In my view, this is quite simple: there is no reason for banning this any better than there is for banning gay marriage. Every single argument I've ever heard against polygamy strikes me of another argument I've heard against gay marriage. "It'd be complicated to make the law accommodate", "it's immoral", "think about the children", "if we allow that, what's next", "but abuse is rampant in their families" etc. There isn't any valid reason to ban this, and no, this isn't a trolling slippery slope: there's no reason to ban incestual marriage, either. Every argument I've ever heard against incestual marriage also is based flawed. "But if siblings have sex their kids will be deformed." Well no, they'll have a higher risk of deformities, a definitive slippery slope if I've ever seen one, but you're assuming they won't have sex if they can't marry. Do you think gays don't have sex in Texas? Come on, people.
Truthfully I don't see the difference between this and any other sexual orientation. Some people want to have sex with their same gender. Some want to have sex with multiple partners. As long as everyone is a consenting adult I don't see the problem.
It's my opinion that most opposition against polygamy and incest, like most opposition against homosexuality (at least as far as legal marriage is concerned) is based on personal prejudice. People don't like it because it's "icky".
I have no problem with people having more than one spouse, that is their business. Same goes for gays. Incest is a different story because there are major issues connected to birth defects, maybe IF they are both neutered first.
It's all morals. The problem is we forget that different people have different morals. I believe after 18 (I actually think by 17 we have deductive reasoning enough) it should be no one else's business where I put my "stuff". Incest is tricky however IMO. I haven't done a lot of research so I won't back this, however rumor has it that far more abnormalities are spread through such a practice.
There are many problems with that rationale. 1) you're still banning gay brothers from marrying 2) procreation comes from sex, not marriage, and so you're assuming that if we don't allow incestual marriage than siblings won't have sex. Do you think gays don't have sex in Texas? 3) the issue is that they have a higher rate of birth defects, that is, a higher likelihood. Should we also screen other people with high likelihoods of having children with birth defects, or perhaps high likelihood of their children having a given disease, and tell them that they can't marry anyone?
The only legal line should be "Consentng adults". - - - Updated - - - We don't require unrelated people who have a propensity for birth defects to be neutered before marriage so why should we require that for related people?
Ok allow those that want to marry their mother or father or mother or sister or brother get married. I really do not care and doubt it will ever happen anyway it is just another "what if" scenario.
Major argument against is that you get humanity as horses, that is, one man with 10 wives and the vast majority with none. Major difficulty here is societal discord. Humans are not horses but reasoning beings and now you're adding sex to the reasons Revolutions happen periodically. Second problem is genetic. One cloned male line into several females means you're breeding for unavoidable genetic drift, even if you do trace everyone's family tree to avoid inbreeding you eventually will still be breeding certain problems in, like hip dysplasia in German Shepherds or vicious aggression in St Bernards
I chose option 1 with the caveat that all parties are consenting adults. From a strictly LEGAL point of view (determining who will inherit my voluminous fortune, make decisions for me in case I am unable, etc... all the lawful rights extended to a spouse) Any two (or more) consenting adults should be able to be 'married'. I should be able to designate my next door neighbor or fishing buddy to be my 'significant other' in the eyes of the state, for purposes previously stated. Nothing sexual about it, no requirement to co-habitate, etc. I have never heard a compelling argument for the state to specify the sex of the participants in such a union. In the case of 'more than two' I suppose some sort of legal hierarchy amongst the participants would have to be established. From a RELIGIOUS point of view, who gets married is up to the church. They should be able to marry (or refuse to marry) anyone based on their own beliefs, but their decision to marry or not should not have any legal standing.
I voted for "only for gays and polygamists (no incest)" I don't know if polyamorous relationships work or not but they should have the 'right' to try. IMHO, they may encourage chauvinism. I think that legalizing incestuous marriage could increase child abuse. I'm sure many will disagree with me.
I think your point against incestuous marriage is irrelevant. What if there was a study which said that gay couples abuse their children more, would you find that sufficient cause to strip all gays regardless of their own actions of their martial rights? Of course not, that'd be ludicrous.
Children are vulnerable. If incestuous marriage were decriminalized, I imagine many fathers would start grooming their daughters for wedlock at a young age, convincing them that they shouldn't marry anyone else but daddy. I'm sure that most fathers wouldn't do this, but there would be some...
Traditional Marriage only. It was never meant to be a club that everyone could join, and bring any number of anythings with them IMO.
All government marriages should be illegal. Marital status shouldn't be a consideration on tax returns. People should be free to enter into a marriage under the traditions to which they subscribe. Whenever necessary the government could recognize any marriage that was agreed upon by both marital partners. Divorces would be granted and administered by the organization granting the marriage. The government would have to be involved for some issues but a tax code that is dependent upon government issued marriage certificates is totally unnecessary. States should be forbidden from issuing marriage licenses or certifications.
In a democracy that opinion is just as valid as any other. You don't have to have a justification for your preferences. If you are a citizen you can lobby for laws just because you say so. You don't have to have an elaborate 10 point plan on why you agree with it. If a majority says, "it's icky, if you end it then I will re-elect you" then a politician is obligated to ban polygamous marriages. It would be up to the courts to decide if it was wrong or not. Politicians have to do what their constituents demand. They have no choice in the matter. Logic and reason do not weigh into the decision making process of an elected official when he knows where 75% of his constituents stand.
