Same sex "marriage" is legal in many states. Why not polygamy? After all, aren't we descriminating against them? Aren't we denying their rights?

gay marriage is on the horizon and soon homosexuals will finally have all the rights afforded heterosexuals. that is a good thing whether some of you like it or not.

polygamy will be next. although there are some rough edges re: indoctrination/youth, if multiple individuals want to marry each other collectively, so long as they are all able-minded, consenting adults, go for it.

both will happen in our lifetime. for those opposed, sorry you lose.

"Why not polygamy? After all, aren't we descriminating against them?"

With respect, who is "them"?

I realized I was gay by the time I was 10 or 11. I knew I was "different" It's a trait. I hid it, tried to change it, was desperate for years to "change".

Some people are gay. We don't know why, but it's a trait that appears fixed at an early age.

Are you suggesting that there are 10 year olds who realize they are polygamous and must hide that fact from their friends and family?

If not, then the two instances are not equivalent, and must be considered separately. The rationale for permitting gay people to legalize their relationships isn't the same as that for allowing heterosexuals to have multiple partners.

Are the arguments equally sound? I don't think so, but that's a separate question. The point is that the arguments are not THE SAME.

I actually used to be in favor of legalizing polygamy. Now I am opposed because of the widespread abuse in these communities.

In davis county a few years ago a dad beat his daughter quite severely because she either wanted out or didn't want to enter such a marriage. The daughter called police, I imagine such beatings are somewhat common, but the girl involved doesn't call police and treats it as a family matter.

These communities kick young boys out of the house and community, to balance the sex ratio, and they are left to take care o

Even older men are sometimes kicked out of their house, (the church holds the title to all of their houses), and at this point the man is shunned by all including his wives, this is how brain washed they are.

If polygamy were truely just between concenting adults, with no associated abuse that goes on, I would be writing now in support of letting them alone, but as it is, I think society would do well to dismantel if possible, this whole lifestyle and community, because they just can't live in a way that doesn't abuse the rights of innocent people.

Some posters are carelessly mixing religion with polygamy and then using non-religious practices (child beating, forcing young men out of the community, taking away property, etc.) as an argument against polygamy. The main fact is that the U.S. Constitution prohibits Congress from passing laws concerning an establishment of religion. That includes the practice of polygamy within a religion.

To even consider changing the status of marriage from the union between one man and one woman would require that ALL sexual deviations be accepted, or ANY group could claim discrimination. Wouldn't that be wonderful, to have the same-sex activists open the door to any and every perversion known to man and to have those perversions legalized?

'A fraction of a father'? I think the plygs are huge weirdos but how can you say they only have a fraction of a father? Those guys micro-manage their kids, they're not absent by any means.

So since congress is not to oppose religious freedom, and the 14th ammendment means states can't either, do we

Put up with honor killings of women by Moslems? or allow Jehovas Witness or Christian Scientists to deny life saving health care to children? or force pharmacies to hire Catholic pharmicists who won't dispense birth control? etc, etc?

My plans are coming along for a new religion. It will, as all good ones do, feature a compound. However, the prophet has indicated that short term polygamous 'marriages' of an hour or so are acceptable, and that a 'tithe' to the church (major credit cards will be accepted) will be necessary on the part of the young man before the marriage can be completed. The best part? It can all happen here in utah, with a lot of support from the locals as this, my friends, is religious freedom.

I'm sorry you got your feelings hurt by someone in the church at some point in your past.

Please accept my appology and come back to the faith that will build testimony of Christ and stregthen your family.

It is not discrimination if there is a victim.

Legalized same-sex marriage has no victims. Legalizing polygamy would do a lot to eliminate victims of those relationships by making it easier for them to step forward when a harm does occur.

Robert, when you say "I think the government should encourage marriages in which a child has a father — not just a fraction of a father" does this mean that you think divorces should be forbidden too?

I mean after all, in divorce the father rarely gets custody. This means the government is encouraging a system where kids get only a "fraction of a father" when the court gives them visitation.

Shall we stop divorces too?

You are right. Polygamy and gay marriage are not the same. One can produce offspring and the other can't.
I don't think I need to continue the comparison, do I?

If you take the religious groups that have abused polygamy, what is so wrong about it?

The courts have ruled consistently that polygamous marriages are not protected by freedom of religion in the constitution. It may very well be your opinion that they should be, but the courts have ruled otherwise.

Linguist- You are implying that all practices with a "genetic" basis, like homosexuality, should be legitimized. Well there is as much evidence that pedophilia is genetic as there is for homosexuality. Should we condone and legalize those relationships? I know you will argue that its different because it is children, and try to make homosexuality the only one that should be legitimized somehow, but it shows your hypocrisy. And guess what, some kids do know at a young age they are a polygamist because that is how they grew up, and what their religion teaches.

Fraction- If they are so involved as polygamous fathers, why couldn't the father a few years back in Davis county remember the names of all of his children when asked in court? My mom grew up with 16 siblings, and her parents never forgot their names.

@7:07- Religious freedom is permissable as long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others. Ones freedoms cannot come at the expense of another's. That is the difference. In polygamy between consenting parties of legal age, whose rights are being infringed?

The argument you put forth is termed the "Slippery Slope" or "Continuum Fallacy."

In America, marriage has always been well defined within the concept of two people. Allowing same-sex marriage would not change that concept. Conversly, polygamy does not fit within this traditional concept. Courts around the U.S. have made it clear that with more than two people you would change the meaning of marriage.

Same-sex couples, by contrast, should have the right to marry because they meet all other requirements to wed. Additionally, procreation is not a requirement for marriage. One does not submit "fertility status" when applying for a marrige license.

@ 7:07,

Children need parents to set limits to protect a child from hurting himself or others. An adult is expected to do no harm to himself or to others. Adults who act like children "need" a powerful (interfering) government to protect them from themselves. So, the question is, are you a child who needs someone to protect you from yourself, or are you an adult?

@ 7:38,

No victims in same-sex unions? I beg to differ. Giving "consent" does not mean that there is no victim. Before you can verify that there was no victim, you would have to examine the entire sexual history of an individual to see who offered sex, at what age and under what conditions. IF youth are enticed to make improper choices by predatory adults who are looking for sexual gratification, homosexual or not, then there is a victim. How many people were convinced that they were "gay" simply because some adult convinced them to participate in homosexual activity and then continued to tell them that they were homosexual? Some lawyer is going to examine that possibility and become the richest lawyer in the nation.

To "Linguist | 4:54 a.m." I was born attracted to multiple women. I realized this fact when I was 12, and that it is actually normal. What you are basing on genetics can be applied equally to polygamy.

The government is discriminating against my genetic programming, will you help me and others like me?

of this article, but comparing gay marriage to polygamous marraige doesn't compare well. Sure, they are both a form of a "marriage", but polygamy carries it's own unique problems such as underage marriages, sometimes abuse and sometimes neglect of many children. The gay issue compares more to heterosexual marriages in that they only want to commit to one person. Each issue needs to be taken up separately (including scouting issues) which has nothing to do with the others.

True polygamy has been associated with underage marriage, abuse, and neglect. But they are not all unique to poligamy. Homosexuality has been associated with STDS, abuse, and neglect. They both have black marks of child abuse in their histories.

They only dont compare well if you compare the best of the gay community with the worst of the polygamy community.

You must be a total feeb if you think that anyone could be convinced that they were gay if in fact they were not.

Are you really that obtuse? Because someone may or may not have been sexually victimized as a child we should restrict their marriages as an adult?

I really don't believe you are that stupid, but let me spell it out for you in case I am wrong:

Same-sex marriage does not victimize the two people that are getting married. Same-sex marriage does not victimize any children of the relationship. This is for a couple of reasons: namely, same-sex couples have children whether or not they are married and marriage will protect those families the same way heterosexual families are protected.

If we are going to examine sexual histories, we better start with heterosexual couples. After all, how many people were sexually molested by people of the opposite sex and thereby convinced they were heterosexual instead of homosexual?

Now that the channels are open for discussion on the legal view of love and committment, its time for polygamy to be seriously considered.

We've apparently "progressed" enough as a society to see past the few black marks on the record of homosexuality and make recognized homosexual couples a real possibility. We can wait another decade to see past polygamies few black marks or we can progress right now and leap forward with the heralding of revised marriage.

There are no legitimate reasons against polygamy that cant be brought up against any other form of marriage. If we open our eyes to the discrimination against homosexuality and embrace it in the new definition of "tolerance", we would be hypocrits of the largest order to deny the possibility of love due to number and in the name of "intolerance".

If its bigotry to deny marriage based on love in one situation, its bigotry to deny consentual love in all situations.

@ 9:36,

So, now you're angry because your logic is faulty.

Same-sex unions, by definition, cannot produce children. Unless the people involved are unfaithful to each other, or unless they resort to artificial means, there can be no offspring from that union. Maybe that is how the Creator protects society from homosexual activity.

Speaking of being obtuse, you certainly must be aware that the number of convicted sexual predators, as a percentage, in the homosexual community is many times higher than it is in the public at large. No victims? Why would someone be convicted of a crime if there was no victim?

re: HMMM; 9:22 | STDs, abuse and neglect have long been associated with heterosexuals. Since the dawn of time, actually.

When this country was founded, each person was afforded the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." In a same-sex marriage, there is no way to give someone life; why do you think life is written first? There is a reason men and women were created the way they were, so that they could create life. How about happiness? If children have two parents of the same sex, how will that affect them in their social life? It's not fair to children. However, let me say that there is no need to berate anyone for their lifestyle. I just think to protect the foundation of this country, and let's not forget that, like it or not, God was the foundation of this country, marriage should remain defined as between one man and one woman.

So "Dec. of Indep." you logic says that each person is afforded life liberty and the pursuit... and then equate the word life with procreation.

Does this mean that we should stop barren men or women from being married?

Should we force people to divorce if they get a sterilization opperation?

After all, in each case they can't give life to others.

"...aware that the number of convicted sexual predators, as a percentage, in the homosexual community is many times higher than it is in the public at large."

Not sure where you are getting your numbers, but in the public-at-large, the majority of sexual predators/abusers identify as heterosexual. The majority of offenses are never reported because they often involve familial relationships. Also important to note, the media has under-reported the fact that the abuse by Catholic Priests included many young girls.

My abuser was a school teacher, married with a wife and kids. He identified as heterosexual and yet abused only boys.

@Mike Richards 9:58 - "convicted sexual predators, as a percentage, in the homosexual community is many times higher than in the public at large"

Where are your sources?

some math for you: 300 Million Americans, appx. 3% gay = 9 million gays. say 1% convicted is 90 thousand. Of the 300 million if 1% convicted = 3 million. Seems to me that 3Million is much greater than 90 Thousand.

Until you can provide sources, I will have to assume that you exaggerate for effect and I will make the comparison using the same percentages in each group.

mike richards is a full of beans, he will not provide sources because he made it all up.
Same arguments as yesterday so I will include mine. Gay marriage is coming. As the bigots die, so does their bigotry. Just like the numbers of the KKK are declining, so are the numbers of homophobes. Gay marriage will come one funeral at a time.

"There are no legitimate reasons against polygamy that cant be brought up against any other form of marriage."

Except that they must discard unused boys. Tell me how that is the same in all other forms of marriage.

"How about happiness? If children have two parents of the same sex, how will that affect them in their social life? It's not fair to children."

Sorry, it is happening right here in Utah. Gay couples are raising children. You can either make these children's lives better or make them worse. If having God as the foundation of this country is more important than what it stands for (liberty and justice for ALL), I am sorry for you and sorrier for those children that may live around you.

I see your point, but I think you partially missed mine. My point was the way about which you create life, not necessarily the ability to do so. Under no circumstance can a same-sex couple create life, but with a man-woman marriage, it's at least possible, even if it's a .0000001% chance. Then there was my other point about the pursuit of happiness, etc. I honestly have nothing against those that choose to live their life that way, I just don't think it should be a legal way to be married. Personally I think it's wrong to even live that way, but I can't judge, and it is anyone's prerogative to do as they please.

"You are right. Polygamy and gay marriage are not the same. One can produce offspring and the other can't.
I don't think I need to continue the comparison, do I? "

Nope. No need to continue. It's a false comparison.

My 75+ year old aunt --the one who had had a complete hysterectomy-- married. I can assure you that she did not do so in order to "produce offspring".

On the other hand, I know of several gay couples who are raising kids, one from a previous heterosexual marriage.

Need I continue? ;-)

KVC wrote, "Linguist- You are implying that all practices with a "genetic" basis, like homosexuality, should be legitimized...And guess what, some kids do know at a young age they are a polygamist because that is how they grew up, and what their religion teaches.

With respect, I implied no such thing. I think the arguments are incredibly strong against forcing those who cannot give legal consent into marriage contracts (your example of pedophilia). No such arguments apply to adult gay couples, period.

As for a child "knowing" he is a polygamist, no, I don't believe it's at all comparable to be told by adults who (or how many people) you should marry --and the discovery that gay kids go through that they are gay. With respect, I truly think you don't understand what it means to grow up gay.

I do NOT believe that "anything goes". Many things truly do NOT "go". That doesn't make me a hypocrite. I believe my views are principled and supportable.

When I said no legitimate reasons, against polygamy I meant it, most reasons people drum up are against a small religious group like the FLDS.

Show me how every polygamous society has discarded of unused boys instead of JUST the recent FLDS, and Ill show you how its the same in other forms of marriage.

94% of convicted sexual predators are male.

Various studies show that at least 20% and up to 33% of victims are boys.

Less than 3% of the population is homosexual.

If 94% of convicted sexual predators are male and if 20% to 33% of sexual crimes are against boys, then who is committing those crimes? By definition a sexual act committed on a male with another male is a homosexual act.

If homosexual males committed the same PERCENT of sexual crimes, not more than 3% of the victims would be of the same sex as the perpetrator. Instead, the rate of sexual, specifically crimes committed by adult men against boys is SIX to TEN TIMES higher than the expected rate, based on the percentage of homosexual males in the population.

The common defense given by homosexual activists is to say that not all sex between a man and a boy should be classified as a crime. Nice try. Tell that to all the men who are serving prison sentences for statutory rape of an under-aged female. Consent means absolutely nothing when age is a factor.

Polygamous marriages in this context are a religious belief, protected by the US Constitution. The fact the Supreme Court does not believe what is plainly written in the Constitution is to their shame.
Both parents in the home is highly overrated as Brigham Young and so many early LDS Polygamists shows.
This is a matter of religious belief so let them practice it while enforcing laws against marrying those too young to freely enter into the marriage.

Redshirt wrote, To "Linguist | 4:54 a.m." I was born attracted to multiple women. I realized this fact when I was 12, and that it is actually normal. What you are basing on genetics can be applied equally to polygamy..."

Joking aside, you do realize that this means that no one can use the 'equal protection' argument in the instance of polygamy, right?

Gay people, on the other hand, can make that argument. And do.

Whatever one thinks of the restriction on one (1) spouse, it affects everyone equally, since all of us have the potential to be attracted to multiple individuals.

Gay people are not attracted to people of the opposite sex. That means, while you have a reasonable chance of finding someone who is eligible for you to marry, I have no such chance. Either equal protection protects gay people or it doesn't.

This isn't some abstraction, nor is it simply a philosophy or "lifestyle choice".

I didn't choose to be gay. I am a part of this society, and equal protection really does mean that I am covered by it --or ought to be covered-- in the case of the most important relationship in my life.

"Show me how every polygamous society has discarded of unused boys instead of JUST the recent FLDS, and Ill show you how its the same in other forms of marriage."

What happens to the boys. The percentage of baby boys and girls that are born into this world is almost 50-50. Actually, there is a higher percentage of boys!

If one man marries 2 women, we have one boy without a wife. If one man marries 3 women, we have two boys without partners. They are doomed to be single. The ugly secret is that they have been kicked out of their society for decades. It is usually for something the elders find offensive (looking at a girl, not obeying, etc.) and then there is one more girl to have married off to the elders.

How did you think these numbers added up? Do you see lots of unmarried men in these cultures? No. They are expelled, usuallly with little education and few skills. It is the worse part of polygamy.

I know sexual predators whose victims were boys and guess what? They identify as heterosexual, many of them are married to women and many of their victims were boys.

Many of those boys grew up and married women.

Sexual abuse of children is not about sex - it is about control.

Control pornography and will see a dramatic reduction in the number of male sex offenders. Guys are 'visual'. After using and abusing the porno sites they begin to act upon them. So.........there you have it!! Interesting that government if so eager to stop the use of tobacco but not quite so 'bullish' in promoting awareness of the evils of pornography. Perhaps we need more women in politics. It is a thought, isn't it??

You state, "Same-sex unions, by definition, cannot produce children. Unless the people involved are unfaithful to each other, or unless they resort to artificial means, there can be no offspring from that union. Maybe that is how the Creator protects society from homosexual activity."

Many heterosexual couples cannot have children without resorting to artificial means, maybe that is nature's way of protecting against over-population.

Still does not address my original point which was victimization. Nice straw-man though.

re RedShirt 9:09am
being attracted to multiple women doesn't mean you have to marry them. Are you in love with multiple women? Doubtful, so your argument doesn't hold water.

Mike Richards 9am
The main way people are convinced of something is when they are isolated and indoctrinated. I'm unaware of any compounds of gays, where they live in isolation and can be convinced they are all gay. I am aware of multiple compounds where the children are trained and indoctrinated that they should have multiple spouses and girls are trained to marry young and produce offspring young.
Your argument doesn't hold water.

Dec of Ind 10:17am
the declaration of independance states life, liberty, etc meaning that each person is entitled to that. To HAVE A LIFE, not create a life. And there are many many children that need a good home. Gay community has no problem raising them (and yes - they raise them to be straight.) Are we going to give these multitude of children to polygamsts? Seems to me they already pump out tons of children (and then kick out the boys at a young age)

It's the isolation and indoctrination associated with polygamy that is the problem.

@ mike richards 11:23

i sure hope you're not a statistician.

that 3% of the population who classify themselves as gay usually equals people who are homosexual with respect to their relations with others.

the 20-33% of sexual crimes committed by men against boys typically equal family relatives/neighbors who lead lives involving a wife, etc... and do not classify themselves as 'gay' when given a poll re: sexual preference.

give it up, man.

While I think your statistics about molestation (and what you think they say about gay people) are faulty, more importantly, they are irrelevant to this discussion.

I was never molested. I have never molested anyone. My partner and I have been together, in a consenting, mutually committed, completely monogamous relationship for many, many years. Of what relevance are your statistics to whether or not I can make a legal case of equal protection for my relationship under the law?

We could readily point to many groups, ethnic and other, with high rates of crime or disease or alcoholism. We don't dole out rights based on group statistics.

If there are arguments against polygamy, they have to be made separately from those against same-sex marriage. Or are you arguing that there are NO independent arguments against polygamy and NO independent arguments against same-sex marriage?

Mike Richards wrote, "...The common defense given by homosexual activists is to say that not all sex between a man and a boy should be classified as a crime..."

"Common defense"? I would certainly never make that claim, nor have I ever heard anyone --gay or non-gay--make that claim. It's a foolish claim. Minors cannot give their consent. Period. With respect, you are placing a rather larger red herring on the platter. We aren't talking about child molestation here. It is awful, but it is irrelevant to the rights afforded to consenting adults.

Your original post represented that the majority of sexual predators "in the public-at-large" were homosexual. Again, the majority of predators/abusers identify as heterosexual. There were boys in the FLDS groups that were sexually abused by the MALE leaders. One reason ALL children were removed from the compound and not just the girls.

ALL sexual activity between an adult and an under-age child (girls and boys) is and should be a crime. Period.

"The common defense given by homosexual activists is to say that not all sex between a man and a boy should be classified as a crime. "

I have NEVER heard any homosexual say that. I think you made that up. I need quotes and sources other than the disgraced NAMBLA. NAMBLA is not a part of the average homosexual's idea of life. I have been involved with homosexuals since 1983 and am appalled that you would spout those untruths.

Most psychologists state that MOST pedophiles sexually define themselves as heterosexual whether or not they abuse girls, boys or both. Pedophilia is not a loving or sexual gratifying act. It is an act of control and/or anger like rape. Some people are turned on by power over another and children are easy targets. You need to do a little more reading, Mike.

re Mike Richards 11:23am

you are confusing gay people with pedophiles. Ask almost any pedophile and he will adamently state he is heterosexual. These perverts are straight men that have some weird thing about young boys. That is NOT homosexuality. That's just a pervert. (I realize most religious zealots make no distinction between the two.)

You need to better understand the difference between a gay person and a pervert - even though your religious upbringing makes no distinction. The fact is, most perverts are male. Most males have easier access to young boys versus young girls. It's logical that perverts would molest young boys based on that.