From gay marriage to polygamy?

From gay marriage to polygamy?

That's right ATS, I'm going there.

If you're one of those rare people who think one spouse is not enough, your prayers may be answered. After the Supreme Court decision in favor of gay marriage, conservative critics spotted sister wives on the horizon. "Polygamy, here we come!" tweeted Weekly Standard editor William Kristol.

Some members of the Supreme Court agree. Dissenting Chief Justice John Roberts argued that "much of the majority's reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage." In 1996, Justice Antonin Scalia claimed the court had put itself on the path to upholding the rights of polygamists.

Now I know some conservatives like to bring up that the inevitable result of gay marriage is that we legalized polygamy, so I'm going to go ahead and say it. Why don't we legalize it? If 3 or more consenting adults love each other, who are we to say that they can't all get married? It's not like this is a new concept, polygamous marriages have existed forever. Now granted, there is a pattern of abuse and unwillingness among many polygamists, but that is why I stress the key word consenting. If ALL parties are 100% on board with it, then I don't care. Let them marry and be happy.

Before the gay marriage ruling, there was nothing to prevent gays from living together, having sex and raising children like married straights. There is generally nothing to prevent polyamorous people from doing likewise. If several females want to live and sleep with the same guy, nobody will stop them. It's just that only one of them can legally put a ring on it.

Utah, where polygamy has some fans, chose to make it a crime when a married person "purports to marry another person or cohabits with another person." But in 2013, a federal court said that law violated the right to privacy — the same rationale the Supreme Court used to strike down sodomy laws.

The case for legalizing polygamy builds on the case for legalizing same-sex marriage. The sexual arrangements may offend some people, but they're not a crime. If they aren't done under legal arrangements, they'll be done without them.

Pretty much the entire argument in favor of legalizing polygamy is the same as legalizing same sex marriage. So be prepared to double down on your hate if you don't like gay marriage and if you do then you should be for it.

Conservatives raise the specter of polygamy as though its evils are beyond doubt. But much of their opposition stems from religious objections, appeals to tradition or disgust with sexual tastes they do not share.

Those grounds were not enough to justify banning same-sex marriage — and in the long run, they are not enough to justify banning polygamy. If conservatives want to make sure plural marriage never comes to pass, they need better reasons.

Exactly. This is TWICE now that religious opinions on marriage were overturned by the state. First, when interracial marriage bans (enacted based upon the same arguments as gay marriage was recently), and now gay marriage bans. You may say that third times a charm, but I say that a pretty notable legal precedent is being set here. Now we have evidence of a pattern. Good luck fighting THIS issue down.

Some plausible defenses have been heard. One is that polygamous weddings, unlike gay ones, actually harm other people — by reducing the number of potential mates, dooming some to singlehood. Another is that polygamy is associated with sexual abuse of minors. It may also be argued that polygamists, unlike gays, don't warrant constitutional protection because they haven't suffered relentless mistreatment.

Those arguments may be enough to keep the Supreme Court from concluding that the Constitution protects polygamy. But they aren't very convincing as arguments for banning it.

Now naturally, people can be at least SOMEWHAT original with their condemnation of polygamy, but really the above arguments are rather weak at best. We already know that there are people in the country living in polygamist households, plus these arguments aren't strong enough to overturn this previously mentioned legal precedent.

I'M not against it. Legalize freedom right?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Hell yeah go for it. Who are we to dictate that a person should only love one person. None of our business and they should be allowed to marry as many people as they see fit marry.


After we get that passed we need to work on incestuous rights. There can be no love purer than the love of a mother or father for their children. All barriers need to be removed love needs to be allowed to flourish.

After we liberate the above groups, the next oppressed group are the animal lovers among our species. Who are we to dictate that love can be confined to one species. If a man wants to marry his horse and have a sexual relationship with it, who are we to decide?? Love has no bounds, embrace love in ALL forms.

a reply to: Krazysh0t
Star and Flag for bringing this news up.

I wonder how this would affect divorce rates?

a reply to: Doom and Gloom

I'm pretty sure that animal loving violates some sort of consent law since the animal can't technically consent to it...

a reply to: Krazysh0t

The only reason I am against it is the inevitable burden it would put on the welfare system and tax credits.

If that could be sorted out beforehand then I wouldn't give a hoot.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Wouldn't bother me a bit. Marriage is a state law and all citizens should have equal access to it. Get the government out of my personal choices!

I honestly don't know why polygamy isn't already legalized. I mean, seriously? Exactly what is wrong if more than two consenting adults want to be conjoined in marriage?

I wonder how many women would opt for more than one husband?

Poligamy should be legal in a free society. Thumbs up from me.

a reply to: grimpachi

This is a fair point, but I'm sure we can work together to figure something out. It certainly doesn't seem like a good reason to place a restriction on people.

a reply to: Doom and Gloom

This is the most tired argument anyone can have, it's laughable at best anyone actually thinks that Same-Sex Marriage could lead to Animal-Marriage

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Doom and Gloom

I'm pretty sure that animal loving violates some sort of consent law since the animal can't technically consent to it...

There are no laws prohibiting it in 7 different states.

a reply to: butcherguy

I believe some of those states are slowly working to change that. At least there's no animal brothels like the ones in Germany (which i think are also being closed)

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I think polygamy should be legalized... as long as it is between consenting adults, of course. I couldn't do it as I like to be in exclusive relationships, but it doesn't bother me if others love the idea.

Incest, paedophilia and zoophilia are different, they are the abuse of those vulnerable.... (although I am sure Doom and Gloom was just being sarcastic).

a reply to: butcherguy

That may or may not be the case, but I'm a stickler for that "consent" thing. Otherwise we could also make a rational argument for child marriages and I don't want to go there.

Who decided marriage is between "One Woman & One Man" in the first place?

The law was already marriage of 2 consenting people. Gender changes nothing.

Multiple marriage was unlawful for everyone.

Personally, I support the choice of multiple partner marriage. Marriage should be defined only by those in it.

But, unlike couple marriage, it would require new laws in areas of taxes, benefits, pensions, etc.

a reply to: Agartha

Exactly. It's all about that consent thing. That is what makes or breaks the argument. Once you discard that word, the argument morphs into something else. To ME that is a perfectly objective way to prevent the slippery slope from sliding into the abyss.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I don't care how many spouses someone has, what sex they are, or why they're doing it--that's their business.

BUT, when it comes to polygamy, the other spouse must know about it and give some sort of consent prior to one of the parties adding another spouse.

a reply to: Krazysh0t
I see no valid reason polygamy was ever illegal to start with. The arguments against it have always been lame. And the arguments for it are usually based in the free will of the participants, making them worthy of consideration. If one does not agree with it, they don't have to participate in it. Simple as that.

Also, the arguments that homosexuality and/or polygamy open the door to all kinds of "perversions" is fallacious and a straw man at best. S&F.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Agartha

Exactly. It's all about that consent thing. That is what makes or breaks the argument. Once you discard that word, the argument morphs into something else. To ME that is a perfectly objective way to prevent the slippery slope from sliding into the abyss.

Absolutely! The key words here are 'adults' + 'consenting', any relationship without those words are simply abuse.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Exactly. I am by no means endorsing any shadiness here. ALL parties have to be 100% on board with this and knowledgeable of all other parties in the marriage.