Make a purely secular argument for 1 woman & 1 man.

[jmvizanko]

The only arguments I have ever seen for forcing the definition of marriage to be only one woman and one man fall into 2 categories. One is an argument that is derived from somebody's religion, say for example, Christianity suggesting 1 woman and 1 man. The other is an argument from majority/tradition, say for example, most or many cultures throughout history defined marriage this way, so that's what it should be.

In America, we have a bill of rights that clearly states we should not have a state religion. Therefore the first argument does not suffice for a justification for making gay marriage, or polygamy, illegal in the US. The second argument seems to be used when the first argument fails, namely because of the above reason I just gave. But it also fails because we have a bill of rights that clearly states we have a right to practice religion freely. If your religion allows polygamy, the American government in no way has a right to deny your practice of it. And both fail in basic principle that they are based on ethnocentricity and are anti personal freedom, and I have no clue how anyone could put either argument forward and still spout that they love America because it stands for freedom.

The only convincing argument that wouldn't violate the first amendment or the respect of personal freedom would be one based solely on logic. I challenge anyone to present such an argument, that is not derived from their religion, their personal preferences, or the basis that their religion/culture should rule all others.

[Angel]

O.K. let's say you have gender equality and polygamy. Abe is married to Betty, Carol and Donna. Betty is married to Abe, Edward and Frank. Carol is married to Abe, George, Henry, Irving and John. Donna is married to Abe and Frank. Edward is married to Betty, Kate, Linda, Mary and Nancy. Frank is married to Betty, Donna, Olivia and Paula. Etc. etc. I don't really think it's workable. How would that work in terms of tax status, social security, health insurance, etc?

This would make a good legal argument but even if polygamy is difficult to function on legally, but that doesn't mean that it's immoral or would cause physical or emotional harm. In other words, not being able to figure out taxes does not mean the participants of polygamy would suffer physical harm. Perhaps, at best, it may cause financial problems depending on the family.

The scenario you described is polygamy practiced as group marriage. I'm with some of jmvizanko's views when it comes to taxes and health insurance. If Obama's healthcare plan goes through, then everyone would already be required to carry health insurance so that's one obstacle out of the way. However, even if that were not the case, I don't see why it's impossible to write separate laws for polygamists even with lesser benefits. I'm sure polygamists would accept this as a better alternative to being criminally charged and jailed. Another option may be instead of 'legalizing' polygamy, the US should instead 'decriminalize' it.

[jmvizanko]

Your statement, that those who believe in moral behavior are insane, is insulting and naive.

I said ABSOLUTE morality.


And I guess I just don't see a lot of your problems with America's current political state to be that big of a deal. Searches at airports? Sorry, but flying is not a right and I like to fly with the comfort that the guy next to md doesn't have a gun or bomb on his person. And the Patriot Act? What's the big deal, I mean really? You must be building bombs in your basement or something, because that act has affected me, and the vast majority of Americans how much exactly? None.

[100%atheist]

O.K. let's say you have gender equality and polygamy. Abe is married to Betty, Carol and Donna. Betty is married to Abe, Edward and Frank. Carol is married to Abe, George, Henry, Irving and John. Donna is married to Abe and Frank. Edward is married to Betty, Kate, Linda, Mary and Nancy. Frank is married to Betty, Donna, Olivia and Paula. Etc. etc. I don't really think it's workable. How would that work in terms of tax status, social security, health insurance, etc?

This would make a good legal argument but even if polygamy is difficult to function on legally, but that doesn't mean that it's immoral or would cause physical or emotional harm. In other words, not being able to figure out taxes does not mean the participants of polygamy would suffer physical harm. Perhaps, at best, it may cause financial problems depending on the family.

The scenario you described is polygamy practiced as group marriage. I'm with some of jmvizanko's views when it comes to taxes and health insurance. If Obama's healthcare plan goes through, then everyone would already be required to carry health insurance so that's one obstacle out of the way. However, even if that were not the case, I don't see why it's impossible to write separate laws for polygamists even with lesser benefits. I'm sure polygamists would accept this as a better alternative to being criminally charged and jailed. Another option may be instead of 'legalizing' polygamy, the US should instead 'decriminalize' it.

Jailing polygamists in my opinion is a good practice. In most cases (and in most societies) polygamy was (and is) actually a polygyny, which is basically a social status behavior that involved the oppression of another gender.

Multiperson marriages? Can you give examples of "they lived long and happy, 6 of them?" It is just for sex, not for long relationships

[Choir Loft]

Your statement, that those who believe in moral behavior are insane, is insulting and naive.

I said ABSOLUTE morality.

The issue is right and wrong vs. relativism.

The classic version of western/Biblical morality is that a thing is either right or its wrong.

There is no right and not-right. That's relativism.
Relativism speaks to those who choose to justify their own injustice.

For example:
A moral relativist may justify stealing because he is socially underprivileged, while most who live in those conditions do not.
Such a person speaks the truth only when its convenient.
Such a one kills for personal advantage or gain.
Such a one justifies offenses against God or the general community because he places himself, his wants and his desires above anything or anyone else.
"Everybody else does it", is the justification for wrong despite the fact that everybody else may NOT be doing it.

The self-importance of relativism is another term for self-love or self-worship. Oddly, the only person who is unaware of this mental imbalance is the one affected. Others know full well the reasons for his or her motivations and actions. The rationale is completely transparent.

Relativism fills a void in that it provides self-justification for thoughts, words and deeds which are otherwise offensive or outright rebellious.

But self-justification will not profit a man in the end.
Neither will it keep him out of prison or hell.
It will, however, keep him in self-deluded darkness selfishness and lies.

Relativism isn't absolute. The greatest attraction for this philosophy is that it can be utilized to personal advantage. One can be 90% moral one day and 90% relative the next. Unfortunately its 100% wrong 100% of the time.

Relativism is like playing with fire. Sooner or later you'll get hellishly burnt.

[Choir Loft]

O.K. let's say you have gender equality and polygamy. Abe is married to Betty, Carol and Donna. Betty is married to Abe, Edward and Frank. Carol is married to Abe, George, Henry, Irving and John. Donna is married to Abe and Frank. Edward is married to Betty, Kate, Linda, Mary and Nancy. Frank is married to Betty, Donna, Olivia and Paula. Etc. etc. I don't really think it's workable. How would that work in terms of tax status, social security, health insurance, etc?

This would make a good legal argument but even if polygamy is difficult to function on legally, but that doesn't mean that it's immoral or would cause physical or emotional harm. In other words, not being able to figure out taxes does not mean the participants of polygamy would suffer physical harm. Perhaps, at best, it may cause financial problems depending on the family.

The scenario you described is polygamy practiced as group marriage. I'm with some of jmvizanko's views when it comes to taxes and health insurance. If Obama's healthcare plan goes through, then everyone would already be required to carry health insurance so that's one obstacle out of the way. However, even if that were not the case, I don't see why it's impossible to write separate laws for polygamists even with lesser benefits. I'm sure polygamists would accept this as a better alternative to being criminally charged and jailed. Another option may be instead of 'legalizing' polygamy, the US should instead 'decriminalize' it.

Jailing polygamists in my opinion is a good practice. In most cases (and in most societies) polygamy was (and is) actually a polygyny, which is basically a social status behavior that involved the oppression of another gender.

Multiperson marriages? Can you give examples of "they lived long and happy, 6 of them?" It is just for sex, not for long relationships

I am a monogamist. I believe in it personally, morally, legally and religiously.

HOWEVER, I also believe that it is inappropriate for the government to restrict marriage at any level.

Multiple person marriages may not be stable, but then neither are monogamous marriages. Its an individual and a very personal thing.

The bedroom is too small to admit the government, its rules, its bureaucrats and especially its members (all of whom have their own misadventures in the bedroom - do they not).

"Government in the bedroom" is just another way of attempting to control someone else's behavior. I am opposed to that 100%.

At what point do we say, "enough"?

[100%atheist]

HOWEVER, I also believe that it is inappropriate for the government to restrict marriage at any level.

okay.

Multiple person marriages may not be stable, but then neither are monogamous marriages. Its an individual and a very personal thing.

First, I don't see why a multiperson sexual relationships aka polygamy should be referred as a marriage.
And second, if we talk about polygamy it is NOT a very personal thing anymore. It is a group, collective thing now. In other words, who is that exact person in a polygamous "marriage" whose right should be protected? One against 3, 3 against 2? If people want to have group sex, go for it. I don't see why anyone want to call it "marriage" and put on the same level as long-term marital relationships.

Now my question to polygamy defenders: I have several friends [just friends]. Should we be able to declare a group marriage to legalize our friendship?

The bedroom is too small to admit the government, its rules, its bureaucrats and especially its members (all of whom have their own misadventures in the bedroom - do they not).

"Government in the bedroom" is just another way of attempting to control someone else's behavior. I am opposed to that 100%.

At what point do we say, "enough"?

I agree with you on this. However, why then homosexuals and now polygamists WANT BIG GOVERNMENT to help them with their bedroom affairs? I can understand homosexuals and often support them, but I am kind of missing the point of a marriage in case of polygamy. Anyone?

[Angel]

O.K. let's say you have gender equality and polygamy. Abe is married to Betty, Carol and Donna. Betty is married to Abe, Edward and Frank. Carol is married to Abe, George, Henry, Irving and John. Donna is married to Abe and Frank. Edward is married to Betty, Kate, Linda, Mary and Nancy. Frank is married to Betty, Donna, Olivia and Paula. Etc. etc. I don't really think it's workable. How would that work in terms of tax status, social security, health insurance, etc?

This would make a good legal argument but even if polygamy is difficult to function on legally, but that doesn't mean that it's immoral or would cause physical or emotional harm. In other words, not being able to figure out taxes does not mean the participants of polygamy would suffer physical harm. Perhaps, at best, it may cause financial problems depending on the family.

The scenario you described is polygamy practiced as group marriage. I'm with some of jmvizanko's views when it comes to taxes and health insurance. If Obama's healthcare plan goes through, then everyone would already be required to carry health insurance so that's one obstacle out of the way. However, even if that were not the case, I don't see why it's impossible to write separate laws for polygamists even with lesser benefits. I'm sure polygamists would accept this as a better alternative to being criminally charged and jailed. Another option may be instead of 'legalizing' polygamy, the US should instead 'decriminalize' it.

Jailing polygamists in my opinion is a good practice. In most cases (and in most societies) polygamy was (and is) actually a polygyny, which is basically a social status behavior that involved the oppression of another gender.

If we should jail those involved in gender oppression, then I can point out some monogamous relationships where women are abused and controlled by their husbands, as well. Are you for jailing them as well or only polygamists?

Your comment also implies that polygyny is always going to be about gender oppression, but have you considered that some wives actually want polygamy as multiple wives and don't want multiple husbands? If these wives are given a choice on the type of polygamy they want, they have the choice to enter or leave the relationship, they have a say on how the relationship will work, etc, etc, how is this gender oppression?

Multiperson marriages? Can you give examples of "they lived long and happy, 6 of them?" It is just for sex, not for long relationships

You say polygamy is just for sex and I find that people who hold that view haven't really studied how polygamous relationships work by studying polygamous couples, why they want it, how they make it work, etc. People like you usually reason from their limited monogamous experience or from one-sided media coverage (only showing the bad side or bad people of polygamy). This is not a surprise considering that most are born in, raised in, and taught monogamy and that anything beyond that is associated with cheating or just wanting only sex. From my study of some good poly relationships I find that these people function like a family and not some group orgy. Sex is kept private to each marriage. There polygamists also have kids so these relationships are for the long term. All of the women gain extra companionship (emotional, social, etc) and support from each other, esp. when it comes to child raising.

You asked for 6 examples but I'll give you 3 for now:

Polygamous family #1
Prince and his 2 wives, Yohanna (sp?) and Chilania(sp?). They've been married for over 30 years.
Source:
(Start watching the video at 1 minute and 30 seconds until 2 minutes and 30 seconds).

Polygamous family #2
Joe Darger and his 3 wives, Alina Darger, Vicki Darger, and Valerie Darger. Joe has been married to Alina and Vicki for 20 plus years. Joe has been married to Valerie for 12 years.
Source: http://abcnews.go.com/US/modern-polygam ... d=14956226
(Scroll down and watch the video entitled, The Life of a polygamist, 3 wives, 24 children. You can start watching at 1 minute and 5 seconds into the video).

Polygamous family #3-
Kody Brown and his 3 wives, Janelle Brown, Christine Brown, and Meri Brown(sp?). They've been married for 18 years and they're featured on a show on TLC called, Sister Wives.
Source:

[Autodidact]

O.K. let's say you have gender equality and polygamy. Abe is married to Betty, Carol and Donna. Betty is married to Abe, Edward and Frank. Carol is married to Abe, George, Henry, Irving and John. Donna is married to Abe and Frank. Edward is married to Betty, Kate, Linda, Mary and Nancy. Frank is married to Betty, Donna, Olivia and Paula. Etc. etc. I don't really think it's workable. How would that work in terms of tax status, social security, health insurance, etc?

This would make a good legal argument but even if polygamy is difficult to function on legally, but that doesn't mean that it's immoral or would cause physical or emotional harm. In other words, not being able to figure out taxes does not mean the participants of polygamy would suffer physical harm. Perhaps, at best, it may cause financial problems depending on the family.

I'm not arguing that it's immoral or would cause physical or emotional harm. Marriage is a legal status/relationship. With polygamy and equality, that status/relationship is not workable. Therefore it's not a good idea. I value equality above polygamy, and you can't have both and make it work.

The scenario you described is polygamy practiced as group marriage. I'm with some of jmvizanko's views when it comes to taxes and health insurance. If Obama's healthcare plan goes through, then everyone would already be required to carry health insurance so that's one obstacle out of the way. However, even if that were not the case, I don't see why it's impossible to write separate laws for polygamists even with lesser benefits. I'm sure polygamists would accept this as a better alternative to being criminally charged and jailed. Another option may be instead of 'legalizing' polygamy, the US should instead 'decriminalize' it.

Yes, something like that makes sense. You can do it, but you won't get any legal recognition for it. (In which case you haven't really done it.) That makes sense.

In reality, what you see is just polygyny, and polygamy as practiced in those countries that permit it, there is no gender equality.

[Autodidact]

You asked for 6 examples but I'll give you 3 for now:

Polygamous family #1
Prince and his 2 wives, Yohanna (sp?) and Chilania(sp?). They've been married for over 30 years.
Source:
(Start watching the video at 1 minute and 30 seconds until 2 minutes and 30 seconds).

Polygamous family #2
Joe Darger and his 3 wives, Alina Darger, Vicki Darger, and Valerie Darger. Joe has been married to Alina and Vicki for 20 plus years. Joe has been married to Valerie for 12 years.
Source: http://abcnews.go.com/US/modern-polygam ... d=14956226
(Scroll down and watch the video entitled, The Life of a polygamist, 3 wives, 24 children. You can start watching at 1 minute and 5 seconds into the video).

Polygamous family #3-
Kody Brown and his 3 wives, Janelle Brown, Christine Brown, and Meri Brown(sp?). They've been married for 18 years and they're featured on a show on TLC called, Sister Wives.
Source:

Notice anything in common in these three cases, as well as every other case of polygamous marriage in the United States today? Anything at all?

[Goat]

You asked for 6 examples but I'll give you 3 for now:

Polygamous family #1
Prince and his 2 wives, Yohanna (sp?) and Chilania(sp?). They've been married for over 30 years.
Source:
(Start watching the video at 1 minute and 30 seconds until 2 minutes and 30 seconds).

Polygamous family #2
Joe Darger and his 3 wives, Alina Darger, Vicki Darger, and Valerie Darger. Joe has been married to Alina and Vicki for 20 plus years. Joe has been married to Valerie for 12 years.
Source: http://abcnews.go.com/US/modern-polygam ... d=14956226
(Scroll down and watch the video entitled, The Life of a polygamist, 3 wives, 24 children. You can start watching at 1 minute and 5 seconds into the video).

Polygamous family #3-
Kody Brown and his 3 wives, Janelle Brown, Christine Brown, and Meri Brown(sp?). They've been married for 18 years and they're featured on a show on TLC called, Sister Wives.
Source:

Notice anything in common in these three cases, as well as every other case of polygamous marriage in the United States today? Anything at all?

1 man and multiple women , in these cases at least.

On the other hand, I knew a woman who lived with her two bf's together for many years... I don't believe there was any legal registration of it.