# Rational basis for not recognizing polygamy **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 16, 2011, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-basis-for-not-recognizing-polygamy/585741 "2011-06-16T20:52:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![boytyperanma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4491bb/32.png) [@boytyperanma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boytyperanma)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2011, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-basis-for-not-recognizing-polygamy/585741/41 "2011-06-17T01:17:39Z")
> [@CitizenPained](#): > > Same sex marriages also don’t exist in most states. Are you saying that those people aren’t being discriminated against? 😉 Marriage exists in every state. I don’t want same sex marriage. I want marriage. ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2011, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-basis-for-not-recognizing-polygamy/585741/42 "2011-06-17T01:20:45Z")
> [@boytyperanma](#): > > Marriage exists in every state. I don’t want same sex marriage. I want marriage. You can get married. Just maybe not to another dude. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2011, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-basis-for-not-recognizing-polygamy/585741/43 "2011-06-17T01:55:50Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > People who love more than one person at a time. I know what it literally means (and the word you’re looking for is “fucks,” not “loves”), I was asking what about a person makes them “polyamorous” other than behavior? Can there be a polyamorous virgin. > [@](#): > > Any objective anthropologist will tell you that there is nothing innate about monogamy. This would be meaningful if I had said there was anything innate about monagamy. Cite that there is anything innate about polyamory, though? ---
**Author:** ![boytyperanma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4491bb/32.png) [@boytyperanma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boytyperanma)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2011, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-basis-for-not-recognizing-polygamy/585741/44 "2011-06-17T01:56:33Z")
> [@CitizenPained](#): > > You can get married. > > Just maybe not to another dude. We’ve already determined men and women are equal. If a woman is allowed to marry a man why shouldn’t a man be able to marry a man. That doesn’t seem very equal to me. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2011, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-basis-for-not-recognizing-polygamy/585741/45 "2011-06-17T01:58:02Z")
MORMON: But, confound it, sir, can you cite any Scripture that **forbids** polygamy?! MARK TWAIN: Certainly! “No man can serve two masters”! ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2011, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-basis-for-not-recognizing-polygamy/585741/46 "2011-06-17T02:25:39Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > I know what it literally means (and the word you’re looking for is “fucks,” not “loves”), I was asking what about a person makes them “polyamorous” other than behavior? Can there be a polyamorous virgin. > > This would be meaningful if I had said there was anything innate about monagamy. Cite that there is anything innate about polyamory, though? Dude. Can there be a gay newborn? ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2011, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-basis-for-not-recognizing-polygamy/585741/47 "2011-06-17T02:27:19Z")
> [@boytyperanma](#): > > We’ve already determined men and women are equal. If a woman is allowed to marry a man why shouldn’t a man be able to marry a man. That doesn’t seem very equal to me. Conflating homophobia with sexism is silly. May as well tell a straight man who doesn’t want to fuck you that he’s homophobic while you’re at it. Apparently not all religions are equal, right? Because Muslims or closet fundie Christians who practice poly-marriages **out of their own free will** are not as good as you, right? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2011, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-basis-for-not-recognizing-polygamy/585741/48 "2011-06-17T02:32:30Z")
> [@CitizenPained](#): > > Dude. Can there be a gay newborn? Probably, yes. The genetic wiring is there, anyway. Sexual orienmtation is defined by attraction, not behavior. “Polyamory” is just behavior. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2011, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-basis-for-not-recognizing-polygamy/585741/49 "2011-06-17T02:38:56Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > It doesn’t require a rational basis because it does not involve any unequal protection or discrimination. It does not treat any class differently than any other class. Looks like I wasted those years in law school. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2011, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-basis-for-not-recognizing-polygamy/585741/50 "2011-06-17T02:43:53Z")
> [@villa](#): > > Looks like I wasted those years in law school. Enlighten me. What class is being discriminated against if federal benfits are offered only to marriage pardigms consisting of two people? Who is unequally protected under that policy? ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2011, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-basis-for-not-recognizing-polygamy/585741/51 "2011-06-17T02:46:29Z")
> [@CitizenPained](#): > > Dude. Can there be a gay newborn? Possibly. The jury is still out on that one. A study done of identical twins found that if one was gay the other was not necessarily gay (if they were “born” that way then you would expect both to be either straight or gay). However, the likelihood that if one was gay the other would be too was much higher than between non-twin siblings. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2011, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-basis-for-not-recognizing-polygamy/585741/52 "2011-06-17T02:50:32Z")
Studies on identical twins separated at birth (taking nurture out of the equation) alos shows a high correlation of sexual orientation. Not 100%, but well outsdie of random distribution. And of course, all of these kinds of studies are hampered by the fact that they rely on self-reporting, and a lot of gay men will deny it even to themselves. ---
**Author:** ![Severian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/49beb7/32.png) [@Severian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Severian)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2011, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-basis-for-not-recognizing-polygamy/585741/53 "2011-06-17T03:02:28Z")
> [@CitizenPained](#): > > Same sex marriages also don’t exist in most states. Are you saying that those people aren’t being discriminated against? 😉 No, he’s saying that with regards to polygamy we’re all being treated equally. ---
**Author:** ![Strassia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e8c25b/32.png) [@Strassia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Strassia)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2011, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-basis-for-not-recognizing-polygamy/585741/54 "2011-06-17T03:03:57Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > People who love more than one person at a time. > This is exactly what people said about homosexuality (and some still do). > > Any objective anthropologist will tell you that there is nothing innate about monogamy. That polyamorous relationships are just as “natural”. In fact, most societies that have existed have been polygamous. Monogamy is a recent invention in the history of our species. > [@CitizenPained](#): > > No, you could have it in such a way that person A and B get married, but B can’t get married to another without A’s consent. That’s the fundamental difference that (most) Western polygamists want to see. > > It’s a marriage in which all partners are equal. See, that’s the problem. You want to discriminate against those who want a different kind of marriage than you envision. I am not arguing slippery slope here, just that it becomes a lot more complicated one you add more people. Do you see anything morally wrong with this scenario: A and B get married. B falls in love with C, but A does not. A has not problem with B having a second marriage and agrees to let them marry, but does not want to be part of their relationship. Should B be able to marry C? Why not? I will say it again: In my opinion, none of this is unsolvable. It would just be complicated and a) require a lot of legislative effort to work out laws governing and b) increase the court load for divorce and family law. That is sufficient in and of itself for a rational basis. You can work on getting the law changed, and I would probably vote for it in a ballot initiative here in Cali if it came up, but I do not believe the courts should over turn it. ---
**Author:** ![j666](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/9de0a6/32.png) [@j666](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/j666)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2011, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-basis-for-not-recognizing-polygamy/585741/55 "2011-06-17T03:28:39Z")
> [@Strassia](#): > > Based on that my position is that the few remaining laws punishing those living in informed consensual poly situations should be removed, but the government is under no Constitutional obligation to recognize the multi party marriages. Plural heterosexual marriages are unnecessary. A person wishing to take an additional spouse need only obtain a civil divorce from the existing spouse, with sensible and enforceable legal agreements, marry the next spouse in a church that recognizes plural marriage, and structure the living arrangements as agreed to by all parties. I would recommend court-order child support and a trust for all members of the extended family. And a power of attorney and health care proxy to the most appropriate spouses or co-spouses. Plural homosexual marriages would be emotionally trickier - who gets to marry the new spouse, for example? Plural bisexual marriages would be a complete logistical nightmare. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2011, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-basis-for-not-recognizing-polygamy/585741/56 "2011-06-17T03:53:57Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Enlighten me. What class is being discriminated against if federal benfits are offered only to marriage pardigms consisting of two people? Who is unequally protected under that policy? Those who wish to practice polygamy, for example for religious reasons. It’s far from a suspect class, but it’s a class. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2011, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-basis-for-not-recognizing-polygamy/585741/57 "2011-06-17T03:56:14Z")
> [@villa](#): > > Those who wish to practice polygamy, for example for religious reasons. It’s far from a suspect class, but it’s a class. It’s completely circular to call that discriminatory. By that definition, anyone who disagrees with any law is being discriminated against by that law. Am I being treated unequally if I want to smoke pot, but I can’t because it’s illegal? ---
**Author:** ![sundog66](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ee7513/32.png) [@sundog66](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sundog66)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2011, 4:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-basis-for-not-recognizing-polygamy/585741/58 "2011-06-17T04:43:22Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > It’s completely circular to call that discriminatory. By that definition, anyone who disagrees with any law is being discriminated against by that law. Am I being treated unequally if I want to smoke pot, but I can’t because it’s illegal? So then by the same logic, Diogenes, isn’t it also circular to call a ban on same-sex marriage discriminatory? I am being treated unequally if I am a man and want to marry a man, but I can’t because it’s illegal. To echo something from upthread: > [@boytyperanma](#): > > The US is in the business of offering a 2 person marriages. Excluding people from being able to participate in that offer based on their sex is discriminatory. Couldn’t we just as easily say “The US is in the business of offering marriages. Excluding people from being able to participate in that offer based on their \* n \> 2\* cardinality is discriminatory”? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2011, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-basis-for-not-recognizing-polygamy/585741/59 "2011-06-17T04:45:42Z")
> [@sundog66](#): > > So then by the same logic, Diogenes, isn’t it also circular to call a ban on same-sex marriage discriminatory? I am being treated unequally if I am a man and want to marry a man, but I can’t because it’s illegal. Yes, you are being treated unequally from women who want to marry a man, Wannabe polygamists are not being denied anything available to anybody else. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2011, 4:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-basis-for-not-recognizing-polygamy/585741/60 "2011-06-17T04:55:39Z")
Fer cripes sakes people, we’re talkin bout people sharing medical insurance coverage which shouldn’t be so expensive to start with, and Catholic hospitals deciding who family members are for visitation once since lots of gay people started getting AIDS. I’m not sure there should be any legal recognition of marriage, or even civil unions. This debate and the other one have only convinced me that the government should get out of this stupid marriage business, in every way, shape, or form. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-basis-for-not-recognizing-polygamy/585741.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-basis-for-not-recognizing-polygamy/585741.md?page=4)