A community of 30,000 US Transcriptionist serving Medical Transcription Industry

Should polygamy be legal?

Posted: Aug 5, 2011

If gay marriage becomes widely legal, with the idea that all people should be allowed to marry whomever they wish, what is the reasoning behind not allowing polygamy? Is it illegal for strictly moral reasons? If so, shouldn't it become legal like gay marriage? I can see problems for things such as employer-based health care policies not wishing to insure multiple spouses and children. So if universal health care, single payer system were to be instituted, would there be any legal reason to continue outlawing polygamy?

Why does marriage need to be between one man/one woman?

My personal opinion is that it's wrong, but that's from my own moral standpoint. I can't think of a legal reason why it should be wrong.

;

You are comparing two completely different - issues

[ In Reply To ..]
Your comparison of allowing gay marriage and allowing polygamy are two completely different issues.

Polygamy is illegal throughout the entire US. Nobody can do it.

Gay marriage is not illegal throughout the entire US. Additionally, opposite sex couples are able to enjoy rights in the majority of states that their gay counterparts cannot.

If gay were a choice, which polygamy is, then I would have no problem making it illegal like polygamy. Gay, however; is not a choice.

I'm in favor of a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as being between two consenting human beings, ages 18 and over. Very simple.

OR, the flip side of the coin, abolish marriage, allow nobody to marry (like how polygamy is not allowed) and then everyone is equal once again.

The gay marriage argument is about equality.

Therein lies the problem - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
Polygamy has always been one husband having multiple wives. Allow the wives to have multiple husbands and I bet it would suddenly become illegal again.

What about a "Gay Polygamist"? - hmmm

[ In Reply To ..]
What if they demand multiple gay partners in future?

What government is going to offer then?

Why does government have to define marriage (between adults) at all? - NM

[ In Reply To ..]
Why?

You're right.. why should government be involved - in marriage at all? (among other things!)

[ In Reply To ..]
X

Yes, I think it should - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
I think if people want to marry each other nobody should be able to stop them. With gay marriage, say for instance, I hear a lot of people (my relatives for some), oh they are ruining the "institution", but I think who cares what people you don't even know who love each other and live on the other side of the country and you don't know what they do on a day to day basis marry each other. They love each other and want to be together. Then I think if it wasn't even in the news they wouldn't even know. I think it's the same with polygamy. I was watching Sister Wives a couple times and I thought, it's may not be for everyone, but it works for them. Again, if you make it legal and nobody knows then what difference does it make. I've been searching and searching to find out why it's illegal, but I can't find a good reason.

It would require a lot of legal work - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
There would be a lot of legal implications and I think they'd be most problematic in the untimely death of a partner. For instance, who has the right to make end of life decisions? Does seniority make all decisions? Do kids stay with the family or go with parent. Who does inherit? First wife or last wife? Family plans, like for insurance or even health clubs, would have to be re-written to a per capita basis- why should someone with 3 spouses pay the same rate as someone with 1.

Other than that, though, I think most of the problems with it would be moral ones. And Santorum will be able to say he told you so and that the next step is marrying your dog.

It also has to do with welfare. - Often what they get polygamists on

[ In Reply To ..]
is welfare fraud. They have a husband with income and 5 stay-at-home wives with a bunch of children, all collecting welfare and, thus, making a pretty good living. For the record, I think that marriage, being a mainly religious institution, should not be between two people of the same sex, although I am not against civil unions. I know that there are those who disagree and those people tend to be very vocal, but almost every time it hits a vote, I find that, even in a very liberal state, like California, I am not the minority.

I just think it is interesting - anon

[ In Reply To ..]
that everyone is so worked up about 'protecting the sanctity of marriage' and yet look at the rate of divorce, of adultery (including our politicians who speak out on the subject quite often). It seems to me that ship sailed a while ago. At least of the gay people who have been allowed to get married most of them seem to take it quite seriously, probably because they couldn't have it before.

As far as polygamy i think one problem is the stigma it carries due to the extreme fundamentalists who were marrying underage girls and/or forcing them to marry others, so were blatantly breaking the law. I have seen Sister Wives and I think they are a great family and if all polygamists were like them- well I don't know if anything would change even then. If they legalized polygamy they would have to legalize gay marriage and there goes the 'sanctity of marriage' again. It is interesting that, like they have pointed out on the show, a man can have several different lovers, have children with all of them, and be a deadbeat dad who barely pays child support if at all and is not an active father, and that is totally okay, nobody bats an eye, but a man who has 4 wives and takes care of all of them and all their kids and provides for them all and is an active father has to worry about being arrested. The one thing I wonder about is that we are supposed to have freedom of religion- but that is their religion and they obviously are not free to practice it.

Who thinks that it is okay for a man to - have kids with several different

[ In Reply To ..]
lovers? Certainly not me. I believe in marriage and I don't think that divorce rate is any reason to throw out the idea. It's kind of like saying that because there are murderers, we should get rid of the laws against it. Doesn't exactly make sense. And, yes, I know that divorce is a far cry from murder, but you can put just about anything else in there, too. Just because one person does something wrong, doesn't mean we should throw the whole thing away. Teens have sex. Does that mean that we should stop encouraging our children to be abstinent? I also am not equating gays with murderers, just in case some crazy person wants to take it that way. I am just saying that because some people do not take vows seriously is not a reason to say that there is no sanctity in marriage. There is sanctity in mine.

So you would rather see - not arguing, just trying to understand

[ In Reply To ..]
First I have to say I respect your opinion. I understand what your saying, but what I wonder is it sounds like you are fine with a so many men and women being unhappy, fighting, etc, horrible for kids to go through, ugly divorces, etc, and you are okay and happy with that, just as long as two people of the same sex or a man and 4 woman who all love each other deeply don't marry. That might not be what you are saying, but that's what I get when I read it. To me, all I say is if people want to marry others because they love each other so deeply why should anyone stop them. All I know is there are tons of people getting married. I don't care whether they are all woman, all men, multiple partners, etc, (just need to be human beings), but if they love each other and want to share their lives together who am I to determine how they should be living their lives. It's nobody's business but their own.

This is nothing like the murderer thing you said. People wanting to get married are not murderers. That is something different. A murderer is taking someone's life and that of course is against the law. When people marry they are not killing the other (well sometimes they do zap their energy though) LOL. As I read down your post further you said you are not equating gays with murderers and I believe you, but your analogy earlier seems like you were. You are comparing gays and polygamist wanting to get married with the law about murdering someone. They are two different things and was a bad example to use.

I did not say that. I do not agree with divorce. - I think that people should

[ In Reply To ..]
definitely be more careful when entering into marriage and I also think that it is too easy to get out of marriage. I also did make certain to say that I don't equate being gay with being a murderer. I was simply saying that it is a poor argument to say that anything should go in marriage because many do not take their vows seriously. That's kind of like saying two wrongs make a right. You cannot use bad marriages as an argument for any type of marriage. I don't think that divorce is an argument *for* anything. Just my opinion. You think that my example was bad and you might be right, but take anything and insert it there. It still doesn't fly. Straight people entering into bad marriages does not a good argument for gay or polygamist marriages make.

If you just look at the world now - anon

[ In Reply To ..]
it is clearly more accepted by society than it should be. Look at movies, TV, the media- so many of these guys claim 'sex addiction' to justify it. I just don't see anyone trying to take away any of these people's rights, yet someone doing what amounts to the same thing except that they are keeping their family together and providing for them and being active parents has to live in fear of prosecution.

I agree. It is more widely accepted than - it should be, but I don't think that

[ In Reply To ..]
anyone is having a right taken away. First off, marriage is not really a right in my book. Secondly, everyone has the same marriage "rights." Any person is free to marry one person of the opposite sex. There are civil unions to cover gays, so I'm not really sure why they need it to be called "marriage," especially when many hold disdain for Christianity. Clearly, we are not going to agree on this and whether or not it is the will of the majority of people to keep marriage between one man and one woman, it probably will not stay that way. I just think that is a shame.

seriously?! - Pollly Pharmacy

[ In Reply To ..]
You wrote: There are civil unions to cover gays, so I'm not really sure why they need it to be called "marriage," especially when many hold disdain for Christianity.

You do realize that Christians aren't the only people who get married, don't you? Marriage is not just considered a religious ceremony anyway.

Nobody is saying throw out the whole idea - maggie

[ In Reply To ..]
simply that it is kind of silly the way people get so up in arms about the sanctity of marriage and if they were truly concerned with that it seems that more people would be focused on making their own marriages work and focusing on the sanctity of their own marraiges instead of being like the dog in the manger where they just don't want anyone else to have that same privelege. How many of the politicians, let alone many other men who have been caught red handed cheating on their spouse, whether with a woman or a man, have been some of the biggest supporters of 'protecting the sanctity of marriage.' It seems a little hypocritical to me, is all i'm saying.

But muddying the waters of marriage by adding - anything and everything to it is

[ In Reply To ..]
throwing the whole idea out. If you change something to a point that it is no longer recognizable, it is gone.

Similar Messages:

Jun 26, 2015
it's been a good week😊 ...

Jan 23, 2012
I am going to court Feb 15 to get more child support since I lost my job. I live in OK if that helps. Do I have to have a lawyer there? What can I expect? I would ask my lawyer, but he has given me a lot of misinformation. ...

Feb 14, 2013
Illegal gun owners are probably laughing their heads off: Missouri Democrats introduced an anti-gun bill which would turn law-abiding firearm owners into criminals. They will have 90 days to turn in their guns if the legislation is passed. Here’s part of the Democratic proposal in Missouri: 4. Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was ***LEGALLY*** in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall have ninety days from such effective date to do a ...

Jul 08, 2015
And it happens hundreds of times every year. This incident just happens to be "high-profile." Remember: When seconds count, the police are just minutes away. Remember also that the only people who obey gun LAWS are the LAW-ABIDING. ...

Mar 31, 2010
Good for him. Hopefully, he will win, but I doubt it. So far, in doing a search, this was the only newspaper article I found. Sad, isn't it? Undated photo of Al Snyder and his son Matthew Related Links Soldier's Dad Ordered To Pay Protestors' Fees YORK, Pa. – The man who was ordered to pay the legal fees of Kansas-based anti-gay protestors who picketed his son’s 2006 funeral says he will defy the court’s order. Albert ...

Jun 18, 2011
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/pl_nm/us_libya_usa_obama ...

May 15, 2017
Does anyone know of any boards for legal transcriptionists? I found one, but it seems to have been abandoned. ...

Aug 10, 2017
Just sharing in case someone here is affected: https://www.thepennyhoarder.com/deals/cvs-lawsuit-prescription-copay/?utm_source=daily0810&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsy&utm_content=cvs-lawsuit ...

Apr 27, 2017
Celebrity chef Tom Colicchio claimed on MSNBC during a discussion of food policy Wednesday that "there's no legal way for immigrants to actually enter this country." MSNBC host Ali Velshi brought up the topic of immigrants who are seeking a better life through work in the food industry. According to the Pew Research Center, illegal immigrants make up between 16 and 19 percent of bakers, cooks, dishwashers, and dining room or cafeteria attendants. Velshi asked Colicchio about the relevanc ...

Jun 09, 2017
Comey facing ‘three-pronged legal attack’ after Kasowitz’s detailed investigation Brian Schwartz Fox BusinessJune 9, 2017 Lawyers for Donald Trump have been investigating potential leaks coming out of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, including its former director James Comey, going back to at least March, as they prepare to take legal action against the former FBI chief following his bombshell test ...

Jun 10, 2017
since Comey will be called on to testify by the special committee it will be an obstructive of justice and intimidating a witness and we can finally get that loser out of the WH along with his whole family. Should prove interesting because they are up against the head of the FBI and a prosecuting attorney. LOL That was not classified information and perfectly legal. Comey of course knew that and that is why he leaked it. So funny. ...

Jul 21, 2017
I bet Trump wishes he had come clean on his taxes. Thinking there is going to be a whole lot of information about foreign (Russian) investments (money laundering) coming to light. He might just lose everything. ...

Jul 07, 2011
Who is going to bring a wrongful death lawsuit against these people, do not need unanimous for that!! I live in FL could I do it???? I think all the citizens who paid tax dollars should get in on this lawsuit. I certainly do not want my tax dollars going for this trial. Any money Casey and the Anthony family think they are going to make on this little girls death should be tied up in a wrongful death lawsuit and pay the taxes, the jury, and then some. Anyone have an ...

May 19, 2015
than ILLEGAL immigrants. Tweet that for the No. 1 twit. ...

Aug 02, 2016
Aha, now I get it. ...

Nov 14, 2011
How refreshing to see gutsy city officials follow their conscience. (Reuters) - A top adviser to Oakland Mayor Jean Quan resigned on Monday over the city's handling of anti-Wall Street demonstrations, describing a morning raid to clear a downtown protest camp as a mistake that could trigger more volatility. Civil rights attorney Dan Siegel told Reuters he resigned at 2 a.m., hours before the raid on the Occupy Oakland encampment, after insisting that police should protect, not disma ...

Sep 29, 2012
The Obama admission has encouraged defense contractors to break the law and offered to pay the companies' legal fees for doing so. A purely political move to try to prevent employers from announcing layoffs until ater the election. Administration doubles down on plea to contractors amid pending layoffs -- The Obama administration has doubled down on its plea to defense contractors not to warn employees about possible layoffs due to looming budget cuts -- goin ...