So I occasionally hear the claim by those opposed to gay marriage that if we accept gay marriage we ought to accept polygamous marriage too. Then I also hear these same people claim that those who support gay marriage are opposed to polygamous marriages.

Is this claim true that gay supporters are opposed to p-marriages? I tend to see mixed opinion on this. I'm for gay marriage and WOULD be for plural marriages too but it would be a far more complicated issue because you are dealing with more than one spouse.

When you are speaking in legal terms, it involves a number of legal rights that somehow have to get diffused among more than two people. There's a lot more to it than between two people.

When people think polygamy, they think BY-style: one man:many wives.

However, why should men have all the fun? Women would have to be able to have many husbands. If the men have many wives and the women have many husbands, then who is really married to whom?

Throw in same-sex relations and everyone is married to everyone. I have 5 husbands and 3 wives, and my husbands and wives have 8 relationships relationships apiece, then you just have a giant commune. If everyone is married to everyone, then no one is married to anyone.

As it is most commonly practiced today it IS one man and several women. And the women are generally coerced and generally through their religion. It also has negative outcomes for women and children because women are NOT equal in polygyny -- the most common form of polygamy. And yes, a lot of us who wholeheartedly approve of same sex marriage are unenthused with polygamy -- and I'll remain unenthused until protections for women so they aren't brainwashed/indoctrinated/coerced into accepting it exist.

The same could be said for many regular marriages too though. You don't there's been a lot of coerced one man one woman marriages?

However, coercing a woman to accept that she must share her man with several other women is harmful in a way that coercing a woman to marry a man monogamously isn't. Granted, both are harmful -- just in different ways. The research, however, shows that polygyny is MORE harmful for women and children than monogamy. Also, polygyny creates a shortage of available women to court, leading to excess bachelors and heightened crime and violence rates (and child brides) AND it lowers the resources available to children as they have to share their father with the children of other women. Both of these issues are specific to polygyny and don't carry over into monogamy.

If polygamy became legal, I'm sure they'd take measures to prevent this happening. There's some people out there that would be able to practice a polygamous marriage rightfully (i.e. with nobody being coerced, everybody being equal, everybody having a say, etc.).

However the vast majority are practing polygyny and it's coerced. And since we can't even manage to protect children from being killed by their religious parents' whacked out views, I'm not optimistic that legalizing polygamy would automatically protect women and children. In countries where polygyny is legal it still is harmful to women and children and they never seem to be protected. Until patriarchy is removed from ALL polygamy it's a matter of risking many because a very few are mature and actually know what they're doing. I don't consider that a good risk.

They're going to practice it anyway though. Might as well make it legal so they are not living in it secretly.

There's a lot of other things out there that can be argued are "bad" for people but we shouldn't necessarily outlaw them either. Alcohol, extreme sports, mountain climbing, bars, driving cars, women going out late at night alone, etc.

Is that your argument?

There are very real human harms that come with polygamy. Until those are somehow dealt with legalizing polygamy is only giving men more freedom to harm women and children.

COMPARING 3rd and 4th DENSITY RELATIONSHIPS By Lasos, based on Lyssa Royal's channeling entitled "4th Density Relationships"

This chart is A Sociological Comparison of How Relationships can work. Each column is considered a "package deal", in that each relationship usually functions in terms of most of the characteristics of the 3rd dimensional version or the 4th dimensional version, rather than a combination of both versions.

3-D 3rd-Dimensional Relationships The way relationships normally work with us here in our 3rd dimension.

SEPARATION Separation is only an illusion. Separation from the God Source. Separation from each other. And separation from aspects of our self.

SECRECY Withholding information from my partner & from myself. With secrecy, my partner never gets to know who I truly am. Keeps me separated from the greater portion of myself.

FEAR-BASED MONOGAMY Through my monogamous relationship, I am "separated" from the vulnerability of having to deal with any other relationships. Therefore, I feel "safe" (separate and safe).

CONDITIONAL LOVE I will love you, only so long as you fulfill my needs and expectations. I will withdraw my love, if you do not satisfy me.

COMMITTMENT I need commitment, in order to avoid my fear of having to deal with other relationships. Commitment is a 3rd-dimensional illusion. Commitment never insures my security. Commitment only makes me think or feel that I am secure.

EXPECTATION I want, expect, and try to get my partner to fulfill my expectations and needs. I use my partner to satisfy my needs.

MANIPULATION I use obvious or hidden manipulation so that my needs will be met, and so that I can remain protected from my own fears. I only see my partner as who I need them to be, not who they really are.

THE NEED TO CONTROL I do not trust that everything that occurs is for my highest good. Therefore, I need to control and shape the relationship, so that it will take the form I wish it to be. I feel like I "own" my partner.

RELATIONSHIP takes Precedence to PERSONAL GROWTH

DEPENDENCY I depend on and need someone outside of myself in order to be happy.

A PERSON CAN NOT FULLY LOVE MORE THAN ONE PERSON. 3-D emphasizes Duality. If my partner begins to also love another person, that means he/she will have less love for me. (This is an illusion.) My partner spending LESS TIME with me is not good.

PAIN There is always pain when I function from the 3-D relationships "mind-set".

ENDING A RELATIONSHIP creates PAIN & LOSS.

FEAR or PAIN of LONELINESS Loneliness, like separation, is a 3-D illusion.

ANGER AT ANOTHER (Externalized anger) I am angry at my partner for not meeting my needs!

VICTIMHOOD "Hurters" & "Victims" I sometimes hurt others. I am sometimes hurt by the comments or actions of others. "Hurters" & "Victims" is an illusion. There is no victimhood, since each one creates their own reality.

FEELING RESPONSIBLE for the NEEDS of my PARTNER My partner is seeking to have their needs met externally by me, but a person's needs can never really be met by anyone else, so they are bound to eventually get angry at me, for not fulfilling their needs.

4-D 4th-Dimensional Relationships The way relationships normally work on the 4th dimension.

INTEGRATION + REINTEGRATION Everything and everyone are really all connected.

HONESTY + OPENNESS Total honesty with my partner. With honesty, my partner gets to know who I truly am. Honesty means being 100% who I truly am. I do not withhold a comment or information just to avoid hurting my partner, or to control the relationship. I can never really know or predict what will hurt another or how they will react to my honesty. Therefore, I should stop assuming responsibility for the other person's emotions, growth, & reactions to my honest non-manipulative communications.

RELATIONSHIPS BY CHOICE Monogamy-by-choice or Polygamy-by-choice or Poly-Fidelity-by-choice. There is no inherent "right" or "wrong" to any type of relationship: They are all inherently neutral. Any type of relationship is "okay". If I choose monogamy, this does not mean that I expect or need my partner to also choose monogamy.

UNCONDITIONAL LOVE Even if you don't fulfill my needs and expectations, I will still love you. I love you for who you are without trying to change you.

BEING IN THE PRESENT Commitment would take me out of the present. I stay in the present, and I do not need a commitment, because I trust that the future will take care of itself.

NO EXPECTATIONS I trust and have no expectations from my partner. I enjoy my partner, but without expectations.

ALLOWINGNESS I allow my partner to be who they need to be. Only then can I see who they truly are.

ABSOLUTE TRUST I trust that everything that occurs is for my highest good. Therefore, I have no desire or need to control my partner.

PERSONAL GROWTH takes Precedence to RELATIONSHIP.

SELF-SUFFICIENCY I recognize that I, and only I, am the creator of my own reality. Therefore, only I, am the generator of my own Happiness.

A PERSON CAN FULLY LOVE MORE THAN ONE PERSON. 4-D emphasizes Multiplicity. No matter how many other people my partner loves, this does not diminish at all, in any way, how much love he/she has for me. No matter how many other people I love, this does not diminish at all, in any way, how much love I have for my partner. My partner spending LESS TIME with me is fine. If I truly love myself unconditionally, then the time spent with myself is equal in value to the time spent with my partner. I love myself as much as I love my partner. Therefore, the time I spend alone is just as enjoyable as the time spent with my partner. Therefore, it's okay if I spend less time with my partner.

HAPPINESS, PLEASURE, & ECSTACY There is never any pain, only happiness, pleasure, and ecstasy, when I function from the 4-D relationships "mind-set".

ENDING A RELATIONSHIP does not create PAIN & LOSS. In realizing that this relationship is no longer serving us, we choose to harmoniously end it. We recognize that the relationship is going in different directions, and so we allow it to end, without any hard feelings. Only with love.

FEELING CONNECTED to SIGNIFICANT OTHERS. Even if my partner is far away (in space), or even if I haven't seen my partner for a long time (in time), I still feel very connected to them. Whereas separation is an illusion, being actually connected-together is the reality.

ANGER AT MYSELF (Internalized anger) I am angry at myself for creating a reality that I do not prefer.

I CREATE MY OWN REALITY. Self-Responsibility Self-Empowerment I create my own reality, and this even includes other people's reactions to my actions. I can never be hurt by another person. I can never hurt another person. Only I am responsible for my reactions to other people's comments or actions.

BEING RESPONSIBLE for what I would like to GIVE to My PARTNER & our RELATIONSHIP I am pure in my intention in my relationship. I am 100% who I truly am with my partner. I am responsible for what, in my integrity, I would like to give to our relationship.

Got anything to counterbalance the very real harms to individuals polygamy seems to create?

I didn't think so.

The practice of polygamy in which a man marries many women is called Polygyny.

The practice of polgamy in which a woman marries many men is called Polyandry.

Polyandry is more prevalent for the simple reason that a man can beget a thousand children a year, but a woman can only conceive approximately one about every year or so.

Men desire to have more than one partner, if left to their own devices, so polygyny seems to suit them just fine.

Women do not appear to desire multiple partners so mush -- they just want the best partner that they can get. They'd rather share a multimillionaire with ten other women than be married to a loser who can't support them. This comes from the fact that in less developed cultures, women find it difficult to support themselves, and are considered only to be of value if they have lots of children.

This sets up a rather demonic cycle of dissatisfaction, because the more successful a man is, the more women he thinks he deserves; and the more successful he is, the more the women want him, so any monogamous urges are bound to end up being frustrated.

Economically prosperous and technologically advanced countries provide women with the ability to support themselves, and improve their self-image with something besides reproduction. It also makes it possible for them to live on their own without needing a man to "protect" them from other men.

If God is displeased with men having multiple partners, and women doing the same in a way that does not satisfy his requirements for his design of the human race, he will simply get rid of the prosperity, or whatever driving force is behind the promiscuity and indifference toward marriage. in regards to sexuality, our constant wanting to have our cake and eat it too is as much a temporal liability as it is a spiritual one.

There are many issues that make polygamist marriages a different legal issue than gay marriage. I personally do not see why we need to discuss polygamy as if it were linked to gay marriage, it is not.

That said, If they could find fair and equitable solutions for the many problems, I say fine, go for it. I just don't see how they could find equitable solutions for many of the issues.

I doubt most of the people asking about polygamy actually want polygamy. They mostly want to back gays into a corner and block gay marriage.

It totally is. When they bring it up, I just say sure whey not, as long as they can work out the details!

I don't think there is any active lobbying for polygamy in the real world. Those who actually practice it have no credibility, and no popular or political support.

This whole idea is completely a red herring.

Soon closeted Hollywood actors are going to have trouble with their love lives, because they will no longer be able to justify their need to hide their sexuality. When that happens, they may find themselves way out of their repective comfort zones. When that happens the real homophobes will finally be exposed.

There are lots of gay actors that are having great carers. No need for all the if you mention, We know what happens as gay actors come out, and it is not what you suggest.

Redefining Marriage in gender-neutral terms is a very small change that won't necessitate any other laws to be rewritten, except for a little bit of verbiage on the certificates.

BUT polygamy...that has a potential to screw thing up legally.

In polygamous cultures the various laws are written with polygamy in mind, they evolved together so they're compatible.

However, in the US and monogamous countries, the 1000s of laws that reference marriage, spousal rights, etc. have been written with an assumption of monogamy. How many of those laws would have to be adjusted?

I think its fairly well established that homosexuality is not a "choice" ... Folks come that way out of the package. 'Nuff said.

The desire to have multiple spouses generally stems from religious beliefs. In any event, folks aren't wired that way. They choose to be that way.

Any credible information or evidence to the contrary is, as always, more than welcome.

Fed and local governments generally turn a blind eye to the practice, particularly when legal issues arise. A "spouse" who doesn't have legal standing, for example, is ignored by the courts when property disputes or custody battles come-up.

Let's say you're in a "legal" multiple-partner arrangement and you want a divorce. You're going to have to sue everyone in the group. Custody battles should be a load of laughs because, technically, everyone in the group has rights to all off-spring produced in the marriage.

Its my take that the courts really don't want to deal with such nonsense, particularly when the courts don't have to by keeping it illegal.

Same-sex marriage doesn't create problems that don't already exist.

Now, excuse me while I go argue the right to marry my goldfish.

Timothy

IMO mormons and their pro-polygamous ideology should stay out of debates on the definition of marriage!

Clearly there is no link between same sex marriage and polygamy otherwise TSCC would be celebrating every victory on marriage equality.

IMO I don't see why polygamy is any different that gay marriage. Each one is a different from the definition of one man one woman that has help to this time.

If gay marriage is ok, then polygamy (any combination) should be ok. So long as they are supporting their families and are subject to the same laws ok.

There needs to be stronger laws to prevent children from being forced or brainwashed into marriage (for any combination). That is a whole different subject.

I am not for forced marriages of anyone but equality for everyone.

Marriage is for two people. That's how the laws work.

Polygamy can have ten, twenty, or as with Brigham Young, 50 or more spouses and many hundreds of dependent children.

No difference in divorcing one spouse or 50? One is complicated enough per court case.

Almost no polygamists fully support their families without public assistance. And they seldom if ever pay a full share of taxes the way normal families do.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/29/2013 05:27PM by Cheryl.

I happen to know of 4 families in polygamy. All four support the families. All pay taxes. I think you are thinking in the cases that make headlines and generalities. There are many households living this way in the us. if you search polygamy you can find it in every religion in the us.

One is Christian, two are Muslim, and one is Mormon.

The husband in all four families supplies separate homes and pays all the bills equally for the other wife. I think that is better than the 50+ percent of spouses that have affairs and cheat on spouses.

just my opinion. but if the laws allow same sexes, I do not see why a spouse cannot have two husbands or wives. Each is a separate union. a union of two.

just no forced marriages or underage.

In my opinion, the FIRST (of a number) of the problems that need to be dealt with in polyamorous/polygamist/polyandrist marriage is the realization that there is no inherent need or requirement that "everyone" be legally married to "everyone else" in that family group.

For example: In a marriage where there is one female and three straight males, the woman could be married to each of the men, but that DOES NOT MEAN that the men--therefore, and as a matter "of course"--be married to each other.

Conceptually, the woman would be the center of a wagon wheel and this particular wagon wheel would have three spokes. :-)

I think much of the understandable confusion around the subject of poly[whatever] marriage is that "four in a family" automatically means that "ALL four people are married to EACH OTHER."

Not necessarily so...unless that is the way each of the family members WANTS it to be.

This simplifies the legal complications considerably.

We already have in place legal protections for "more than two" in a marriage, when the "more" consists of offspring. These already-in-place legal measures work just fine (so far as I am aware).

An extension (in our thinking...and in our laws) of the ALREADY EXISTING laws and regulations regarding "more than two in a family," combined with the realization that "four in a family" does NOT mean that that EVERY member of that family "needs" to be married to EVERY OTHER family member, greatly simplifies the apparent problems.

This doesn't solve everything by any means, but it is a very solid beginning to a solution which is equitable to everyone in the family, and also equitable within society at large.

And it has the solid support of already totally accepted and existing law and cultural expectations.

... a dispute arises.

Folks need to think this through.

There's really no need for a couple to be legally married, straight or gay.

Until a dispute arises.

Timothy

Thanks for a word of sanity, Timothy.

So, if three guys are married to one woman what happens when one wants to divorce her? What happens when she wants to divorce one? How does one figure out property rights, child rearing, etc?

I see that you want it to be simple but it isn't at all. Multiple spouses greatly complicates legal issues.

Rand Paul brought up the issue of marrying non-humans. He has done this before.

I think he wants to marry a horse, or many horses. What is that? Polyequinamous?

Someone else brought up the idea that Rand Paul wants to marry his copy of "Atlas Shrugged."

Once More Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rand Paul brought up the issue of marrying
> non-humans. He has done this before.
>
> I think he wants to marry a horse, or many horses.
> What is that? Polyequinamous?
>
> Someone else brought up the idea that Rand Paul
> wants to marry his copy of "Atlas Shrugged."

Social evolution (example: the development of democracy) occurs in stages, and over a long period of time. When a stage is reached "too quickly" for a society, there are the "steps back" until the former progress can be taken up again.

We have gone through many enormous stages during my lifetime. When I was born, it was illegal for an Anglo and a Hispanic to get (or be) married in California. The idea that a marriage could consist of a white person and a black person was so close to being considered impossible as to be (for most people) unimaginable.

Gay marriage was such an inconceivable idea when I was growing up that it was the subject of "adult" jokes on LP's my classmates weren't supposed to know about or hear (but DID...at slumber parties, etc.). Nevertheless, the concept of "homosexual marriage" was considered to be a target of JOKES because people couldn't even make it to the point in their thinking where it could be considered even a distant possibility in real life.

Gay marriage is now, pretty much, settled law in enough of the nation that it will inevitably the law of our entire land during the lifetimes of most everyone who reads this.

It is now, obviously (from everything I've been reading across the Net), time for people to begin to conjure with the possibility/probability of future poly[whatever] marriage. We're self-evidently in the beginning stages of this process right now.

The beginning discussions and debate about interspecies marriage are probably a century or more in the future. MAYBE a bit sooner, but (I think) probably NOT in during the lifetimes of at least many people who are reading this. And very likely any "interspecies" marriage would be VERY gradually discussed/debated, and POSSIBLY phased in, by the specific OTHER species involved, as we discover more about how close we are (in physical form, in DNA, or in things like intelligence) to a PARTICULAR "other species." I think marrying a primate who is fully capable of human reasoning and communication would be a far, FAR different thing than marrying a Gila monster, for example. Maybe it's just me, and maybe I'm being prejudiced or short-sighted here, but I personally cannot imagine any time in the future when humans will be legally able to marry crocodiles or ants.

"Marriage" between a human being and an inanimate object like a book? Joke or not, I don't see this ever happening. Maybe my brain just hasn't developed enough to allow me to wrap my thinking around this particular imagining of at least some of my fellow citizens. Of course, I have great difficulty with many of the concepts of quantum physics, too, so maybe this is just a personal shortcoming on my part. :-)

... can sign a contract with full knowledge of what said contract entails, then folks can marry horses and books.

Gonna have a hard time gettin' a pen in that hoof though.

Timothy

A huge issue here is consent. My issue with polygamy is that the majority of the time the woman isn't really consenting because she's been coerced.