If homosexual marriage is legal, why are polygnists still denied the opportunity to marry multiple partners if all are willing?

tradition and bigotry. they are harder to kill than hitler.

Hypocrisy and double-standards are harder to kill than the devil.

Hey! It’s our buddy, Crusader.

To answer your question, yes. There is a bit of an argument that can be made here, in some ways. In my eyes, as long as a consensual agreement is made between the persons (this is held true for M/F, F/F, M/M, M/F/F/F/F/F/F/F/F/F/F/F/F/F/F/F, and so on), I say have at it – as long as no laws are broken.

In other words, if a polygamist wants to marry a 13 year old – no dice.

Other than that, I see nothing morally objectionable to having multiple spouses, although I personally don’t agree with nor advocate it. Ain’t my thing, but it really isn’t any of my business who/how many people you marry or what religious beliefs you hold.

Homosexuality is still a one to one relationship. The issue with polygamy is that socially we are not set up for marriages with multiple people, our laws revolve around two people disputes. We would need to create new laws regarding child custody – who is the father and mother of a child in a house with two fathers and three mothers? Divorce in such situations would also be very difficult without having a prenuptial agreement.

And now I ask a follow up question to you Crusader, why do you think that homosexuality and polygamy are in any way related? Why would you think that allowing homosexuality should allow polygamy?

@dynamicduo: I presume it’s because allowing homosexuals to marry means rejecting the idea that the priests have a say in whom you are allowed to love.

I’m pretty sure it’s spelled “polygamy”, by the way, not “polygny”.

it’s not illegal everywhere :)

Why should polygny be legal, (polygny=M/F/F…)For equal rights. Age appropriate, (as with homosexuals,) according to the new definition of marriage, (previously a union of two opposites,)
which is increasing liberal, that is to say polygny is more Biblical, and generally considered Ok by practicing members. Not as liberal an interpretaion of marriage as homosexual marriage anyway. Since it is becoming an increasing inevitability, include polygny-otherwise polygnists are being marginalized. If one man has several wives Paternity is a foregone conclusion. If the women like him, and are willing to share, what is the harm?

I still don’t see what one has to do with the other.

Nope, it’s a fair argument.

However, your “paternity” argument is messy, as in an opposite scenario (F/M/M/M/M) or a diverse one (M/F/M/F/M/F), it becomes increasingly unclear as to who the father might be without tests.

It is complex in terms of the socioeconomic and legal topics it introduces, but I understand why some people people might want polygamy legal nationwide.

For example, Stacy, Susan and John all went to school together. The graduated high school and all received degrees from the same college.

They know everything about each other, love and care for each other very dearly (and equally). What happens when they realize they are all in love with one another? Do just two get married, and the other one is denied the privilege of taking part in the wedding? Why do they have to even think of making that choice?

So I get how it might be compared to gay marriage, with regards to ethics and morals. Still a bit of a stretch, in my opinion – most polygamist unions aren’t like what I described above.

Actually, most polygamists I have met, in America, are quite liberal sexually, Especially the women, two bi-sexual girls and one straight guy is much more common a scenario then you all may think…Though I beleive a that a polygny relationship based on family and with a patriach, wherein a community of mothers attend to each others children has more benefits.

No, I understand that. That’s why I said there is are fair points in your reasoning.

There can be a debate had, and I personally wouldn’t mind that issue being discussed on an open forum.

I’d love to hear the opposite side.

Once again I ask why a one to one relationship of homosexuality should somehow permit a multiple relationship.

Is your only answer related to the fact that both were outlawed in your Bible?

Also, that’s incredibly subjective – I know plenty of homosexual male couples with children that are fantastic parents. I understand your position, I just think it’s a bit harsh to assume that a group of mothers is more beneficial than a group of fathers – homosexual or otherwise.

Granted, there are fewer teets to suckle on, but you understand what I mean.

But again, that’s subjective. Your belief that a community of mother’s is better than a group of fathers isn’t wrong. I just hold an opposite opinion and offer food for thought.

Leeeet me say…. meh… forget it…

@Crusader: until gay marriage is legal across the board, your question is based on a false premise.

I wish that surprised me.

Marriage between consenting adults should be allowed in any case. The government does not exist to provide morality and ethical guidelines for it’s citizens. And as a Christian you cannot expect those of different faiths or non-faiths to prescribe to the same morality based justifications that you come to. As a Christian myself, I don’t necessarily agree with either (homosexual marriage, polygamy), but again I cannot push my morality on other people who do not follow my way of life. The government should only be allowed to to control the things in our life which could potentially negatively impede on the rights of others. 10 people who want to marry each other has no impact on my rights as a US citizen.

that would be some kind of advantage when it comes to taxes no? is it fair for someone to be able to claim however many dependents you can fit into your bedroom?

If people want to enter into a committed polygamist relationship that’s great for them… if they can share i think it’s commendable.. i wouldn’t do it myself but to each his own.

Live and let live. All love is cool.

I will not try to push my views on anyone at this point and they do not need to try to push thier views on me. That being said, I personally do not believe in Homosexuality. (my right). And it is my opinion that any man that wants to live in a house with more than one woman is a moron. (not to be confused with Moromon). Sorry folks that is me accept me the way I am or totally ignore me. I will do the same for you.

@Dr_C
I’d be surprised if anyone would ever marry anyone else just for tax reasons.

@justwannaknow: You don’t believe in homosexuality? Does this mean that if you and I met at a Fluther gathering, you’d treat me as if you were seeing the Easter bunny or Santa Claus?

You are certainly free to accept me the way I am or ignore me. Denying me rights counts as neither.

@cwilbur I lol’d.

@Fyrius you would be very surprised indeed my friend… but it happens more than it should.

it is not leagal… but IF it were…
there is nothing wrong with multiple people marrying other multiple people, the worry is patriarchy. one man marrying all the women he wants, but the women not being allowed to marry all the men and women she wants. if everyone can marry whomever they want (excluding minors) then go for it. we already have that it is called polyamours basically the equivalent to open relationships. it gets messy though. really messyyyy. i don’t think the law or themselves would be able to keep track

Marriage isn’t just about the words, it’s got a lot to do with other legal issues, like carrying insurance, beneficiaries, and even having the right to have the final say on where a loved one is buried. (The last one is something i’ve seen happen too many times, when the family doesn’t approve of the life partner and once the individual dies they make it so that the life partner can’t eventually be buried next to them. Also families sometimes force transsexuals to revert to their former identities by changing the name on their grave and setting up the funeral so that they’re in their born-sex’s style of dress.)

Obviously a few of these things could go potentially badly if it weren’t just two individuals, such as carrying insurance.

@delirium: And yet we allow people to form business partnerships and corporations with arbitrary numbers of people, and insurance is just as much a concern there.

@Crusader, Lol, I’m with you. I’ve watching this whole thing with redefining marriage and wondered if multiple wifes would be silver lining in the cloud (age appropriate only).

@dynamicduo, have you ever heard the expression, the pot calling the kettle black. What do you want things redefined but only to the point where it works for you. Really?

But its just a thought, I’d have to find someone as perfect as my wife and I don’t think it could be done. But if gay marriage is passed I say multiple spouses between consenting adults is totally tacked on as part of that law. lol