If straight marriage is OK...then why not polygamy?

[Columbusite]

Just thought I'd ask this in response to another thread (similarly worded except I replaced "gay" with "straight"), since this is the question that we should be answering and all too many people don't consider it.

 

[Engimo]

That is a good question. Why not polygamy? I see no reason for two (or three, or four) consenting adults to be barred from entering into at least a civil union. The only reason I can see for this is the Judeo-Christian morality that pervades the culture and government of the United States.

 

[vergiss]

That is a good question. Why not polygamy? I see no reason for two (or three, or four) consenting adults to be barred from entering into at least a civil union. The only reason I can see for this is the Judeo-Christian morality that pervades the culture and government of the United States.

Which is funny, considering how many biblical figures had multiples wives and concubines.

I have no objection, if they're all for it and happy about it.

 

[Engimo]

Which is funny, considering how many biblical figures had multiples wives and concubines.

I have no objection, if they're all for it and happy about it.

Sorry, perhaps those ideals are not necessarily shown in the Bible (or maybe they are, I'm not sure), but the current, modern incarnation of Christianity (with the exclusion of minority sects) seems to be very much against polygamy and anything other than the "one man/one woman" definition of marriage.

 

[saffron]

Isn't polygamy illegal in the U.S.? It is perfectly legal in Muslim societies. If you want to practice polygamy, then move to a country that allows it. Only then you may have to convert to Islam.

And we heterosexuals don't call the institition of marriage "straight marriage". It is called marriage. Just marriage. We don't need to advertise that we are "straight". Your question is starting down the slippery slope.:roll:

 

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

The only problem I can see with Polygamy is that it would be very difficult to ensure benefits for everyone. If they were to have it, it is not wrong in and of itself, but the benefit distributioj is the problem. You can't expect the government or workplaces to cover/insure/provide all for the entire clan in terms of spousal benefits.

 

[Stace]

Just thought I'd ask this in response to another thread (similarly worded except I replaced "gay" with "straight"), since this is the question that we should be answering and all too many people don't consider it.

I wouldn't have a problem with it, if that's what a bunch of people wanted to do......

Polygamy might not be legal, but there are many people that practice a polyamorous lifestyle.

 

[Engimo]

The only problem I can see with Polygamy is that it would be very difficult to ensure benefits for everyone. If they were to have it, it is not wrong in and of itself, but the benefit distributioj is the problem. You can't expect the government or workplaces to cover/insure/provide all for the entire clan in terms of spousal benefits.

Yes, it is clearly forseeable that the adoption of polygamy and the subsequent increase of marriage benefits that would have to be doled out would tax the economy, but that is a (akin to your name) utilitarian reason for not allowing polygamous marriage. If, hypothetically, it could be shown that crime would be reduced if we had mandatory abortions for teenage mothers, would you still consider it? While that's a rather extreme example, I believe it is the same sort of logic that banning polygamous marriage for pragmatic reasons holds.

 

[Stace]

The only problem I can see with Polygamy is that it would be very difficult to ensure benefits for everyone. If they were to have it, it is not wrong in and of itself, but the benefit distributioj is the problem. You can't expect the government or workplaces to cover/insure/provide all for the entire clan in terms of spousal benefits.

It really wouldn't be that hard to work out......

Spouse A could have a plan that covers them and Spouse B.

Spouse B could have a plan that covers them and Spouse C. (And yes, that means that Spouse B would have double the coverage, but.....eh. It happens.)

They could all just have plans that cover just themselves, or if one didn't work, one of the others would cover them.

As far as division of property in the case of death, it'd just get split 50/50 if there is no will stating specifics.

 

[Columbusite]

we heterosexuals don't call the institition of marriage "straight marriage". It is called marriage. Just marriage. We don't need to advertise that we are "straight". Your question is starting down the slippery slope.:roll:

I see what you're saying, but at the same time people call marriage between two people of the same sex "gay marriage". How about if I change it to "If marriage between a man & a woman is OK...then why not a marriage with multiple spouses?" Would you answer that?

 

[Polish Rob]

Isn't polygamy illegal in the U.S.? It is perfectly legal in Muslim societies. If you want to practice polygamy, then move to a country that allows it. Only then you may have to convert to Islam.

And we heterosexuals don't call the institition of marriage "straight marriage". It is called marriage. Just marriage. We don't need to advertise that we are "straight". Your question is starting down the slippery slope.:roll:

Legal in Utah :2wave: