Polygamy: Why not?

[Perry White]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/21/AR2006112100206.html?nav=hcmodule

Valerie and others among the estimated 40,000 men, women and children in polygamous communities are part of a new movement to decriminalize bigamy. Consciously taking tactics from the gay-rights movement, polygamists have reframed their struggle, choosing in interviews to de-emphasize their religious beliefs and focus on their desire to live "in freedom," according to Anne Wilde, director of community relations for Principle Voices, a pro-polygamy group based in Salt Lake.

Since then, liberal legal scholars, generally no friend of the polygamists' conservative-leaning politics, have championed decriminalization. One of them is Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University who has written two op-eds for USA Today calling for the legalization of bigamy -- and same-sex marriage.

"I find polygamy an offensive practice," said Turley, who has become something of a celebrity among polygamists in Utah. "But there is no way its practice among consenting adults should be a felony."

I gotta agree with Mr. Turley, IMHO.

 

[Buck]

I know that polygamy as an institution is criticized as being a haven for misogynists and pedophiles.
But philosophically, consenting adults should be able to enter into multiple marriage.

 

[Cadet]

As long as it works both ways; some polygamist communities believe only the man should be allowed multiple spouses while the women should remain faithful.

 

[Bubba Fett]

That way a lot of men can be ****ty husbands to multiple wives.

 

[PeteyPirate]

I think they have a good point. As poor as it turns out in practice, it seems like it should be legal in theory.

 

[FantasyAlliance.cm]

As long as the people are of consenting age and are doing it under their own will, I don't care, but I'm not a member of the religious right, so I have no morals.

 

[Buck]

I don't think you can really cast polygamy as a moral majority, religious right issue.

 

[Double J]

As long as it works both ways; some polygamist communities believe only the man should be allowed multiple spouses while the women should remain faithful.

Is that a problem? ;D

 

[Yawn]

Hey, if the gay contingent has their way, give the Polygamists room to roam too.

Then, why is 18 an age of consent? Make it 17. You know, maybe there's rights there we've been overlooking. You could even shove it in from of the conservative evangelical wing that Mother Mary was a minor when she gave birth to Christ. Hell, let's make it 14 for mature people. That way, teachers can be legally in love with students. I mean, rights, right?

 

[joe king]

OK, I'll do it. Here goes:

Know what the penalty for bigamy is?

Two wives.

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

Hey, if the gay contingent has their way, give the Polygamists room to roam too.

Then, why is 18 an age of consent? Make it 17. You know, maybe there's rights there we've been overlooking. You could even shove it in from of the conservative evangelical wing that Mother Mary was a minor when she gave birth to Christ. Hell, let's make it 14 for mature people. That way, teachers can be legally in love with students. I mean, rights, right?

I see the Thanksgiving paste is a'cookin' already!

 

[Chef]

OK........why the hell would one man want to have more than one naggin' princess nipping at his heels?

 

[Freelance Hack]

For me, one wife is too many enough.

 

[Chef]

For me, one wife is too many enough.

amen, bruddah.....amen.

 

[alleyallen]

Yeah, that's my thought. Been married twice, and while I loved the "being married" aspect, sometimes I coulda done without the actual wife. Want two or three? Unless it's for the ever-changing booty, I couldn't imagine why.

 

[dooley_womack1]

For me, one wife is too many enough.

Spoken by someone whose wife doesn't read the site, apparently.

 

[Perry White]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,1953263,00.html

I love being in a polygamy family and my sisterwives agree with me. The downside is the sex, not the quality, I have no complaints about that, but just the quantity and we all know that it will get worse when the final two wives join in the next two to three years. Then it will be like two to three times in six weeks.

 

[Pastor]

As I have argued in regards to gay marriage, marriage is a governmental contract between parties. Allowing a person to enter into the same contract with another individual does not allow balance in fulfilling the contract to the first person.

Here are some potential problems (all cases assume 1-man and multiple wives):
- Health Insurance. Are all the wives covered? Could this be a way for people to cheat the system? ("Hey I'm covered for insurance. You can be my second wife, we don't **** or anything, but you pay my $50 each month and I'll add you to my plan.")

- Inheritance. Let's say spouse number 2 dies. Does only the man, the individual who has the contract with the wife, receive the inheritance? What about the other wives who, through sacrifice or their own work, helped that woman before she passed? Are they not entitled to inheritance?

- Inheritance (2). Let's say the man dies. Who receives his land, money or possessions? Would it be split evenly amongst the women or would it be divided up based on the number of children he has?

- Taxes. Could there be a limit on dependants?

- Immigration. "What's that? You want to move to America, with your sister? Sure, I'll marry both of you for X dollars."


Now, if some guy's wife is fine with her husband boinking and fathering kids with other women that will be faithful to him, who am I to argue? But, in the eyes of the government, his marriage license is only applicable to one person.

 

[Inky_Wretch]

Then, why is 18 an age of consent? Make it 17.

In some states, the AoC is lower than 18. In Mississippi, I think females can marry at 15 or 16 without parental consent.

 

[JackS]

Here are some potential problems (all cases assume 1-man and multiple wives):
- Health Insurance. Are all the wives covered? Could this be a way for people to cheat the system? ("Hey I'm covered for insurance. You can be my second wife, we don't **** or anything, but you pay my $50 each month and I'll add you to my plan.")

I'm not going to re-enter the overall debate, and I don't mean to be cold, but I do want to mention on this one point that health insurance is a privilege, not a right. Employers can and should be able to cover whomever they want. We're really lucky as hell that employers cover anything more than the employee, or the employee him or herself, in fact.

It's a perk that somehow morphed into a right in most people's eyes.