marry another woman? There are laws against polygamy that prohibit this, but here are many Americans who belong to a religion that approves of polygamy, therefore these laws should br found unconstitutional, because they are unfair and a form of religious discrimination.
133888
Hey that is a GREAT point
124872
Yes, it is allowed in islam and also in some christianity also. like in england one can marry his or her cousin, but in america it is not allowed.
354606
about polygamy and polyandry:\n\nAmong the numerous misconceptions about Islam, is that it is the only religion that permits polygamy, and that Muslims are the only people who might practice it. On the contrary, polygamy was never prohibited in Judaism and Christianity, until a few centuries ago. Besides the fact that most of the prophets mentioned in the Old Testament were polygamous - both Jews and Christians practiced polygamy throughout a long period of their history. However, when examining the teachings of both faiths, neither Christianity nor Judaism provided clear guidelines and regulations in regards to this practice. \n\nIn contrast with Judaism and Christianity, Islam dealt with polygamy more clearly. It provides legal requirements that restrain it, to a certain extent and this amounted to the discouragement of practicing polygamy. \n\nFirst of all, you should know that the general norm in Islam is monogamy and not polygamy. Also, the position of Islam towards polygamy is that it is neither mandatory nor encouraged, but merely permitted. More importantly, the permission to practice polygamy is associated with compassion towards widows and orphans, and is not associated with mere sexual satisfaction. Allah says:\n\nIf ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice. \nSurah 4 Verse 3\n\nIt is evident that the association of "polygamy" with Islam is not only unfair or biased but based on a serious misunderstanding. Polygamy was practiced, often without limitations nor regulations , in almost all cultures. It was sanctioned by various religions, and practiced, both before Islam, and for many centuries thereafter. The Mormons presently practice it - though secretly. Christian missionaries, in Africa and other areas, where polygamy is a social necessity, also allow it. \n\nIt is both, honest and accurate, to say that it was Islam that regulated this practice, limited it, made it more humane and instituted equal rights and status for all wives. What the Qur’anic decrees amount to, taken together, is a discouragement of polygamy, unless necessity for it exists.’ \n\nNow, we come to the main part of your question; which is why in Islam polygamy is permissible, whereas polyandry (a woman marrying more than one man) is prohibited. I believe that the answer has many dimensions, which are related to the physical nature of woman and her position in the society. \n\nYet, above all reasons, comes the fact that polygamy fits within the framework of the purpose of shari`a (Islamic law), whereas polyandry goes directly against its objectives. The purpose of revealing shari`a was to serve the interests of people (masalih al-`ibad). \n\nAccording to scholars of Islam, these interests are preserving:\nBelief (deen) \n\nLife (an-nafs) \n\nIntellect and reason(al-`aql) \n\nWealth (al-maal) \n\nFamily and lineage (an-nasl) \nAll the rules, regulations, and laws in the Islamic legal system are dedicated to preserve these five major interests. They are known as the five ultimate objectives (al-kuliyaat al-khams). \n\nHence, the rules and regulations related to marriage and polygamy were drawn to preserve an-nasl (family and lineage). The wisdom of preserving an-nasl is to assure the recognition of the right lineage of people and their children, by which the social kinship and social network is kept sound and stable. \n\nSince lineage through the fathers is hard to demonstrate compared to mothers, it would be saved and preserved through polygamy. On the other hand, it would be impossible through polyandry. In the case of polygamy, the father of a child is always known and therefore the lineage is easily determined. As for the case of polyandry, the father is not necessar
50548
This debate has clarified for me that the government shouldn't really be in the marriage business.  Let the churches perform marriages for whomever they think fit, and let the government simply record the marraiges or civil unions and grant equal rights to them all.  As for plural "marriages,"  they exist, but there is not a sizable part of the population which supports them.  That is a different debate for another day, and the issues are quite different.  In my mind, the purpose of marriage or civil union is to provide support to individuals, especially when they are raising children.  Some of the most monogamous couples I know are gay, and they are some of the best parents too.
201986
I am a cultural relativist, so I see no reason to judge other cultures poorly if they have a tradition of polygamy. They have their own reasons for doing it. Historically, polygamy has been far more widespread than monogamy. It's still practiced by some cultures today. If you look, most of them come from areas where survival is difficult, and it's easier to survive and to reproduce if you have multiple wives. I'd also like to point out that, although there aren't nearly as many, there are also a few cultures where the wives have multiple husbands. Again, you can usually see environmental reasons for it.\n\nPersonally, I don't understand most people in this country who consider themselves poly, because it always seems to me that there's a "third wheel" who doesn't get as much attention as one of the other partners. But if that's their thing, that's their thing. Maybe it works fine for them and I simply can't understand from an outsider's perspective. I really think the most important thing is: are the people in the situation happy, and is anyone being hurt by it? If the answer to the first question is yes, and the second one no, then it's all good.
402772
Many Christians will claim they love the sinner, but hate the sin.  If you pay close attention, you'll see that it's not true.  \n\nGay people are singled out from any other group and treated differently.  Otherwise, divorced people would not be allowed to remarry.  Or to adopt children.  Divorced people would be booted out of the military.  People would make a big stink about divorced people teaching children.  Or being boy scout troop leaders.   \n\nIf it's truly a religious issue, that's fine.  But a lot of people do not approve of Christian Scientists or Jehovah's Witnesses, who reject modern medicine and/or blood transfusions.  Because t his is not in accordance with their own religious beliefs.  And that's fine, but do you see any movement to ban them from getting married or adopting children?\n\nHow about anyone who has ever had premarital sex?  Or what about people who overeat?  A third of Americans are  obese.......and probably the majority of adults are overweight, so I guess there would be no political support for a constitutional amendment to ban gluttonous people from getting married or to otherwise systematically harass them.\n\nI could go on, but you should get my point by now.  Good question, by the way.
568556
Let's start with some background information.  Polygamy exists in three specific forms, including polygyny (one man having multiple wives), polyandry (one woman having multiple husbands), or group marriage (some combination of polygyny and polyandry). Historically, all three practices have been found, but polygyny is by far the most common.\n\nIn America the Mormon religion is the most famous for polygamy.  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints practiced polygamy in the United States and referred to it as "plural marriage".  Polygamy among these groups persists today in Utah, neighboring states, and the spin-off colonies, as well as among isolated individuals with no organized church affiliation. Polygamist churches of Mormon origin are called "Mormon fundamentalist". According to one source, there are as many as 37,000 Mormon fundamentalists, with less than half of them living in polygamous households.  Most of the polygamy is believed to be restricted to about a dozen extended groups of polygamous Mormon fundamentalists.\n\nWith this one example, proof that polygamy is not immoral to the entire world.
343610
Breakaway Mormon polygamist types don't recognize the authority of the state when it comes to matters of mariage, so usually none of their marriages are legal. It's not bigamy unless you try to make it official with more than one partner. Polygamists typically don't get a marriage license for even wife #1. When it involves minors however, that's when they get into trouble.
364204
Find an argument for gay marriage that I cannot use for bigamy, incest, etc.\n\nO.K. Me and my Mother are two consenting adults who want to marry each other. Why can't we? By your standards we should be able to also.\n**************************************************\nAll I'm stating is that once you change the definition of marriage, there is no stopping it. Gay people CAN get married, so long as it's with someone of the opposite sex. \n\nIf you're argument is that the definition of marriage is two consenting adults who love each other, then anyone can argue that they can marry their relative. Why can I not marry two women? If we are all in agreement and we all love each other, why can't we all get married?\n\nWhat is your argument for changing the definition of marriage? Every argument leads to other types of marriage such as incest bigamy etc.\n\n***********************************\nI also can't believe how Separation of Church and State has been so distorted. Separation of C&S was designed to keep the government out of the church not the Church out of the Gov't. There is nothing that says people cannot make laws that coniside with their religous views.\n\n************************************\n*******************\n"I certainly hope this person is kidding, because if they aren't, we should all be very afraid. There is a vast difference between two consenting adults engaged in a loving relationship and incest or bigamy. They are very different things and frankly there is no logic in this answer what so ever. "\n\nExplain why it is different? Is it because you think incest is wrong, unnatural, immoral? I think gay marriage is wrong, unnatural, and immoral. Why is your standard better than mine? If you want marriage to be b/w two consenting adults who are the same sex, what difference is it that someone wants to marry multiple wives or their relative? Again, I'll say it again. Any argument that can be used for gay marriage can be used for big./incest. Why homosexual and not incest? Once you open that door there is no shutting it.
43585
I think i would stay single, however, not because of the polygomy.  I have no problem with multiple wives or husbands for that matter.  If everyone in the union is treated equally and have the same imput and respect for the others.  It can be an eriching experience for all involved including the children who have mulptiple parents to love, care for them, and ipart their knowledge and experiences.  My problem would be being the second or third wife, I am to opionated and out spoken.  I would stay in trouble for adding my two cents worth at the wrong time.
658490
In our culture polygamy is virtually unknown. However, divorce is common and the only reason a divorce would be unfaithfulness, abuse, or some other viable reason for divorce. We do not look out the window see some other woman and divorce our wife. That to me doesn't make sense. The reason: you are trying to get rid of a woman who has spent a good portion of her life with you. What will she do? What will her children (if any) do? In your culture will she be relegated to poverty? If so, this is not right. You have "invested" in her life and she has "invested" in you. How can this be fair? And to take the other woman for your mistress can also wreck your home. While I do not understand how you can have 4 wives, I can understand that a decision of that nature would be hurtful and possibly extremely devastating to your 1st wife. It doesn't seem right to do this to her.
216104
According to Justice Scalia, the legal arguments used in favor of same-sex marriages apply equally to polygamous marriages. Personally, I think we could solve both arguments by getting the government completely out of the business of telling you with whom you are allowed to form relationships. Whoever came up with the idea that you had to ask the government for permission to get married? I'll tell you: Churches wanted more political power in Europe, and bigots wanted to keep blacks from marrying whites in America. Without those two "honorable" traditions, we would all still have freedom of marriage. Polygamy has a longer history in almost every culture in the world, including English and Native American, than monogamy has. If consenting adults are free to marry someone of the same gender (which is clearly contrary to almost all human tradition), then they must also be free to marry two other consenting adults of the opposite gender (which is clearly supported by most human tradition).
319241
You're right, I feel it isn't justified at all. While this maybe something that pandered to the primitive people of the past, it just doesn't apply to today's modern and ever-changing society.\n\nI will use Christianity as an example. \n\nChristianity preached monogamy. It gave instructions on how to behave in marriage, and how a husband and a wife should behave to each other.\nIf a man decides to go have mistresses on the side or engage in serial polygamy - it's not Christianity's fault either.\n\nThis is Ano's arguement, that Islam allowed men to have up to 4 wives with the instruction that men should not take another wife if they fear they cannot deal justly with all of them. And that if they stray within these limits its "not Islam's fault".\nFirstly, many Islamic scholars have agreed that a man need not take the permission of his wife (some even go further and say that he needn't even inform her of his marriage) to marry another.\nThis leaves the complete power in a man's hands, and there is little that is provided for that, since we all know how many Muslim men don't follow this rigorously.\nSecond, while a Muslim man may take up to 4 wives, there is little that stops or prevents them from the ease of their divorce, which somewhat encourages them to engage in serial polygamy - this time 4 wives at a time (like King F'ahd of Saudi Arabia who married over 300 women to consolidate the tribes in KSA, 4 at a time), especially since for a man - all it takes for him to divorce a woman is 'talaq, talaq, talaq' (triple divorce).\nIn UAE you're even allowed to text these words of divorce to your wife and be legally divorced.\n\nThirdly, \nabout slavery. It's a hotly debated issue, and many Muslims prefer to shun the subject, or dance around the topic without an answer.\nThe point is, yes, a man can take as many concubines (called "slaves") as he wants, as spoils of war. Supposedly, this is because these women, with the men killed in battle or taken as war prisoners, will not be able to support themselves and it is considered better that a Muslim man take her as a slave (or concubine) and have legal intercourse with her.\nHer children will not become slaves, and he can choose to marry her, which she will then be conferred the status of a Muslim woman.\nHowever, imagine if a man goes on several wars and comes back with several "slave women". How is his wives going to deal with that? Just sit back and be happy that he's taking care of them, or feel somewhat cheated because this man is treating them like cattle that he can 'legally' have sexual intercourse with?\nI feel it's not justified at all.\n\nYou see, the point is, polygamy gives men even more power to abuse women and even treat women like trash using divine 'messages'. Now he can even divorce them 4 at a time (not saying he will, but he will have the option to.), and have full rights over them.\nOf course, there is no way a man can treat his wives equally. He will always love one wife more than the other.\n\nThe prophet's favourite wife was Ayesha, his youngest wife.\n\nSo because it is Sunnah (it is recommended) that you follow the ways and deeds of the Prophet, obviously, the interpretation of the Qu'ran's dictum of treating wives equally does not mean in terms of love, or affection.\nIt is MATERIAL. That means, if he buys a handbag for a wife, he must buy the same handbag for the other wives, or give them a gift of equal value.\nHe must divide his nights among them.\n\nHowever, the Prophet himself did not divide his nights among his wives equally, as many hadith (reports of the Prophet's sayings, deeds, etc.) testified that he was in the bed of another wife during the turn of one of his wives.\nSo, dividing nights equally must be optional as well, as the Prophet himself was only human and did not divide them equally (though we can all say he
67433
No.  If pseudo-religious zealots so disapprove of gay marriage then they should probably abstain from marrying people of their same genders.  That's all the power they should have under the law or otherwise--the power to manage their own behavior and the behavior of the minor children.  Any further commitment by the federal government is an  unconstitutional involvement in organized religion.\n\nAnd by the way, I happen to be a straight man who believes in protecting privacy from religious posers.
676460
If you attend a true Church that loves and serves God, you would be welcome. The members may not agree with your polygamy, but that is more the reason for them to accept you into their lives and The Church of Christ. How can they be Christians and try to show you what the Bible teaches about marriage if you aren't welcome and comfortable with them. They may think that you are sinful, but in the eyes of God, one sin isn't greater than another. It shouldn't matter if you are a polygamist, a drunk, murderer, of just a white lier.
58992
Totally against it. Where does one stop in the changing of the meaning of marriage. If gays can have the right to marry, why not brothers and sisters? Why not be able to have two wives? Four wives? Why not be able to marry a 7 year old? Why not be able to marry a dead person? Why not an animal? Where does it stop once you begin the trek down that slippery slope?\n\nMarriage is a sacred rite derived from religion. I know you liberal secularists hate to hear that, but it is true. Most religions define marriage as the union between one man and one woman.\n\nJust one man's opinion.
626037
In response to Pieceo..whatever, are you comparing gay men and women to monkeys?  You probably don't think Americans of African descent should be allowed to vote either huh?  Our present government is a fascist regime that feels the need to micromanage its subjects.\nCivil unions are not an exceptable substitute.  Why?  Because they do not come with the tax breaks and financial advantages that marriage does.\nPeople say that the "sanctity of marriage" should not be tainted by gay love.  I challenge that.  I think that the "sanctity of marriage " is tainted by people who are abusive, and in loveless marriages because society says you should not get a divorce, or society says you should be married by a certain age.  Isn't love the basis for marriage?  To have and to hold for better or for worse?  What part of those vows can a homosexual not fulfill?  \nBIG BREATH. okay, I need to stop ranting now.  sorry  Oh and by the way, the reason people first came to live in this great country was to get away from oppression, because there ARE countries that are much worse.  Let us never forget this is the Land of the FREE and Home of the Brave.\nI'm really done now.