One argument in support of gay marriage goes like this: committed loving adults should be allowed to enter into consensual marriages as long as no one else gets harmed. So does that mean that gays should also de facto support loving, consensual polygamist marriages? After all, if it’s not hurting anyone, what’s the harm, right?
According to Joe.My.God., “the cast of the The Learning Channel’s reality show Sister Wives plans to file a federal lawsuit challenging Utah’s law against polygamy. Makes sense… if it’s good enough for the founder of Mormonism, why not for his followers? Here’s a clip of their reasoning from ABC News:
The polygamist family portrayed on the TLC reality show “Sister Wives” said all along its main goal in going on national television was to gain public acceptance of its lifestyle.
Now family patriarch Kody Brown, his four wives and 16 children and stepchildren are moving from the court of public opinion to the court of law, arguing that criminalizing their lifestyle is unconstitutional.
On Wednesday, the Browns are expected to file a federal lawsuit to challenge the polygamy law in their home state of Utah, where they came under investigation for violating the state law that prohibits polygamy.
Brown and his four wives — Meri, Janelle, Christine and Robyn — moved their family to Las Vegas earlier this year, in part, they told ABC News, to escape the criminal investigation.
Joe.My.God. blogmaster calls their lawsuit, “a political gift to anti-gay groups nationwide,” but who really gives a shit? Anti-gay bigots have said that homosex leads to polgamy, bestiality, and child rape for decades. They could have pointed to Sister Wives for proof; now they’ll just point to the Sister Wives lawsuit for proof. It doesn’t really change the fact that homosexuality has no direct link to polygamy.
But back to the original question: If queers support marriage equality, shouldn’t they also support marriage equality for adult women who want to marry men with more than one wife? In short, no, not really.
Here’s why: First, not all queers want marriage equality. In fact, a lot think that it’s just a privileged, heteronormative, waste of resources diverting our attention away from health care, gender equality, and other more important social issues.
Second, even though some queers are polyamorist, polygamy is not specifically a polyamorist or gay rights issue—it’s a sex rights issue. Sex rights battle include decriminalizing all sorts of “victimless” sex acts including legalized prostitution, repealing nudity censorship laws to foster healthier attitudes about sex and body image (in contrast to the orgiastic violence we see on regular TV broadcast), the decriminalized sale of sex toys (in Texas it’s illegal to call dildos “dildos”), access to condoms in prison, and contraceptives in public. Sex rights issues cut across the lines of sexual orientation.
Lots of straight and bisexual folks who practice polyamory can band together and fight in the political arena if polygamy means that much to them; let this be their fight, not ours.
Lola
Polyamory =/= Polygamy. There’s a huge difference between what religious polygamists want and what people who practice polyamory want. Please STOP using polygamy and polyamory as if they interchangeable and at least CLARIFY the difference if you’re going to use both in your article.
Zee
Yes. It’s not for me, but all are of age and know what they’re entering into. It doesn’t affect me in any way and no kids are being abused. I don’t see an issue with it.
Kamuriie
I do support plural marriage. There’s very little reason for a secular government to prohibit it. That being said, I would not want one for myself. Monogamy for me, please.
Kamuriie
Also, the “will lead to bestiality and child marriages” argument is BS. An animal does not have legal standing, and cannot consent. Likewise, children are incapable of informed consent.
christopher di spirito
It’s none of my business how people live.
Daniel Villarreal
@Lola: Good point. I have edited the article to make the distinction more clear. Thanks for your input!
Phillip
By your argument an African American might say its not really a civil rights issue like ours, “Lots of [gay] and [lesbian] folks who practice [gay sex] can band together and fight in the political arena if [gay sex] means that much to them; let this be their fight, not ours.
Its a case of adults who love each other wanting that live to equal standing under the law. We should support any idea that adheres to those principles
Jeffree
The main difficulties of polygamous marriages are technical: child custody, taxation, division of assets upon divorce, etc.
In theory, there are ways to deal with those issues. In practice, though, the US history of polygamy has been religious-based, and non-consensual, with lots of consanguinous marriages among cousins.
It’s unfair: Since men can marry more than one woman, many male offspring are let go from the community so the number of women always exceeds the number of men.
Are they fighting for the right of one lady to marry a couple three husbands? That would be the just thing to do.
Let them try to get that right, but I sure won’t be marching in their parade or fighting for their form of marriage equality.
jon
I’m evolving on the issue.
Michael
Yeah, you’ve got yours, why should anybody else get their’s? I suppose the racial minorities who distance themselves from women (and queer folk too) were perfectly justified?
There are plenty of queer folk in polyamorous relationships; those who are married are polygamists (look up the word). Polyamory/polygamy are no more or less gay issues than monogamy. Some people don’t want what you want, just like you don’t want what straight folks have. Why are you less of a bigot for opposing freedom of choice?
Maybe if you got out in the world and met some real poly folks, instead of watching HBO, you’d know this.
Matt
This has always been tough for me, because on a personal level I’m opposed, in the sense that I personally have no interest in any relationship/legal status with “poly” in it. But that’s just what I want for myself. In terms of whether I think there’s any reason to stop people from marrying more than one spouse, I can’t come up with a single one. Jefree is right, though. It should go both ways. If a woman wants to marry a bunch of husbands (or wives), then she should be able to as well. Limiting it to males makes absolutely no sense.
Chandler In Las Vegas
Gay marriage exists to establish the legal relationship between two people of the same sex. Polygamy has existed for centuries as there is one legal wife recognized by society at a time and the other girlfriends can call themselves religious wives, concubines or baby mommas. If a man wants to establish legal relationships with all of them all he has to do is marry one, divorce her, marry another and divorce her and he will legally be an ex husband with one current wife. Most men already do this but stop living with the ex.
Ian Bower
I and my civil partner (no marriage equality in the UK) have been in a relationship for thirty seven years. It has always been an ‘open’ relationship and is as rock solid as it ever was. Monogomy isn’t the criterian, stability is.
christopher di spirito
Does Obama support multiple hetero marriages? At least they involve a cock and a pussy.
Dallas David
IMHO, a legal marriage should be between people who are qualified to make a binding contract. Heterosexuals, gays, martians, whatever. This rules out children and animals.
But what’s the practical difference between two married people with 5 children, and 5 married people with two children? Not much, really.
Christian Fundamentalists should already know that polygamy is a perfectly acceptable type of marriage. The Kings of Israel (Saul, David, and Solomon) were all polygamists, as were most of the Hebrew tribal leaders. Abraham had a substitute wife when the original was barren. By American standards, the old Bible Patriarch’s marriages were crazy. So, they can’t rag on polygamist’s being contrary to God’s Will.
The legitimate concern of marriage law should be sorting out property interests, and the welfare of children. How to look after kid’s interests in polygamous relationships, I dunno. I suppose the smart thing to do is keep marriages between 2 people for now, and broaden the numbers once the kid’s interests can be properly protected. If these polygamists have a good solution for the problem, then if they can get it passed through their state legislature, it’s fine by me.
shevmonster
There is a huge difference between having the right to choose the one person with whom you want to spend the rest of your life, and the right to multiple spouses. Polygamy, as usually practiced throughout history,clearly turns the women into second-class citizens, and they may find themselves in these marriages not entirely of their own will. It’s not my place to tell people how to live, but some kind of guarantee that this is not some man’s opportunity to imprison and abuse women would need to be in place if something like this ever were to happen. Also, I am fighting for immigration rights, the right that my partner and I would make medical decisions for each other in an emergency, the right to pension and health insurance benefits for my husband, and that we could inherit each other’s property without paying taxes. This is something different if we are talking about a group of 5, or 10, or 50. 50 people should not be able to inherit each other’s property without paying taxes, I should not expect pension and health insurance to cover multiple spouses when most people only have one, I don’t see how you could practically have 50 spouses agree on emergency health care decisions, and I do not think 50 people should be able to immigrate to this country by all marrying the same person. Certainly I do not think there should be criminal prosecution for polyamory, but there are some serious issues about spreading the rights of marriage across groups. It’s not the same.
The Gays will make it Bachman2012 (John from England)
Hmmm, what about men marrying a women with multiple husbands??
This is such BS!
Wren
Poly issues are gay issues, just like gay issues are straight issues. Because we’re all human. And whether it’s a lifestyle we lead or not, we should support other forms of marriage that (let’s face it) are criticized even more than gay marriages. This article, which seeks to separate gay rights from poly rights, isn’t doing a service to anyone. It’s like when the HRC wanted to leave trans people out of hate crime legislation. Way to make us queers more palatable to the right wing – I don’t want any part of it.
TheRealMannequinAdam
@Wren: I reject this comment completely. Distinctions must be made in fighting for civil rights because not all are comparable or equal. That is the unfortunate truth of the matter. Gay rights, up to and including marriage, are urgent and necessary to us as minorities. Polygamy rights simply are not, and they deserve no recognition or empathy from our side as *inalienable rights.* Polygamy seeks additional privileges and nothing else.
Jeffree
@Wren: +1 for what TRMAdam said. I’ll add this: what marriage equality is about for LGB people is accessing the same rights as straight couple have.
Granting rights to polygamous families–by extending the number of parties to marriage–would require major overhaul of federal & state laws AND concepts in terms of taxation, separation/divorce, child custody, adoption, bankrùptcy, and inheritance, etc.
You also neatly sidestepped the issues of defining “consensual” in polygamous marriages, and its close ties to religion.
Spike
Pologamy is a form of slavery. That was the reason for it. It wasn’t about loving relationships its about a man controling a group of females. This is not anywhere similar to the marriage equality.
Kat
Many of our ancient cultures did have polygamy. I guess gay sex has already ruined everything and caused polygamy for centuries.
Straight/monogamous people like to pretend as if their marriage were the only blessed unions and deemed fit by God. However, at this rate of divorce, sham marriages, marriages that last 1 day, and highly publicized infidelity, everybody should be looking out for their own marriages. Hell, most couples can’t agree on when to retire, where to retire, or if they want kids.
The truth is, marriage/human relationship is a very complex institution both emotionally, and economically(can you support 3 husbands and 7 kids with your income?).
These bigots will sit on their thrones and talk about sanctity of marriage for everyone else, but likely chance is that marriage in general has been ridden with shattered families, massive alimony/child support and kids who don’t get to live with both parents.
So who’s winning? It’s the decent families that love one another and fight to protect their homes, values and livelihoods — not the people who are out to destroy other families.
My friend told me once, “only thing we need for a better future is one healthy generation of parents.” Be a good person on your own, have your own moral codes, and follow virtues you were taught. Then let’s focus on the next generation of awesome Americans.
Zach
As long as it’s consensual, what business is it of mine what consenting adults call their contracts? It is a sad reflection on our society that peaceful association needs popular approval.
Jeffree
@Kat: You said: “gay sex has already ruined everything…” Care to explain that gem of a phrase?
Kat
I was being very sarcastic. The bigots think that gay sex/relationship leads to polygamy/beastiality and such.
So in that line of logic, gay sex has already poisoned Earth with this “polygamy” problem for centuries.
jason
Gay marriage affirms monogamy. It is the complete opposite of polygamy.
Thus, there is no equivalence between the two. Gay marriage cannnot be used to justify the existence of polygamous marriage.
McGullen
Faddish and stupid. The polygamy supporters are the same type of people who argue for nudism, you know, on the bus, at school, at work, not just at the beach. Utopians and perverts.
McGullen
They’re also the same type to turn around and condemn Islam as anti-women, because Muslim men can have four wives. They’re not good at being consistent.
Zach
I think you’re missing the key tenant that such an arrangement be CONSENSUAL, e.g. not like what exists in LDS communities.
Jeffree
@Kat: lol, ok! I was hoping it was sarcasm because I did laugh…
And I’m sure there are days when having a “sister wife” around would be helpful.
Think laundry day, brunch for 12 guests, & yr mate’s love of baseball even though you’re a hockey fan…
The fundamentalists often forget the multiple mentions of polygamy in the OT, so I’m (slightly) surprised the poly people aren’t cut more biblical slack than those of who are in rad-trad monogamous couples!
Adam
If it’s what they want, as long as everyone’s legally an adult, I fully support it. There are children in polygamous families too that need state benefits. I’m sure it’d screw with the tax code, but those things can be fixed.
mssanthrope
@Lola:
This. Polygamy and Polymory are not the same things.
And unlike many of the commenters who are commenting on it, I grew up around Mormon fundimentalist plygamous. We knew guys like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Green_(polygamist)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Jeffs
Some of them run criminal scams and have as many as 70 wives who live in cult communes.
It’s a repressive, fanatical, patriarchal and abusive sub culture where girls as young as the age of 12 are “committeed” to men more than three times thier age. Girls are also frequently “home schooled” where they are taught nothing because being a housewife is all they are expected to be. Childern are reguarly beaten and child molestation is rampent inside the polyamous churches.
Some of the smarter “polygs” as we call them try an present a clean-cut and normal image. But by large in practice it is ulgy sub culture where child abuse and adults frequently
Jeffree
@adam: Those kids get state benefits regardless of how many wives dad has, so that’s not relevant. Where things get dicey is when the polyg dad divorces your mom (or dies) & how the “family” assets get distributed.
As @Missanthrope said, it’s too often an abusive & unequal system: especially for the wives & the children.
Jaroslaw
I have a book about marriage equality written by a Georgetown law professor named Eskridge, the exact title escapes me. But there are many reasons in our existing law code which make multiple marriages of any kind unworkable. Which husband or wife makes the medical decisions? Which decides on whether medical treatment on a child should proceed or be prohibited? Who inherits? Also very important, as poster #16 said who pays for all this? Should each of 10 wives get a pension and social security? We don’t safeguard pensions and social security as it is!
I also fail to see how polygamy or bestiality or anything else even remotely relates to equality in marriage. Each adult person marrying one adult person of their choice is one issue. Everything else is a separate question for society to decide upon.
PS- I happened upon details about a movie of the lives of Richard Adams and Anthony C Sullivan, who got one of six legit marriage licenses for same sex couples in Boulder, Colorado in 1975. The title is “Limited Partnership” which for obvious reasons is making my internet search impossible. Anyone have a link where to buy or rent this? (One of the spouses was an immigrant whose visa was expiring and the INS at the time denied their request for an extension/citizenship by saying – in writing no less – something very close to “….a bona fide martial relationship cannot be established between two faggots.”
It is hard to believe, even in 1975, the Federal government would use that choice of words! Thanks, though, to whoever can point me in the right direction.
TommyOC
Sorry, fellas, but a multi-party marriage – an entered-into contractual relationship – is inherently unstable and unequal. It is a relationship that practically and legally creates a majority-rule and minority-oppress dysfunction.
Unlike a two-member relationship, there exists no natural “balance” or “stalemate.” There is no reason to compromise in any area – child custody, distribution of wealth – if the majority will always be assured the lionshare of assets through sheer numbers, if nothing else.
I’m all for keeping marriage a two-person institution.
Jeffree
@Jaroslaw: The following google search turns up some promising results on the 1975 Sullivan case, not so good re: the movie:
“boulder colorado” 1975 “gay marriage”
Keep the quotation marks.
Not sure if this will help or not.
Armand
Of course I support polygamy.
I’m gay, progressive, and will vote for Obama again just because I am a masochist.
No hate, remember?
ewe
oh wow. there sure are a lot of “gender creative” people in that photograph.
TomMc
Are polygamous marriages more common in the Bible than opposite/same-sex two-person-only marriages?
exmo
Polygamy sounds great in concept, but the immutable laws of math means that polygamy leads to 4 inescapable conclusions: the commodification of women and girls – girls become property and playthings of men; husbands become older and wealthier while single men become progressively poorer; girls are married off at younger and younger ages and men get married at older and older ages (my great, great grandfather’s last wife – #6 – was almost 40 years younger than him); and boys are kicked out of the community or used in such a way to become desexed (religious orders, castration), or destroyed through violence or slavery, or simply expelled from the community (the lost boys).
Before advocating for legal polygamous marriage, please read “Under the Banner of Heaven” and “The 19th Wife.”
I do not see how anyone could advocate for human/gay rights and ever advocate for polygamy. Gay marriage expands and protects humans rights; polygamy restricts and denies human rights. Please don’t equate polygamy with gay marriage. The two could not be more unlike each other.
Armand
It is pretty obvious from previous comments that there are those in our LGBT community that subscribe to fear mongering, bigotry, and deny those human rights which they claim is theirs, to others.
Some of the arguments against polygamous marriages can be said of gay marriage (just replace gay for polygamy). For example, the evidence of violence that occurs within homosexual relationship are greater than heterosexuals.
And what about those polygamous relationships that are healthy, loving, supportive, and raise children that are healthy?
I have personal gay friends that were married but are separated due to adultery and abuse, does that stop gays from wanting, fighting, and getting married?
Take a look in the mirror. Stop the hate.
Red Meat
One – Polygamy should be illegal unless and polyandry will be legal too.
Two – All entering this marriage must be 18 years or older and wanting, not forced.
Three – Special harsh laws should be passed for the breaking of the above law with the use of blackmail, bribery, and force.
Jaroslaw
Thanks Jeffree. What I forgot to say, but you probably figured out – it drives me crazy how one can “stumble” across something on the internet, (not write down where it is) and then LOOK every kind of way later and NOT find it.
Jeffree
@Jaroslaw: That happens to me all the time. Plus, the search results seem to vary according to what else you’ve looked up, so the same parameters can turn up different results next time, or on a different browser…
— —
@Red Meat: good ideas..The whole “consent” aspect is the sticky wicket, because it’s hard to prove — especially when plural marriage a tenet of a religious sect.
Queer Supremacist
Polygamy is a choice. Homosexuality isn’t. End of debate.
Support for polygamy is support for the oppression of women, plain and simple.
Rob Moore
As long as it does not devolve into a form of sexual or domestic servitude for the women, and as long as girls are not forced into marriages arranged by their fathers, parents, or some creepy clan leader, I have no problem with people who want it. I do question its ability to be a happy situation for women in the long term, but the same can be said about any relationship I suppose.
jeff4justice
Polygamists and incest couples do NOT need to wait around for whatever LGBT people do or don’t do to try to attain the right to marry if they wish to strive for that.
Next, the issue of children is an age of consent and parental rights issue.
Lastly, pets cannot consent – that’s why we eat them and make fashion out of them.
McGullen
@ewe: Are you being sarcastic? They seem highly normal to me. Maybe you mean polygamists need to be normal to be polygamists?
Michael
“Polygamy is a choice. Homosexuality isn’t. End of debate”
So is getting married to one person, so your argument falls flat. Did they teach you “end of debate” in rhetoric class?
If you are talking marriage, then the polyamory debate must become a polygamy debate. I’m glad you feel so smug. So did Fredrick Douglass when he decided that women had enough power and didn’t need a vote.
Keith
An adult should be free to pursue love, sex, and marriage (or not) with ANY consenting adults.
Bob
As long as he supports the family instead of the tax payers…fine. Though I see this as one more instance of over-populating an already overcrowded world. Why the need to breed these huge families, I will never understand.
robert in NYC
Someone should ask Mitt Romney and Michelle Bachmann for their views on this one. After all, this is a “straight” issue regarding marriage. Polygamy is permitted in the old testament, so I don’t think either one would have any difficulty supporting it, “for the bible tells them so”. Romney’s great great grandfather had 12 wives.
Sean
@christopher di spirito: I agree.
jason
Because of the difference between male and female sexuality, polyandry doesn’t exist. A woman has a relativelky quiescent sexuality and doesn’t need many husbands. In contrast, men have a very powerful sexuality and will often require the services of many women. If it can be formalized in the form of many wives, all the better for him.
gregger
@Lola: Thank you, perfectly put.
Andrew
I’m glad that more queers are coming out in support of polyamorous relationships. I would, however, like to see more clarification of the differences between consensual adult polyamorous relationships and weirdo religious polygamy involving coercion and female oppression. There’s a huge difference between a threesome of old hippies who met in a yurt in 1965 and an eighteen-year-old girl forced to be a third wife to a man who’s old enough to be her father.
robert in NYC
Supporting polygamy is going to make it much harder to gain marriage equality in other states. The likes of Bachmann and other GOPers are going to use it to justify their claim that allowing SSM heralds polygamy. Why make matters worse? Supporting it is enabling these hate mongers and giving them power over us. I want no part of it.
Tommy Shepherd
@jason:
My great-grandmother lived with two guys (one her husband, the other her lover) – she had children to both of them and was sexually insatiable from what I hear. So I’m not totally convinced by “gender differences” arguments – though I think society wants us to think that men and women are a lot more different than they have the potential to be.
I’d be for 3-way, 4-way etc relationships in principal, but would be concerned that societies would be more accepting of one rich man having lots of younger women, rather than a much wider range of possibilities – how about 3 men and 2 women all married to each other?
Give it 100 or so years, and I can see that this is the way advanced societies will be heading. But we have a long journey to go on before we get to that point.
Armand
@robert in NYC says: “Supporting polygamy is going to make it much harder to gain marriage equality in other states.”
Basically you want marriage equality only for homosexuals and not for other people.
This is a sad, selfish, fear mongering, bigot and depressing argument which reinforces my earlier comment (denying human rights to others).
Andrew
@Armand: I agree. You’re either for genuine marriage equality or not. It’s kind of like the gays who want to leave transgender people out of the queer rights movement. (Throw them overboard so we can get what we want!)
robert in NYC
Armand, who are you calling me a bigot? If you think supporting polygamy is going to win you marriage equality for gay people and transgendered people, you have another think coming. 44 states don’t have any semblance of equality for LGBT people and that probably won’t come about in those states for decades. We should be striving for transgendered people who want to marry not just ourselves. Hetero polygamists can already marry except only one person legally. Name one western country that allows polygamy. If it happens anywhere, and probably won’t, it won’t be the U.S. You’re living in a fantasy world if you think allowing polygamy is ever going to happen.
A.
IF
in fact – no one is being abused, and they are all in a relationship of their own free will
no laws are being broken, as only one of those women is legally married to the guy
they are not insisting that all the marriages be recognized by the state, but that they be given privacy concerning their “spiritual bonds” (that family is under investigation for breaking polygamy laws even though technically, he’s only legally married to one)
that being the case, its not for me, or the government to judge (the whole point of the court case)
this has nothing to do with legal recognition of the marriage and so I think irrelevant to any gay rights issues concerning marriage.
Jaroslaw
How nice all these free spirits that advocate anything goes. Who is going to pay for it? How do we unravel all the (voluminous) existing laws? Not saying it can’t be done, but no one has addressed this.
Also not considered, if you think conservative religious folks get apoplectic about loving, two person only marriages between two men or women, wait and see what happens with your “anything goes” philosophy! Personally, I think it is more than difficult enough to try to accomodate one other person for myself and most people. I don’t think I would want to try to please four or five ADDITIONAL husbands!
#60 – Robert in NYC, I say over and over that one adult person should marry one other adult person of their choice. Why is transgendered people marrying a separate fight? I thought the real fight was getting some states to accept the ‘new’ gender, but some do and some don’t. Which isn’t really a Gay issue at all. Other than perhaps the non-Gay public lumps us all together.
RocketInMO
“According to Joe.My.God., “the cast of the The Learning Channel’s reality show Sister Wives plans to file a federal lawsuit challenging Utah’s law against polygamy. Makes sense… if it’s good enough for the founder of Mormonism, why not for his followers? Here’s a clip of their reasoning from ABC News:” There is historical debate among cultural Mormons if Joseph Smith practiced polygamy. That is part of the reason why there are more than one “mormon” church (The largest, the LDS Church, which practiced polygamy until forced to reject it, and other mormon churches such as the Community of Christ (used to be known as the RLDS) Church and others). Not all Mormons believe(d) in polygamy.
sarah
If one person can marry multiple people and theoretically keep one spouse secret from another, that could cause a hell of a property battle if that person were to die.
If all parties were aware of exactly how many marriages everyone else had, it would be fair. But then again, why not just get rid of marriage altogether?
Armand
@robert in NYC: I am supporting polygamy because I am for marriage equality for all (transgendered people too).
I do not care how long it takes for our LGBT community to win marriage. It seems that you want to throw polygamists under the bus just to win ‘marriage’ for homosexuals in the Western hemisphere.
Sometimes I see my gay brothers and sisters trapped in the gay bubble fighting for their rights only. This is not only selfish but inhuman.
And by the way, it was a mere “fantasy” years ago for homosexuals to marry in America. Now in New York, we can marry the person we love. You’re preaching to the choir.
Armand
@Andrew: Right on!
Armand
@robert in NYC: And to clarify, I never called you a bigot; your argument is (re-read my comment).
robert in NYC
Armand, if all of the equality organizations in our state had supported polygamy, marriage equality would NEVER have been introduced for a vote, just what the four republicans would have needed not to support it. Dean Skelos would NEVER have allowed it to come for a vote. Try doing that in California to get Prop. 8 overturned and see where you end up. Polygamy will NEVER be accepted or legalized anywhere in the western hemisphere, get real. If we start making noise about supporting it, you’ll see the next president, arguably a republican, calling for a constitutional ban on marriage equality in every state and with the SCOTUS stacked with 5 staunch catholic judges, that will become a reality. Be careful what you wish for. It matters not if you think my statements are bigoted and inhuman, think what you want, but I’m more of a realist than you are.
The Artist
People should do what ever they want, as long as they are not hurting anyone. PEACELUVNBWILD!
Abirdwillingtobeitself
@The Artist: The thing is that people often hurt each other indirectly. Polygamy raises lots of questions about the spread of sexual disease, for example. And I don’t see any comments in this string about the importance of condom use, even though there was a lot of discussion about that in the article about We Were Here.
Andrew
@Abirdwillingtobeitself: Okay, I’ll bite. What questions does it raise about the spread of sexual disease? Or are you talking about having multiple partners in general?
Abirdwillingtobeitself
@Andrew: I’m talking about multiple partners, and the sheer number of people who might suddenly feel open to experimenting. People don’t learn well from history. They’ll say, “what about the summer of love? we’re doing the same thing” and forget that back then many STDs didn’t exist. Open sexual experimenting ended across the country in part because the STDs started appearing.
Andrew
@Abirdwillingtobeitself: I don’t think that this has anything to do with polygamy. Plenty of non-polygamous and non-polyamorous people have multiple partners and one-night stands. Legalized polygamy wouldn’t make anyone more “open to experimenting” any more than gay marriage made people turn gay.
Furthermore, the STD argument for monogamy is ridiculous. Most STDs can be prevented with condom use. The answer isn’t forced monogamy but rather protection and safe practices.
Abirdwillingtobeitself
@Andrew: No, it’s not ridiculous. In the U.S., you would think that group marriages would be full of bisexuals, who would alternate having sex with each other. There are comments in this string about tri and quad relationships like that. But contrast this with the way that polygyny is practiced in many countries. The one man has sex with many women, but none of the women have sex with one another. Some STDs can only be spread by contact with female genitals. That means several people in the relationship won’t contract those STDs. New STDs are created when people rotate their partners. But the way polygyny is practiced in those countries doesn’t allow for rotation of partners. The equivalent in the U.S. is usually called an open relationship, where a person agrees to be with someone who sees other people. At this point there’s still no rotation involved.
It does get problematic. The way polygamy is talked about, it sounds almost like a married version of an orgy. Orgies are how STDs are created.
Let’s be clear about this. Being gay is a sexual orientation. THAT’S the reason gay marriage doesn’t turn people gay. Being polygamous isn’t a sexual orientation.
Andrew
@Abirdwillingtobeitself: I know polyamorous people who would disagree with you on that last point — many poly people feel that being monogamous is unnatural for them.
You also seem ignorant of the way poly relationships work. Yes, an open relationship with revolving partners is a type of relationship that some people have. But many poly people have “closed” relationships with multiple people, where no partner has sex outside of (for example) a three-person relationship. There will usually be rules about how a new partner can be introduced into the relationship. Many poly relationships are more trusting than monogamous relationships. Fidelity and safety are not foreign concepts to poly people.
Abirdwillingtobeitself
@Andrew: They can disagree all they want, because I didn’t say it was natural or unnatural. I said it wasn’t a sexual orientation, which it isn’t. I find it hard to take you seriously when you say “many poly relationships are more trusting than monogamous relationships,” because you can’t prove it and the way I raised the point doesn’t involve trust as a factor.
Andrew
@Abirdwillingtobeitself: I was pointing out that poly relationships don’t have to involve STD risk. Being in a closed four-person relationship where all four people have been tested STD-free doesn’t involve any more risk than a closed two-person relationship. It’s nothing like a “married version of an orgy.” (I’m still puzzled by your comment about STDs being “created” by orgies.)
Alt.polyamory (http://www.polyamory.org/) has a good FAQ if you want “proof” that polyamorous relationships can involve trust and fidelity. It will also point you in the right direction if you think polyamorous people aren’t “oriented” that way can choose to become monogamous. (Sure, they can technically be with only one person forever, but think of a gay person trying to be in a straight relationship.)
Again, you seem unable to distinguish between poly relationships, open relationships, promiscuity, and cheating.
Queer Supremacist
@Michael: The number of spouses is not a sexual orientation. That sick freak is free to marry any one woman he wants. We are not free to marry anyone of the same gender. Thus, banning gay marriage is discrimination, but banning polygamy is not.
@robert in NYC: I agree with you. We need to throw polygamists under the bus and SLAM the gas pedal HARD.
This crap was endorsed by the Bible but banned for secular reasons, all of them good reasons. That man claims to be “married” to all the women, but those women are not “married” to each other. This is not a collective marriage. This is a harem.
Not only should we not be supporting polygamy, but we should not be supporting so-called “religious freedom” for anti-gay cultists who would turn around and vote away our rights.
robert in NYC
Queer Supremacist….right on! Under the 14th amendment, the rights of the minority must be guaranteed and protected but this country has NOT lived up to it. This country was supposed to be founded on equality for all. It’s never happened as far as we’re concerned. Even with marriage equality in six states, we still do not receive federal rights and privileges that straights do. We can’t even sponsor our binational partners, something that straights take for granted. Religious cults should not be tax-exempt if they’re agitating and advocating others to vote away our rights. Let the bastards pay if they want a say in civil matters. Nobody should be above the law and nobody should be tax-exempt, not even non-profits.
Armand
@robert in NYC says: “if all of the equality organizations in our state had supported polygamy, marriage equality would NEVER have been introduced for a vote”
That was BEFORE gay marriage became legal in our state. Now we can support polygamy and their human rights to marry those they love and care for.
“Polygamy will NEVER be accepted or legalized anywhere in the western hemisphere, get real”
Girl please. Replace ‘polygamy’ in your sentence with ‘gay marriage’ which is what folks USED to say.
Your statements before and after are bigoted and reinforces fear mongering that you employed earlier in your comments. Of course that does not matter to you but I would still like to point them out for the followers of this thread.
Jaroslaw
Armand – and I would like to point out that having several wives/husbands is NOT equality. The movement is fighting for each person to marry ONE person of their choice. This is equal. There are many other considerations of why polygamy/polyandry is a difficult proposition listed here in this post which have nothing to do with bigotry. Please read them.
robert in NYC
No. 80 “That was BEFORE gay marriage became legal in our state. Now we can support polygamy and their human rights to marry those they love and care for.”
If anything is selfish, it’s that statement. So in your view, as long as New York has marriage equality, to hell with the rest of the 44 states that don’t as a justification for supporting polygamy which is nothing more than someone wanting multiple sexual partners. We need marriage equality in every state, not just our own, first and foremost. Supporting polygamy is going to enable every anti marriage equality hater out there, most of whom are in the republican party. You will NEVER see DOMA overturned supporting a ridiculous demand and a stereotype of what most homophobes view gay people as being, ergo promiscuous. Polygamy instills far more fear than same-sex marriage. Just look what the far right is saying, including most of the mainstream cults….”marriage equality will herald polygamy, incest and bestiality”.
Please, stop referring to me as “girl” and grow up.
Jaroslaw
#80 = Robert, just for argument’s sake – Churches were instrumental in getting slavery abolished and some churches currently advocate on our behalf. Where to draw the line? Yes, it seems absurd that some religious organizations spent millions of dollars to fight marriage equality. But some would say well, $100 is okay. Then how about $200 and so on?
Also, I don’t think you can fault the framers for not treating Gays equally at a time when same sex marriage was inconceivable even to Gays themselves at that time. Remember women were barely persons and couldn’t vote until 1920. When exactly people were consciously aware they were discriminating against us would be the point to argue.
Armand
@robert in NYC says: If anything is selfish, it’s that statement.
How was my statement selfish?
“So in your view, as long as New York has marriage equality, to hell with the rest of the 44 states that don’t…”
You have a pathetic straw man and a paragraph that is summarized as more fear mongering at best. I mean, come on, you keep on citing the “far right” and the “haters” and the “homophobes”. Dear me… one can only wonder how New York ever came to marriage equality for homosexuals.
Take your pseudo human rights-for-homosexuals-only to the dry cleaners, girl. And do grow up.
There are those of us who grew out of the gay bubble and fight for everyone’s rights.
Armand
@Jaroslaw says: “and I would like to point out that having several wives/husbands is NOT equality.”
How are several wives/husbands not equality? Your definition is exclusive and displays bigotry.
Please be tolerant. I know that may be difficult but with perseverance, you will succeed.
Jaroslaw
OK Armand, I’m not going to have a marathon back & forth with you. Only a person with a third grade mind thinks everyone can have everything they want 100% of the time. I directed you to the many reasons listed here that poly anything is going to be exceedly difficult and rather than address them, you just call me a bigot too. I never said it couldn’t be done, I said society would have to decide on it.
Armand
@Jaroslaw: Your ad hominem fails. I am sure a third grader would have appreciated that one :-).
I never called you a bigot, your “exclusive” definition is. And what is it with some commentators on Queerty that perceive things are directed at their person instead of substance of their comments?
It seems that we disagree on this issue and that’s fine. Thank God we will in America.
Jaroslaw
In your view, the opinion is bigoted and the holder of that opinion is not? And you sincerely (apparently) wonder why people take things personally? Their (and my) opinion is a part of me, how I think. Sure, we can disagree, but you’re not being logical when you say to turn society and decades, nay, centuries of law on their head 180 degrees and act as though it is all so simple.
Why not try reading what I wrote? I said society will have to decide, did I not? But under our existing framework, supreme court decisions saying marriage is the most fundamental of rights, the most personal decision on can make, the recognizing that Gay people are not mentally ill since at least 1973, there is no reason UNDER EXISTING LEGAL FRAMEWORKS to deny anyone the right to marry another adult of either sex. Poly everything is a COMPLETELY different ball game.
Joyce
@Jaroslaw: Yeah just like society decided on making same-sex marriage legal, yeah right. All the polygamists have to do is take their appeal to the courts, just like the gays did or have it passed through legislation, not the will of the people. Gays are nothing but hypocrites. Every argument that you use against the polygamists can be used against gays. Whether you all like it or not, marriage equality means equality for all groups. You can’t just pick and choose who can benefit from it. But, this is going to be very interesting indeed ha ha. While the gays are against marriage equality for the polygamists and use studies to show how the two are not the same, I will also use different studies to show how gay marriage is not the same as traditional marriage. Hopefully people will be able to see that what I am doing to the gays is the same exact thing the gays are doing to the polygamists. Gays are nothing but hypocrites, bigots, and they are intolerant, especially toward the polygamists. For the record, I am against both gay marriage and polygamy. I just want to show how hypocritical the gays are. This is going to be fun!! Not such a slippery slope anymore is it!!
RaleighRob
If you have NO clue about the difference between religious-based polygamy, and honest consensual polyamory, then you have NO right to be writing about either! This article is just plain full of ignorance and stupidity. You give us gays a bad name with your brainlessness.
Andrew
@RaleighRob: Right on. Every time I read about poly relationships, oppressive Mormon polygamy is the first thing that comes up. No one thinks about the non-oppressive poly relationships that are often more honest and loyal than most monogamous relationships.
Saying that poly people shouldn’t have rights because of teenager-marrying Mormons is like saying that gay people shouldn’t have rights because of boy-raping Catholic priests.
Ryan Vann
In what other form of contract (which is what I believe marriage is) is there gender or party member specifications? Imagine how ridiculous that would be if we were a consistent society and applied it to say business partnerships or corporations. I hereby declare Google in violation of the 1:1 male to female corporate ownership rule. It would be ridiculous.
To those bringing up the legal complications argument, read my above scenario. Does anyone think a multiple marriage partnership would somehow be vastly more complicated than a CORP or Partnership filing? I suspect these protestations are coming from a glib place where we feign that we don’t live in a country whose tax code could paper the Great Wall of China if printed; I think something as simple as writing a will and testament among 3+ people can’t be too complex.