Do you think polygamy should be legal?

[rockydem]

I think it's wierd. But it doesn't harm me in any way, shape, or form.

I have a libertarian streak a mile wide. I don't care what people do as long as they aren't infringing on anyone else's rights.

Am I wrong? Or would it throw off a lot things relating to spousal benefits, insurance, etc... I'm not familiar with all the rights that marriage grants. I'm not married. I'm still fairly young.

[THUNDER HANDS]

1. I'm all for the legalization of origami

My favorite paper-folding pastime.

[Triana]

2. I think polyamory should....

...and that does introduce all manner of confusion regarding benefits, etc.

[sonicx]

3. wouldn't bother me, but...

DNC better not go anywhere near it.

[Selatius]

4. I don't care what people do in their lives

It is no business of mine, and my religious beliefs preclude me from casting judgment upon the life of another for the lifestyle he chooses. The only way the government would have any interest in such a thing is if people are being hurt by it physically or emotionally. Then the government has a "compelling interest" in the matter.

[JI7]

5. i don't think it should be a crime

[neomonkey]

6. I don't think polygamy should be illegal

but I think the stupidity leading a man to want more than one wife should be ;)

[GreenArrow]

7. why not?

.

[KitSileya]

8. I've posted elswhere that I favor turning marriage into a legal contract..

...that cannot be sanctioned by a religious organization. If marriage becomes a legal contract filed with the state, it doesn't matter who enters into it, as long as they're over 18 and not bound by a previous contract. Unless all individuals bound by the same contract agrees to extend it to another individual, or individuals.

The sacrament of marriage can then be given by priests, rabbis, imams, etc - something that will be spiritually binding. Couples would then have to do two different things to be married legally and spiritually, and religious organizations could still deny the sacrament of marriage if they have certain strictures on it, but the state would not interfere in the rights of spouses - other than perhaps limit benefits of monetary value or something, to make it fair between 2 person marriages and group marriages.

BTW, I'm a Roman Catholic, and whenever someone argues with me on gay marriages (I'm for) I tell them that should my religion be used as foundation for marriage laws, at least one third of the adult population in the US would be jailed as bigamists, and their marriages invalidated.

[KharmaTrain]

12. That's How It Is Here...

I have two marriage licenses. A legal one with the state and a religious one. The state's is the official one that is used for benefits and estate issues. The religious one hangs on the wall and looks pretty.

This is a states rights issue...which is the first thing I hit Repugnicans with when this thing comes up. First, a Marriage Ammendement, gay, French or otherwise wouldn't stand up to a court challenge since it's a blatant violation of civil rights as well as creating an equal protection nightmare that made election night 2000 look like a picnic.

Also, remember, the GOOP wants the issue, not the ammendment. This is similar to the games they play with abortion. They posture with this issue to rile up their base to raise money and win elections then let it fade away to be brought back at the next election.

[theorist]

9. As long as it goes both ways.

If a man can marry multiple women (or men), a woman should be able to do the same. I've heard many Libertarians talk about polygamy, but they always assume it will only be men with multiple wives. Don't even try the "assurance of paternity" crap on me, if you're willing to go through with it, deal with the consequences.

[welshTerrier2]

10. an answer from the right; an answer from the left ...

we've been seeing lots of woulda, coulda, shoulda posts ...

polygamy raises the same political problems for us that many other issues raise ..

on the left, we view polygamy as a "freedom to choose" issue ... it's not hurting anyone so why not allow it ...

on the right, all we hear is "i don't approve of that conduct!" ...

their is no communication whatsoever occurring between those two points of view ... that kills us ... we cannot win back conservative voters if they can't hear what we're saying ...

our message shouldn't be to argue that we condone polygamy ... we need to make a better case that just because you don't believe in something doesn't mean, in a "free" country, that you should impose your will on others who don't agree with you ...

when we speak to people on the right, our message to them needs to be that we are not asking them whether they agree with the conduct or they don't ... we're asking them whether it is a fundamental value in this country to protect individual liberties from government intervention?

the issue should be about freedoms for all Americans whether we personally agree with them or not ... when the framework for discussion focusses on Americans being free to live their lives without having the government imposing on them, we'll do better ... when the framework is about whether this conduct is "christian", we lose ... changing the framework is not a guarantee of success, but it can only help ...

oh, and to answer your question, sure, why not legalize polygamy ...

[sangh0]

11. Yeah, that's what we should focus on

polygamy

:crazy:

[welshTerrier2]

13. disagree

if your point is that it's crazy for democrats to make a push to legalize polygamy, i couldn't agree with you more ...

but i saw this question in much broader terms ... not to worry, democrats are not about to make this a core principle in their platform ... the topic is important to discuss only to the extent that it probably highlights a rift between blue staters and red staters ...

as a microcosm of cultural differences, polygamy, or any other cultural issue you choose, warrants a discussion ... the problem, the way i see it, is one of defining the lens (or framework) through which these cultural differences are viewed and communicated between the left and the right ... that's the importance of discussing issues like this ... to that extent, the discussion is not at all crazy ...

[sangh0]

14. SO it's not really about polygamy?

So then why is everyone talking about polygamy and saying nothing about that other stuff?

[sonicx]

15. this is the first polygamy topic i've seen in a while, actually...

[welshTerrier2]

20. i don't know about "everybody"

but if you read my post, you'll see that the issues i raised focussed on how we need to reframe the discussion about cultural issues ...

and that applies to the whole spectrum of issues like prayer in school, flag burning, gay marriage, polygamy, ten commandments in courthouses etc ...

some posts i take literally and some i view as mere examples of much larger issues ... if you prefer to see this thread in its narrowest incarnation, then, as i said, i agree with your characterization of it ... but i see it as much, much more ...

the framework we present to communicate with those who are more conservative than we are is a critically important topic ... even if the base poster had no intention of broadening the discussion, there's no reason that we can't ...

[sangh0]

22. Thanks

you gave me anice chunk to think about. I appreciate your being patient with me and explaining.

[welshTerrier2]

23. no problem, my friend ...

after all, we're all on the same team !!

[Liberal Classic]

16. Sure, why not

Certian state initiatives not withstanding, gay marriage seems to be well on its way to legitimization. If gay marriage is legitimized, I see no compelling reason not to do the same for plural marriage.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

17. I think it forces kids to buy too many Mother's day gifts

[sangh0]

18. That's why I prefer polygymy

but then, I'm a pretty lazy guy

[janx]

19. Have you been talking to Man-On-Dog Santorum?

;-)

[DemOperative]

21. Only if you can pass a test

because I never did understand trying to maintain more than ONE relationship with a woman, let alone several simultaneously. You'd have to be either a saint or seriously deranged.

So a simple sanity test would be appropriate, don't you think.

[Mike L]

24. Sure, it's a "civil rights" issue.