debating why all of them are justified. Instead, our laws are on the books and stay on the books until a social-legal process occurs to remove them through the books. I discussed this process in my first reply to the thread. No such social-legal process exists with polygamy. Whether or not hypothetically people ought to be able to consent to multiple marriages does nothing to weaken the argument that in the real world there are no groups talking about the heartbreak and dehumanizing impact of the law, there are no groups protesting, and those few bands of people (far too informal to be considered interest groups or social movements) who do oppose the law on the grounds that it personally impacts them are by and large members of destructive and dangerous cults.

But you ignored my actual point, which is that *I* am not a lawyer with any kind of benefit from taking it upon myself to put forth time, effort, and money to argue it before a judge, regardless of who is right and who is wrong.

Also, keep in mind your semantic distinction between gay marriage and gay love and polygamy and polyamorous love may not have been the intent of the OP. A guy on NeoGAF clicking on "New Thread" isn't necessarily sitting down with a lawyer to map out the best way to word his thread title and OP to perfectly set the scope of the discussion he wants. It's perfectly reasonable that someone on here asking about the merits of banning the legal recognition of relationships for certain groups wants to include the merits of society even disapproving of said love.

But what is the purpose of invoking this? First, it undermines your argument--marriage is different elsewhere--okay, if we judge marriages by the social standards of the place where they take place in, polygamy is not okay here, end of argument. Second, if you're attempting to argue that polygamy works elsewhere, name the jurisdiction you think practices it in a way that is acceptable.

It doesn't undermine my argument because my argument isn't that we should "judge marriages by the social standards of the place where they take place in".

My argument is that the wide spectrum of marriage in cultures should be considered for the purpose of getting a wider data set using changing variables needed to explore truthhood or falsehood of an assumed relationship between two variables. Without looking at other cultures, we're looking at two variables in our own culture with a positive correlation and we are assuming a causal relationship of the counter-positive.

Second, I am not attempting to argue that polygamy works elsewhere. I am arguing we don't know if or how it could work in our own society if we legalized it.

Polygamy so far has largely only been seen in religious contexts, which skews the data on whether or not there is abuse in the marriage, due to passages in religious texts that are interpreted to justify men being dominant in the marriage. Legalizing it would open it to people not in those religious communities and thus give us an entirely different scenario that we haven't seen before: Non-religious people in polygamy.

All the arguments you set forth against polygamy are being caused by the religious environment it occurs in, and we have no reason to assume that non-religious people would suddenly turn religious and live up to those values if we legalized polygamy.

[Kabouter]

Lol you're talking so much nonsense. Your logic is flawed, Dev. You claim polygamy is unethical because of XYZ even though XYZ is also apparent in monogamy. You do this without even acknowledging these issues are not inherent to polygamy and that you can find genuine polygamous marriages free of coercion and shadows, so you generalise it to fit your narrative. I never want to see you about individual rights again. This has invalidated all your past and future comments about it. Lol this thread is hilarious

And not at any point are you taking the frequency of these practices in polygamous marriages into consideration?

Anyway, as far as the general question at hand goes. The state has a duty of protecting society as a whole as well as its individual citizens. Polygamous marriages as they are common are clearly harmful to society, thus the state should not allow them. Gay marriages are not the slightest bit harmful.

[speculawyer]

The fact that you think it's just about fucking means you do not understand. And what is to gain from it? It's been said in this thread: Spousal rights Legality Custody Legitimacy Marital Honesty And wider social acceptanc

But you can achieve those most of things with contractual arrangements or personal relationships. What you are asking for is for the state to create set of laws and enforcement mechanisms that only a tiny group want. You could ask ask for a set of state sanctioned laws that govern relationships and disputes between World of Warcraft characters . . . but why would the state waste their time on it?

[dude]

Well... I'm... still not understanding how these values tie in with polygamy specifically? You can have legitimacy, custody, legality, spousal rights etc in a monogamous marriage. If you can already be married, why must you be able to have multiple spouses?

Why should you not be able to have multiple spouses if you want to, all parties want to, and you live in a free country who should allow you to pursue your happiness?

[AAequal]

Give an example of non religious polygamy. In theory it could exist but it is probably extremely rare.

Go to Goa india and you will find plenty of hippie communes where there are plenty of people with multiple spouses.
Edit. Or go to nearest Rainbow Gathering, you will see them there too.

[Staccat0]

You're not looking at in the context of keeping something illegal because of its social ramifications and likelihood of abuse. Should all drugs be legalized?

Bad example. People should have the right to do drugs if they would like IMO. However, selling and profiting by taxing a product to someone that they cannot willfully stop using that will slowly kill them is not as cut and dry as 3 people living in a a house together, having sex, children and sharing responsibilities.
An argument can be made that selling someone heroin or even cigarettes is inherently wrong. You can't do that for the base scenario of plural marriage IMO.

So, my opinion is that all drugs SHOULD be legal to use, but not necessarily sell or tax. However, I haven't put a ton of thought into as a non-drug user.

[Stumpokapow]

If we make laws "by the balance" we will not live in a liberal society.

I don't think it shows respect to the arguments I've made in this thread to pretend what I said was "everything should be decided by simple majority". I'm not implying a democratic or majoritarian process at all. I'm implying a legal-rational one; the one actual judges use to decide actual laws.

The magnitude of the harm of the problem is weighed against the magnitude of the harm of the solution. This is done by combining the number of people impacted by each, the degree of the impact to each. It helps us determine whether the law is too precise, too vague, or just right. Each country has a different legal standard for different subjects of laws affecting different groups of people, but all countries generally apply this process.

A law is not unjust simply because there exists a hypothetical person who could be unjustly impacted by it. We consider how real people are impacted ("standing", as a concept, exists in virtually every legal system). Even before a court handles the dispute, society discusses a given law, lawmakers debate a given law, interest groups representing the interests of the would-be victims lobby and provide policy inputs into the government system.

Our entire world is based on balances--on the scales of justice.

[Jenga]

i think the irl personification of gaf is some fat dude at starbucks who argues with random people about why he can't have sex with his little sister and marry his entire female family and moves from topic to topic like why can't he snort heroine off a hooker's vagina if god isn't real and morality is relative

[Staccat0]

i think the irl personification of gaf is some fat dude at starbucks who argues with random people about why he can't have sex with his little sister and marry his entire female family and moves from topic to topic like why can't he snort heroine off a hooker's vagina if god isn't real and morality is relative

ARE YOU FOLLOWING ME!!??

[BeesEight]

Why should you not be able to have multiple spouses if you want to, all parties want to, and you live in a free country who should allow you to pursue your happiness?

Because the end rewards aren't worth it? There's already been a long discussion of the impracticalities and risks involved with polygamy and for what? So a man can be banging two wives? Why not just have an open relationship? There are ways to simulate a polygamous marriage that don't require massive overhauls to the system. I'm just not seeing the need for our society to essentially legalize harems and the argument "well people should be able to screw whoever they want" isn't really holding any weight. They can already do so and last I checked that isn't illegal.

[RDreamer]

But you can achieve those most of things with contractual arrangements or personal relationships. What you are asking for is for the state to create set of laws and enforcement mechanisms that only a tiny group want. You could ask ask for a set of state sanctioned laws that govern relationships and disputes between World of Warcraft characters . . . but why would the state waste their time on it?

That's why I said it would be a long time (if ever) before it happened. Because it would take creating all new mechanisms and laws.

I'm... still not understanding how these values tie in with polygamy specifically? You can have legitimacy, custody, legality, spousal rights etc in a monogamous marriage. If you can already be married, why must you be able to have multiple spouses?

This reminds me of the arguments against gay marriage. You can have all that stuff if you just get a regular marriage! Why must you have marriage with the same sex?


Human sexuality and relationships are largely very fluid and different things for everyone, and I just don't think funneling every single person into monogamy and only legitimizing that type or relationship is a good thing. It's just like funneling everyone into monogamous relationships only between male and female isn't a good thing, because some people aren't that way. Some people like others of their same sex. Sure we could have told them that they were free to have that relationship, they just couldn't get married, and some are making that argument, but that's silly. There are other things that come along with marriage in our society.

[Mgoblue201]

I think an argument can be made that the legalization of polygamy is incompatible with the emergence of feminism and women's rights. If polygamy was legal (at least the use of the term that confers equal rights on both genders to marry multiple partners), then I think that a natural consequence is for those types of marriages to naturally organize themselves in a way where a single male enters into an arrangement with multiple females. I don't think we would see the opposite arrangement occur anywhere near as often - though it has been known to occur throughout history. That doesn't necessarily mean that the relationship is exploitative, but I think we're more likely than not to see exploitative behavior. It establishes the dominance of the man in the relationships, and it is therefore inherently illiberal. Then again, has there ever been a fairly liberal society that has ever legitimized and legalized polygamy on a large scale? I could be wrong if such an experiment turns out different than I have supposed.

[bengraven]

i think the irl personification of gaf is some fat dude at starbucks who argues with random people about why he can't have sex with his little sister and marry his entire female family and moves from topic to topic like why can't he snort heroine off a hooker's vagina if god isn't real and morality is relative

No, Sennorin was perma-banned a year ago.

You ever read The Moon is a Harsh Mistress? Always thought the line marriages were a really cool idea. No idea how well they'd work in real life, though.

No, but you remind me that I need to read more Heinlein.

Reading up on the wiki, it seems like the line marriages work similar to some Native American cultures. The creation of children was most important, so men and women would easily move between families to necessitate that. Brothers having sex with their sister in laws to ensure conception, clean up the genetic lines, etc.

It is interesting that while we talk about women being the underwhelming minority in regards to polyandrous marriages that Heinlein created a system where women were dominant.

Edit: Actually, reading further, his entire system of government is compelling. My god, the guy could world build like a champion.

[Amir0x]

If it's among consenting adults, I don't see why it shouldn't be legal. The abuses that people occasionally find in polygamist families are what should be prosecuted, not the act itself.

[BeesEight]

This reminds me of the arguments against gay marriage. You can have all that stuff if you just get a regular marriage! Why must you have marriage with the same sex?

I think this is demonstrating a gross misunderstanding of homosexuality.

Human sexuality and relationships are largely very fluid and different things for everyone, and I just don't think funneling every single person into monogamy and only legitimizing that type or relationship is a good thing. It's just like funneling everyone into monogamous relationships only between male and female isn't a good thing, because some people aren't that way. Some people like others of their same sex. Sure we could have told them that they were free to have that relationship, they just couldn't get married, and some are making that argument, but that's silly. There are other things that come along with marriage in our society.

But to my knowledge, there's nothing illegal about open relationships. There's nothing stopping groups of couples essentially having swinger communes. And the practice of polygamy has historically been very one sided in its treatment of its members.

Edit - to clarify. Same-sex marriage is extending the same rights to members who are denied them. These rights aren't denied to people who want to participate in polygamy since they can still participate in monogamous marriages. The polygamy advocates want extra rights for their lifestyle even though they are fully capable of living the normative lifestyle available to them. This is one reason why polygamy and same-sex marriage are not equivalent.

[njr]

The only one thing I can see as a step to making polygamy work is one big... prenup? That would avoid one big headache but there's probably plenty more flaws people could find within the subject itself.

[dude]

Because the end rewards aren't worth it? There's already been a long discussion of the impracticalities and risks involved with polygamy and for what? So a man can be banging two wives? Why not just have an open relationship? There are ways to simulate a polygamous marriage that don't require massive overhauls to the system. I'm just not seeing the need for our society to essentially legalize harems and the argument "well people should be able to screw whoever they want" isn't really holding any weight. They can already do so and last I checked that isn't illegal.

Oh, fine, I'm going to use the worst trick ever.

"Because the end rewards aren't worth it? There's already been a long discussion of the impracticalities and risks involved with legalization and for what? So a man can get high? Why not just drink alcohol? There are ways to simulate getting high that don't require massive overhauls to the system. I'm just not seeing the need for our society to essentially legalize pill-popping and the argument "well people should be able to do whatever as long as no one's hurt" isn't really holding any weight. They can already do so and last I checked that isn't illegal."

Ugh.

[Orayn]

But to my knowledge, there's nothing illegal about open relationships. There's nothing stopping groups of couples essentially having swinger communes. And the practice of polygamy has historically been very one sided in its treatment of its members.

In some states, cohabitating with someone you're in a relationship with is a de facto commonlaw marriage, which can make polyamoury illegal.

[bengraven]

If it's among consenting adults, I don't see why it shouldn't be legal. The abuses that people occasionally find in polygamist families are what should be prosecuted, not the act itself.

That's my least favorite kind of law. The one that exists only to prevent the occasional abuser, despite not harming the rest.

In some states, cohabitating with someone you're in a relationship with is a de facto commonlaw marriage, which can make polyamoury illegal.

I was under the impression that common law marriages were basically non-existant anymore? In the last 10-15 years the question was brought up in my family since I had some uncles living in different states with their girlfriends for years. Hell, I lived with my wife four years before we were married.

[BeesEight]

Oh, fine, I'm going to use the worst trick ever. "Because the end rewards aren't worth it? There's already been a long discussion of the impracticalities and risks involved with legalization and for what? So a man can get high? Why not just drink alcohol? There are ways to simulate getting high that don't require massive overhauls to the system. I'm just not seeing the need for our society to essentially legalize pill-popping and the argument "well people should be able to do whatever as long as no one's hurt" isn't really holding any weight. They can already do so and last I checked that isn't illegal." Ugh.

Is it the worst trick because it doesn't make sense?

[Stumpokapow]

In some states, cohabitating with someone you're in a relationship with is a de facto commonlaw marriage, which can make polyamoury illegal.

list prosecutions here:
______

[Loofy]

But to my knowledge, there's nothing illegal about open relationships. There's nothing stopping groups of couples essentially having swinger communes. And the practice of polygamy has historically been very one sided in its treatment of its members. Edit - to clarify. Same-sex marriage is extending the same rights to members who are denied them. These rights aren't denied to people who want to participate in polygamy since they can still participate in monogamous marriages. The polygamy advocates want extra rights for their lifestyle even though they are fully capable of living the normative lifestyle available to them. This is one reason why polygamy and same-sex marriage are not equivalent.

Isnt this like saying "Marriage rights arent denied to gay people since they also have the right to participate in a heterosexual marriage?"
If for example youre the second woman youre basically being told 'You can still get married, just not with that person. Being the mistress should be good enough.'

[shinobi602]

Why? What is gained by it? Just fuck who ever you want. You'd just be creating a complex legal structure for a small number of people that want such a system.

What do you gain by not legalizing it? Who cares. If the consenting adults choose to engage in a polygamous marriage, why should you stop them? Seems a little prejudiced to me.

[BeesEight]

Isnt this like saying "Marriage rights arent denied to gay people since they also have the right to participate in a heterosexual marriage?" If for example youre the second woman youre basically saying 'You can still get married, just not with that person.'

No - it's not even close. Are you trying to suggest that this woman CAN'T love any other man. She can only ever love this one man, right here, who's already married?