There are countries where polygamy is lawful. I wonder if the problems eloquently expressed above actually occur? Are there wandering herds of unmarried men anxiously circulating throughout Saudi Arabia?
I suspect that polygamy even where allowed is not common. Where it occurs, the husband is required to be able to provide for his wives and children and most men in the world can only cope with one family - taking on more is not economically possible.
There are in America, where the Mormon splinter group that still practices polygamy has a habit of dumping excess boys.
And “legal” is less important than “widely practiced”, anyway.
I think that we’ll have legal polygamy, although we’ll probably do it so that all parties are married to one another. Which would most likely consist of bisexuals.
The main reason the polygamy argument is raised is because it amplifies the “ick” factor and hits more taboo buttons, helping to rouse the rabble into fighting the godless gay agenda.
The reasons polygamy would be problematic are pretty well raised above, but I doubt they have much to do with why it’s used as an argument. In fact, they work the other way: it would be a lot harder to make polygamy work in the US legal framework. GM is easy: just ignore the sexes of the participants, and everything else stays the same. It actually simplifies things more than complicates them, in one sense.
(It complicates things in another sense, in that any change causes upset. To wit, the recent case in CA, where a flower shop didn’t want to serve a gay marriage. The anti-GM crowd is saying “SEE, I TOLD you this would happen!” So, it’s not quite as simple as I make it above.)
But changing laws to handle polygamy would be a considerably bigger nightmare, and fewer people care about it, so it’s not really very likely to happen in the foreseeable future.
Sure does make a good argument, though! Just watch folks twitch.
I would like to give this post (and you) a hug.
Because you (and many others) used to say this was the way polygamy is, and now you’ve softened it to “fear” and “some versions”. Thank you for getting it. We don’t have to agree, but thank you for getting it.
As for the topic at hand, I think I said about all I have to say in the other thread. Yes, it is inherently more complicated than 2 person marriage. That doesn’t mean it can’t be done, or shouldn’t be done. In an ideal world, I think everyone, in *every *marriage-to-be, should sit down and, if not draft their own marriage contract, at least read every page of the default rights and responsibilities of married people assumed in our laws and accept or amend them with informed consent.
I don’t think polygamy would be a problem per se, but I wouldn’t try to adapt existing marriage law to it. Rather, existing partnership law (as is currently used for law firms and dental practices and whatnot).
Thus, rather than the breathtaking complexity of a polygamous divorce where, say, two spouses want to leave but the other five want to remain associated, just treat it like a law firm where two partners take their share of equity and the remaining structure is quickly reorganized.
But customized marriage contracts? Screw that. The potential for legal chaos is too great.
So you are willing to let your fears stand in the way of the rights of these people? If I feared that black people were all criminals would you agree that I should not have to hire them or rent to them?
Why do you believe that legalizing poly marriage would result in an abundance of poly marriages? That is as silly as saying legalizing gay marriage will result in more gays.
Don’t we already have this in the form of prenups? I don’t see much difference.
Those don’t affect the legal privileges and responsibilities of the marriage itself, just some details of the marriage’s dissolution, if it occurs.
I can just picture some couple drawing up a 1500 page customized marriage contract over and above their standard marriage license, and that’s great if they want to put in the time and effort, but I’m not expecting (and would object to) a judge or government clerk having to read and parse said contract instead of just giving the couple the same services extended to couples who opted for and were satisfied with the generic one-size-fits-all standard marriage contract.
Plantiff’s lawyer in family court: “Judge, according to the parties’ marriage contract, Section 54, paragraph C, subsection III, oral sex is to be administered at least three times per week. My client requests an mandatory injunction.”
Judge: “All of you, get the fuck out my courtroom.”
It seems to me that most laws concerning marriage deal almost exclusively with the dissolution of the marriage.
Not to mention legal complexity is not an excuse to deny people their civil rights. If we establish that people who love each other have a fundamental right to marry, then we work the legal issues out.
Including spousal privilege in court testimony?
Medical decisions in the event of incapacity?
Access to certain government benefits?
Joint tax filing?
Heck, I’m not denying anyone anything. I just point out that marital law (as opposed to partnership law) is not the best approach. This isn’t some trivial search-and-replace operation where “husband” and “wife” get swapped for “Spouse #1” and “Spouse #2” and nothing else needs to be changed. Trying to add a third person (and a fourth, fifth, etc.) to a marriage requires a fairly serious rethink of how the various marital laws are applied.
..
Oh yeah…I forgot about all of those 
Seriously, though, I don’t see that as a reason to deny people rights.
But I think most of us are fine with other people having dominant/submissive relationships.
None of us would keep a heterosexual couple from getting married because they were in a dom/sub relationship.
As long as society is free so a person is not *forced *into a polygamous marriage, this argument doesn’t stand.
I have the same feeling about the abortion debate where the exception is always “in case of rape or incest”. Rape I totally get but incest always seemed out of place as an exclusion. Sure, if it was non-consensual incest, then that’s a big deal but the problem is that’s already covered under the rape clause. That only leaves consensual incest which might seem squicky to some but not on the level of rape.
I have the feeling some are determined to gain rights for “polys” on the backs of those fighting for SSM. Because, you know, being gay and wanting three wives are kinda the same thing.
It’s not, but being bisexual and being gay are similar things. I don’t know if any studies have been done, but the majority of married bisexual people I know carry on relationships with the same sex outside of their marriage, openly. If bisexuals a) can’t help who they are and b) can have committed relationships with both sexes, and c) need both sexes to be who they are, then denying them marriage rights is just as bad as denying gays rights.