If gay marriage is made legal. Should polygamy, polyandry, and polymorphous marriages be legal to?

poly = many

morphous = forms

many-forms != many spouses

Polygyny = many wives

Polyandry = many husbands

Polygamy = many spouses

Just because two-person unions are made legal does not mean multi-person unions must be.

However, I think the law regarding such things will one day, in a distant future, be very different and allow such arrangements.

Right now there are polygamy sects that live religiously as a single family just legally only two of them are married.

Polygamy has bad connotations from past abuses.

The more modern term which does /not/ imply marriage but a mutli-person relationship is polyamory (many-love/many-lovers).

A three-person relationship is called a triad, a four-person relationship is called a quad.

My wife is bisexual and the notion of a triad is not "off the table" for us.

Were it the right person and everything worked out, a three-way marriage is not unthinkable to me.

I am only interested in the legal aspects of the marriage; civil union by the state is good enough for me and presumptively all "marriages" will one day be civil unions.

Marriage is inherently a religious ceremony which ought to be [and is] independent of the state.

For example, if you are Catholic you /cannot/ get divorced for any reason; there are only a few reasons that divorce is granted in the Catholic church and just because the state grants you a divorce the Catholic church will /not/ remarry you - in the eyes of the Lord you are still married.

The key underlying thing to understand here is that "one life template" does not work for everyone.

Most people are NOT inherently monogamous. In fact very, very few people are monogamous today - most prescribe to this [bastard] notion of "serial monogamy" which technically is already a form of polyamory.

Monogamy means ONE, count them, ONE mate for >life< [NOT one-at-a-time].

With all that out of way, I would like to add that only closet homosexuals (like the first poster) and insane heterosexuals are against gay marriage.

If the opposers "won" then all gay people would try to be straight. Since sexuality is a spectrum not a switch many of them /would/ be able to find happiness with a heterosexual marriage. However, some of them would not. Some people are 100% gay, some of the not quite totally gay people would /fail/ to overcome their homosexuality. The reason why they fail does not matter; what matters is that if the oppressors have their way then unhappy gay people are /going/ to be married to straight people. What straight person would /want/ that? None, not a single hetro would want that (they would have to be /insane/ to want that).

Ergo, no sane hetrosexual person opposes gay marriage and indeed we find most are ambivalent on the issue - "It doesn't really affect me and I don't really care one way or the other."

Closet homosexuals /hate/ what they are they think all other homosexuals also ought to also hate themselves and fight against it. They are the only ones damning same-sex unions.

There is sufficient evidence that strict, anti-gay, religions are "havens" for pedophiles and self-hating homosexuals as it gives them an external ("moral") foundation to justify their self-loathing. Just google about the rampant cover-ups of child molestation by Catholic priest - most of the time homosexual child molestation.

If they were not self-loathing about who they really are they could form a genuine non-abusive relationship with another adult homosexual (instead of failing to control their urges and molesting easy-prey, children, who won't "tell" and thereby they maintain denial over what they really are.)

Heterosexuals fighting gay rights and marriage is >self defeating< and Kant's Categorical Imperative gives us pause to consider just how amoral it is to do so.

It causes /suffering/ to both homosexuals and heterosexuals.

The notion that "it's a sin" is garbage as well; we are all sinners. The point is to minimize your OWN sin not wreck people's lives trying to (abusively) stomp it out (and *increasing* your own sin in the process!)

Monogamy is a very critical part of a successful free democratic society. The more people we get into monogamy, the better we function. It improved our way of life when we legalized mixed race marriage, and it will improve our culture overall to stop denying the right to gays.

Polygamy is a failed marriage system only practiced in backwards places (and those rich on our oil money). It should be left in the past with slavery.

Is that too hard to understand?

I agree with you but they are 2 separate issues all together. Getting married, gay or straight is a choice people make. If 5 people decide to all share their lives together, that is their business and if it works for them on a HEALTHY level, I see no problem with it. The one issue I see being an issue though is all the children involved. If a man marries 4 women and has 3-4 kids with each woman, how is HE as a man, husband and father going to be a nurturing parent to all those kids?

Gay marriages are not the same. Get real and quit being stupid! Gay folks pay taxes too and deserve the right to a monogamous civil union too. Their hard earned taxes are paying for the public schools that straight families enjoy plus social security taxes that widows and dependent families get when a spouse or parent dies. Gays are paying into a system that does almost nothing for them. Their partners deserve to have the same benefits. Many polygamous unions have one married wife and the others bear children on welfare because technically these mothers are single mothers eligible for welfare and medicaid.

Samantha B your stupid for saying that. But yes i think that polygamy, polyandry, and polymorphous should be able to marry i mean why not? gay get to marry so. why not. :)

I really don't understand why this argument always pops up when discussing gay marriage. The logical chain has a missing link.

Two people marrying is NOT the same as a group marriage. This si the same crap people said about inter racial marriage.

This argument is so old... Can't you idiots come up with something new? Please.

"All or nothing" people like you are the problem in our country. If you take a bite of ice cream, you have to finish the whole bucket. Put the spoon down, fatty.

dude, two completely different things. gay marriage is to one significant other. the other stuff your talking about doesnt even have to do with it.

i agree w/ you. to allow anything should be to allow everything. why not allow those that want to marry animals to marry animals? let's let them have the biggest free-for-all b/c the lord is coming back soon to restore the sanity!!!