Why would the legalization of same-sex marriage promote polygamy?
476011
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).
127996
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.
721491
Makes me wonder if the guys who are in favor of it would be in favor of sharing their Wives with other men as well.\n\nAfterall it should go both ways.\nSomehow I am doubting the guys would be in favor of that :)
23886
It might lead to it in the long run, polygamists might eventually get the court precidence if gay marriage goes through. Legally speaking, it could easily happpen. There really hasn't been "homosexual marriage" in history, but there have been hundreds of societal examples of it being extremely common, and expected, valued, and practiced - the greeks, the spartans, the japanese, etc. It has only been considered 'unnatural' in some western cultures over the past 1,000 years or so. In many cultures, it has only become 'unnatural' in the last 200 years or less, and that is simply because of Western ideals being imported.
454992
I don't know about polygamous (marrying multiple people), but I think they are more promiscuous by nature. I think men have a biological desire to 'spread their seed around.'
1020183
You are correct.  The arguement of 'natural attraction' is not by itself an acceptable reason for unusual sexual behavior.\n\nHomosexuality is tolerated because it is between two consenting adults.  Unlike attraction to children, rape, or bestiality which doesn't get the consent of the other party.\n\nI do wonder why those in favor of homosexuality are against all polygamy.  In both cases it's relationships between consenting adults.   It seems inconsistent to me.
41810
Polygamy refers to a form of marriage with more than two participants. That is to say their can be one husband and many wives (polygyny), one wife and many husbands (polyandry), or multiples of both (polyamory).\n\nGod Bless,\n\nRobert
819192
Here are some of the arguments that typically are made. (Note: I've posted the counter arguments. I cannot in good conscience leave them unanswered on this forum.):\n\n1. Marriage is largely used as the basis for raising children, and child birth is only possible with heterosexual couples.\n\nBUT: Marriage has many functions, in addition to raising children. Marriage also provides legal responsibilities and rights. Marriages between people who cannot bear children due to age or medical condition are just as valid and provide the protections available to those who can and do bear children.\n\n2. The institution of marriage has always been one-man-one-woman, and redefining it now will open it up to further revisions, including polygamy.\n\nBUT: Marriage that is entered into by consenting adults that does no harm to no one else is exactly the same, regardless of the gender of the couple. Polygamy has been shown to victimize younger boys, whose potential brides are taken up by their fathers and their uncles. The only thing gay marriage does is equalize the genders, not change marriage.\n\n3. It demeans the other gender by excluding it from the relationship.\n\nBUT: It seems to me more demeaning to have a gay man marry a straight woman, only to then later find that he has been cheating on her with other guys. No one wins in that situation.\n\nHomosexuality and heterosexuality each describe a particular capacity to love, and neither demeans either gender by embracing the other.\n\n4. Gay people aren't constitutionally able to commit to the vows of marriage.\n\nBUT: This is an argument from incredulity. I can tell you from my personal experience of living in a monogamous eleven-year relationship that ended when my partner died that gay people are equally capable of entering into marriage commitments.\n\n5. Religious objections (you can find those elsewhere) that marriage is primarily a religious institution.\n\nBUT: Marriage involves over 1000 Federal laws that govern rights and responsibilities. In order to become married, one must have a state license to do so, thereby making it a governmental function. The ceremony can take place before either a religious or governmental official. Plus, there are many churches that want to perform legal marriages but are currently prevented from doing so.\n\n6. Forcing state employees who because of religious objections, disagree with gay marriage to deal with it, thereby violating their religious freedom.\n\nBUT: The same could be said for people who are required to work on Sundays, sell meat or alcohol at a grocery store, or euthanize animals. If feelings run that strongly, they may have to get a different job. It is not the role of society to pay someone for their beliefs, but instead for the job they do.\n\nI hope this helps.
637359
Just another example of how that stupid HBO TV show with a person who says he is a member of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Days saints continues to tell people the lie that the church practices plural marriage.\n\nThe reason that plual marriage was instigated by the church (about a hundred and fifty years ago) was because christian mobs had murdered the majority of LDS men because they did not agree with what the church believed. \nThere were not enough men to marry the women, and some of the women already had children but no father to take care of the family and a father figure for the children.\n\nIt was not widespread and only practiced for a few years until the numbers were normal again. A plural marriage had to be approved by the church and the wife, otherwise it was not allowed. \nAnyone who practises it now only has the excuse of saying he is LDS. Any member who tries to do this is excommunicated. \n\nMarriages need to be recognized by the government to register the couple and for tax purposes. Couples with children get tax breaks and may be eligible for support otherwise. Marriages constitue a family and they need to have that legalized. If the gov't doesn't document that men or women could marry different people without their spouse even knowing. Plus most religions believe it's adultery to sleep with a married person, the religion would then be a party to adultery if they were not able to check. The government helps with that.
738876
There isn't a real one. One of the arguments made by opponents of same sex marriage is that allowing it could open the door for other things, such as acceptance of polygamy. It's baseless and primarily a tactic by the morality police (Conservative Christians) to keep people under their reigns.
410408
It is just something invented for men to control more women. Now YOU LIVE IN AN ISLAMIC SOCIETY and tell me to read the Quran to like it. You could ask any Islam women about Polygamy and they all agree to it!\n\nYou don't know nothing about Islam and Quran do you? It's not the religion and people I hate, it's the extremists I can't stand. Now if women won't stand up for themselves, who will?
877003
Since there are civil benefits to marriage, morally, it must be open to all.\n\nno one has a monopoly on marriage - certainly no one religion - although religious institutions do have the right to set their own internal rules, they should not be in a position to forbid others to do so.
784269
I won't get into the sin thing, since I'm a Humanist and that's a religious concept, but it does seem to me that, if one of the reasons societies promote marriage is to promote stability, then it doesn't make sense to discourage same-sex couples from marrying.  Denying gay couples the right to marry is not defending marriage.
1125692
Just one thing?\n\nWell, aside from the basis of the Religion itself, the "vision" by Joseph Smith that started it all, it would definitley be the view on polygamy they held for so long, and then suddenly dropped.\n\nOh yea, the poster above me has another good one.
231064
:}\nI don't think the LDS do any more but it was that way because a male founded the faith and wanted multiple wives\nother sects of mormonism still honor pologamy
1094502
polygamy, at least your are legal.
350882
i doubt that the relegions or sects allowing polygamy insist that one have to be polygamous. islam allow 4 wives but even it never says that it is must to have four wives. none of my muslim friends have more than one spouse though there are many who do. i never heard that those monogamous muslims are declare false muslims for it.