Polygamy, ok or not?
0
Polyamory, yes. Polygamy, no.
If you look at cultures where polygamy is institutionalized, you end up a lot of young, disaffected men with no real hope of having a heterosexual relationship. It's not by accident that a lot of the refugees from polygamous Christian sects are young men: they're intentionally pressured out of the community. And the sex imbalance in China from the one child policy is leading to things like trafficking women in from East Asian countries to rural parts where young men are finding it difficult to marry. To make it clear, trafficking humans is essentially trading in slaves. Slavery is bad, mmkay?
I have no problem with men having relationships with multiple women. However, I don't think strict polygamy is sustainable or healthy.
If you look at cultures where polygamy is institutionalized, you end up a lot of young, disaffected men with no real hope of having a heterosexual relationship. It's not by accident that a lot of the refugees from polygamous Christian sects are young men: they're intentionally pressured out of the community. And the sex imbalance in China from the one child policy is leading to things like trafficking women in from East Asian countries to rural parts where young men are finding it difficult to marry. To make it clear, trafficking humans is essentially trading in slaves. Slavery is bad, mmkay?
I have no problem with men having relationships with multiple women. However, I don't think strict polygamy is sustainable or healthy.
0
luinthoron
High Priest of Loli
It's not for me, but if all parties are OK with it, I see no problems.
0
Mr.Shaggnificent wrote...
Where's the "don't care" option?...If you don't care, why click on the topic?
0
Chlor wrote...
Never occurred to you that there should be a neutral standpoint on the topic?Well, if you don't have an opinion one way or the other...that's kind of what discussions like this are for.
But regardless, I'm not asking if people think Polygamy should be legalized, or if it should be state funded, or any...large step that hasn't been looked at before, just whether or not they approve of it.
I've been over this before, if you click no, that doesn't mean you are AGAINST it, it just means you're not convinced it's ok. In effect, it IS a neutral position to take.
It's like if I were to go to court as a jury member, I can only vote 2 ways, guilty, or not guilty.
But understand a vote of not guilty, is NOT an assertion of innocence. Get it?
0
Alright, I guess I can accept that answer. Even so, consider that when there is use, and there is the possibility to add a third option (Unlike in a jury, even thought it might be worth mentioning that in a lot of places a jury member can lay down a blank vote if he feels that he can't make a decision. Or even more choices, but w/e.) the neutral standpoint should be available by it's own vote.
But to answer your question: I wouldn't say that I approve, because I do not think positively about it, I do find the entire concept quite alien and if I ever ran into a polygamist I don't really know what I would think about it.
Part of me tells me it is fine, if they're all adults who have made up their own minds and agreed to have a polygamous relationship then they should be allowed to do that. This however does not mean I approve of the relationship in itself.
But to answer your question: I wouldn't say that I approve, because I do not think positively about it, I do find the entire concept quite alien and if I ever ran into a polygamist I don't really know what I would think about it.
Part of me tells me it is fine, if they're all adults who have made up their own minds and agreed to have a polygamous relationship then they should be allowed to do that. This however does not mean I approve of the relationship in itself.
0
BigLundi wrote...
Mr.Shaggnificent wrote...
Where's the "don't care" option?...If you don't care, why click on the topic?
because it's titled simply "polygamy", not do you approve of polygamy. i neither approve nor disapprove. people are going to do what people are going to do. if some want to be in a group marriage, that's up to them. it in no way affects me. just because i don't disapprove doesn't automaticly mean i approve.
also it annoys me when people make a poll with no option to abstain.
0
While I personally do not approve of polygamy for the sake of entertainment, I believe it is justified in extenuating circumstances. As a big fan of Plato I would actually love to create a guardian class as a large scale experiment using orphaned children who wouldn't actually know which children they themselves had ended up fathering - experiments aside - No! Polygamy is counter-productive, most progressive societies do not practice it, the reason being that that the bourgeois family is upheld by certain values and institutions such as marriage which in turn it make survival in the free market much much easier. - Just my own views on the matter, no offence intended
0
AWWWww another amusing topic.... why do you guys love me so much?
Well based on religion ( Islamic Religion) a man is able to have 3 or more wives..
Sure the idea of Polygamy is rather amusing at first but will it affect the others in a long run?
Personally I don't find this amusing since it gives me a sort of disturbing feeling and also disturbing image. Since the very idea of polygamy could hurt me in a emotional way and im a sensitive guy.
If the others are ok with it then I have nothing against it.. I just don't wanna be a part of it.
Well based on religion ( Islamic Religion) a man is able to have 3 or more wives..
Sure the idea of Polygamy is rather amusing at first but will it affect the others in a long run?
Personally I don't find this amusing since it gives me a sort of disturbing feeling and also disturbing image. Since the very idea of polygamy could hurt me in a emotional way and im a sensitive guy.
If the others are ok with it then I have nothing against it.. I just don't wanna be a part of it.
0
Wow, we're surprisingly divided on this issue. The arguments I've seen so far against polygamy are personal ones that of course wouldn't apply on an objective scale, but I understand them nonetheless as good reasons to personally not approve.
There was one argument on the last page that polygamy can lead to a society similar to China's, and human trafficking was involved? Sounds like a bit of a stretch but meh.
All in all, secular reasons against polygamy are low.
Then again, if everyone wouldn't be a polygamist for their own personal reasons in the first place, then the amount of polygamists would be low anyway, so there's almsot nothing to approve, or not approve of.
There was one argument on the last page that polygamy can lead to a society similar to China's, and human trafficking was involved? Sounds like a bit of a stretch but meh.
All in all, secular reasons against polygamy are low.
Then again, if everyone wouldn't be a polygamist for their own personal reasons in the first place, then the amount of polygamists would be low anyway, so there's almsot nothing to approve, or not approve of.
0
Cruz
Dope Stone Lion
If they're consenting adults, why not?
There might be some issues along the way but if they're making a commitment to be with each other they will have to work it out.
There might be some issues along the way but if they're making a commitment to be with each other they will have to work it out.
0
Well I doubt I would ever be in a relationship like that but so what? If 3 or more people agree to it who I am to interfere with that?
0
Well firstly polygamy will not be implemented because of the social problem it will cause. If you marry a foreigner, that woman/man gain the right to nationalise and become a citizen because you are a citizen. This will create a market of fake marriages for people who desire the country's citizenship, leading to a myriad of social problems due to foreign immigrants.
Polygamy also creates a situation where the more well off half of the population will be able to have multiple wife/husband. This creates a problem now as the lowest 10-20% of the population(likely to be under educated and/or unemployed) will find it virtually impossible to get a partner(1/10 of a rich man is worth more then one whole poor dude). These people have nothing to lose as they literally have nothing and it is not hard to imagine what kind of social mayhem these people will cause.(10% of the population is no small number)
Polygamy will lead to a amoral society. Certain issues like adultery and orgies which are usually frown upon in most societies will become commonplace as polygamy indirectly justify these action. Polygamy would cheapen the institution of marriage as it is no longer unique to the 2 person involve.(Cohabitation could come to replace marriage as marriage lose it's appeal)trophy wives, women/men seducing rich man/woman, multiple marriages(married to 2 wives, second wife is married to best friend as well etc) essentially it is a downward spiral into amoral society.
Essentially no political party will stand behind polygamy because of the problems it would and could bring and there is just not much support for the idea in the general public.(Most people do not approve of polygamy in the polls even though most comments are along the lines of if they all agree to it then its ok)
Polygamy also creates a situation where the more well off half of the population will be able to have multiple wife/husband. This creates a problem now as the lowest 10-20% of the population(likely to be under educated and/or unemployed) will find it virtually impossible to get a partner(1/10 of a rich man is worth more then one whole poor dude). These people have nothing to lose as they literally have nothing and it is not hard to imagine what kind of social mayhem these people will cause.(10% of the population is no small number)
Polygamy will lead to a amoral society. Certain issues like adultery and orgies which are usually frown upon in most societies will become commonplace as polygamy indirectly justify these action. Polygamy would cheapen the institution of marriage as it is no longer unique to the 2 person involve.(Cohabitation could come to replace marriage as marriage lose it's appeal)trophy wives, women/men seducing rich man/woman, multiple marriages(married to 2 wives, second wife is married to best friend as well etc) essentially it is a downward spiral into amoral society.
Essentially no political party will stand behind polygamy because of the problems it would and could bring and there is just not much support for the idea in the general public.(Most people do not approve of polygamy in the polls even though most comments are along the lines of if they all agree to it then its ok)
1
Time to play a little Devil's Advocate.
You ARE aware that all of that applies to straight marriage as well, right? you're not arguing against polygamy in this paragraph, you're arguign against marriage.
Oh no...rich people will have a lot of lovers! Good thing that doesn't happen now...>.>
More seriously, I have to wonder if this was a serious argument, as women actually OUTNUMBER men in this country, and you're literally saying that the rich 1% of the country will take all the women and men of the 99% and all the extremely poor lower 10-20% will be reduced to a bunch of cave men roaming around angrily because of massive cases of blue balls.
Is that REALLY what you're arguing? Because I don't see it.
Actually polygamy doesn't justify adultery, and I personally don't see what's so immoral about orgies, would you mind demonstrating that orgies are morally wrong?
Well, if we're going to go with that, I'd like to point out that this is the EXACT SAME argument against homosexual marriage that I find silly "Marriage is defined as a man and a woman! Expanding it to include same sex would cheapen it!" And yes, that is the same logic you're giving, "Marriage is between two people! Expanding it to mean multiple lovvers cheapens it!"
I don't buy it.
We already have an over 50% divorce rate, many people are multiply divorced AND multiply married, and...what's the problem with womenand men seducing eachother?
You say this leads to an amoral society, but you haven't really been as clear about how that's the case as you seem to think.
*blinks* Wait...no political party would support it...because it doesn't have general support...but most of the posts here show that people seem to be fore it.
I think most people, if the issue were explained clearly, would fall along the lines of "Well I don't know if I would partake, but I suppose what other consenting adults do in their bedroom is their deal."
realisationinme wrote...
Well firstly polygamy will not be implemented because of the social problem it will cause. If you marry a foreigner, that woman/man gain the right to nationalise and become a citizen because you are a citizen. This will create a market of fake marriages for people who desire the country's citizenship, leading to a myriad of social problems due to foreign immigrants.You ARE aware that all of that applies to straight marriage as well, right? you're not arguing against polygamy in this paragraph, you're arguign against marriage.
Polygamy also creates a situation where the more well off half of the population will be able to have multiple wife/husband. This creates a problem now as the lowest 10-20% of the population(likely to be under educated and/or unemployed) will find it virtually impossible to get a partner(1/10 of a rich man is worth more then one whole poor dude). These people have nothing to lose as they literally have nothing and it is not hard to imagine what kind of social mayhem these people will cause.(10% of the population is no small number)
Oh no...rich people will have a lot of lovers! Good thing that doesn't happen now...>.>
More seriously, I have to wonder if this was a serious argument, as women actually OUTNUMBER men in this country, and you're literally saying that the rich 1% of the country will take all the women and men of the 99% and all the extremely poor lower 10-20% will be reduced to a bunch of cave men roaming around angrily because of massive cases of blue balls.
Is that REALLY what you're arguing? Because I don't see it.
Polygamy will lead to a amoral society. Certain issues like adultery and orgies which are usually frown upon in most societies will become commonplace as polygamy indirectly justify these action.
Actually polygamy doesn't justify adultery, and I personally don't see what's so immoral about orgies, would you mind demonstrating that orgies are morally wrong?
Polygamy would cheapen the institution of marriage as it is no longer unique to the 2 person involve.
Well, if we're going to go with that, I'd like to point out that this is the EXACT SAME argument against homosexual marriage that I find silly "Marriage is defined as a man and a woman! Expanding it to include same sex would cheapen it!" And yes, that is the same logic you're giving, "Marriage is between two people! Expanding it to mean multiple lovvers cheapens it!"
I don't buy it.
(Cohabitation could come to replace marriage as marriage lose it's appeal)trophy wives, women/men seducing rich man/woman, multiple marriages(married to 2 wives, second wife is married to best friend as well etc) essentially it is a downward spiral into amoral society.
We already have an over 50% divorce rate, many people are multiply divorced AND multiply married, and...what's the problem with womenand men seducing eachother?
You say this leads to an amoral society, but you haven't really been as clear about how that's the case as you seem to think.
Essentially no political party will stand behind polygamy because of the problems it would and could bring and there is just not much support for the idea in the general public.(Most people do not approve of polygamy in the polls even though most comments are along the lines of if they all agree to it then its ok)
*blinks* Wait...no political party would support it...because it doesn't have general support...but most of the posts here show that people seem to be fore it.
I think most people, if the issue were explained clearly, would fall along the lines of "Well I don't know if I would partake, but I suppose what other consenting adults do in their bedroom is their deal."
0
As long as all parties are of age, consent, and both genders can practice (polygyny AND polyandry!).
0
I have no problem with it.
Polygamy in itself is fine, but the reason it's illegal is due to all the cults and what not.
So as long as its not a crazy cult, i have no problem with it.
I saw one family on Dr.Phil where the guy had 3 wives, and had a happy normal family.
Polygamy in itself is fine, but the reason it's illegal is due to all the cults and what not.
So as long as its not a crazy cult, i have no problem with it.
I saw one family on Dr.Phil where the guy had 3 wives, and had a happy normal family.
Spoiler:
0
BigLundi wrote...
There was one argument on the last page that polygamy can lead to a society similar to China's, and human trafficking was involved? Sounds like a bit of a stretch but meh.It's not a stretch. The examples I gave (polygamous Christian sects in America, sex ratio imbalance in China) have real, quantitative effects on societies. It happens pretty much anywhere there's institutionalized polygamy or a scarcity of one sex. Even Australian aborigines had to deal with this problem.
Young men (who usually aren't rich or well-established) get the short end of the polygamy stick, contrary to what virtually any harem anime ever would have you believe.
Polyamory is the way to go.
0
FK I'm talking to a retard
You ARE aware that all of that applies to straight marriage as well, right? you're not arguing against polygamy in this paragraph, you're arguign against marriage.
i can tell you the main reason why very few people partake in this kind of crime. Most man do not wish to sacrifice 5 years of their life not being able to marry for 5 grand usd approximately and it is extremely dangerous for the middleman to arrange this kind of deal as few would agree(People that disagree could very well report the middleman to the police).Now imagine if polygamy is allowed, the market for this kind of dealings will skyrock, now the man/woman can get 5 grand for no effort at all and there is very little risk involve since the government cannot possible track every immigrant marriage and check it's authenticity.
Oh no...rich people will have a lot of lovers! Good thing that doesn't happen now...>.>
More seriously, I have to wonder if this was a serious argument, as women actually OUTNUMBER men in this country, and you're literally saying that the rich 1% of the country will take all the women and men of the 99% and all the extremely poor lower 10-20% will be reduced to a bunch of cave men roaming around angrily because of massive cases of blue balls.
Is that REALLY what you're arguing? Because I don't see it.
In the united stats the sex ratio is currently 97 males to 100 females 2011. At birth the ratio is 105 males to 100 females. YES this means that there are more males then females born for every year since the year 1980s
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2018.html
By allowing polygamy rich people will always have the sign above them;I'M FKING AVAILABLE. And i dare say they will get more lovers and more wives than they are getting now. This essentially means there will be more sexually and emotionally frustrated people who are also under education and unemployed or lowly employed and millions of these kind of people do great things; remember Greece? Remember the i am the 99% protests? The Arab dawn? All these are the result of frustration and and i can tell you the riots are not pretty nor are they productive to your country's economy and international image.
Actually polygamy doesn't justify adultery, and I personally don't see what's so immoral about orgies, would you mind demonstrating that orgies are morally wrong?
Dude I said amoral not immoral, English might not be my first language but i am certain my English is not that bad, let me bring out a dictionary for you.
amoral†‚[ey-mawr-uhl, a-mawr-, ey-mor-, a-mor-]
adjective-not involving questions of right or wrong; without moral quality; neither moral nor immoral.
Issues like polygamy, incest, adultery orgies are all amoral issues meaning they are neither right or wrong but are generally frowned upon by the general public (unless you are living in a cave).Polygamy justifies adultery because there will be no such thing as adultery; Sex is not uncommon during dating and dating after you are married well that's what polygamy is about isn't it.
Well, if we're going to go with that, I'd like to point out that this is the EXACT SAME argument against homosexual marriage that I find silly "Marriage is defined as a man and a woman! Expanding it to include same sex would cheapen it!" And yes, that is the same logic you're giving, "Marriage is between two people! Expanding it to mean multiple lovvers cheapens it!"
I don't buy it.
Marriage is suppose to change your social status meaning you move from single and available to married and unavailable. Polygamy effectively negates the change and therefore nullify the need for marriage. I say it cheapens marriage because it defeats the entire purpose of marriage something which gay marriage does not do.
We already have an over 50% divorce rate, many people are multiply divorced AND multiply married, and...what's the problem with womenand men seducing eachother?
You say this leads to an amoral society, but you haven't really been as clear about how that's the case as you seem to think.
There is no problem with men and women seducing each other just now men and women can seduce married man/women or worst married man/woman seducing other married man/woman. This is a spiral of amorality that essentially destroys the institution of marriage as marriage loses it's purpose.
*blinks* Wait...no political party would support it...because it doesn't have general support...but most of the posts here show that people seem to be fore it.
I think most people, if the issue were explained clearly, would fall along the lines of "Well I don't know if I would partake, but I suppose what other consenting adults do in their bedroom is their deal."
No act will become law unless a politician lobbies and stand as the face of the movement and ultimately gain approval from congress. What i'm saying is this even in a extremely pro-choice forum like this adult site forum you poll shows that people barely supports polygamy, well good luck in trying to make it anything more then a fantasy.
BigLundi wrote...
You ARE aware that all of that applies to straight marriage as well, right? you're not arguing against polygamy in this paragraph, you're arguign against marriage.
i can tell you the main reason why very few people partake in this kind of crime. Most man do not wish to sacrifice 5 years of their life not being able to marry for 5 grand usd approximately and it is extremely dangerous for the middleman to arrange this kind of deal as few would agree(People that disagree could very well report the middleman to the police).Now imagine if polygamy is allowed, the market for this kind of dealings will skyrock, now the man/woman can get 5 grand for no effort at all and there is very little risk involve since the government cannot possible track every immigrant marriage and check it's authenticity.
BigLundi wrote...
Oh no...rich people will have a lot of lovers! Good thing that doesn't happen now...>.>
More seriously, I have to wonder if this was a serious argument, as women actually OUTNUMBER men in this country, and you're literally saying that the rich 1% of the country will take all the women and men of the 99% and all the extremely poor lower 10-20% will be reduced to a bunch of cave men roaming around angrily because of massive cases of blue balls.
Is that REALLY what you're arguing? Because I don't see it.
In the united stats the sex ratio is currently 97 males to 100 females 2011. At birth the ratio is 105 males to 100 females. YES this means that there are more males then females born for every year since the year 1980s
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2018.html
By allowing polygamy rich people will always have the sign above them;I'M FKING AVAILABLE. And i dare say they will get more lovers and more wives than they are getting now. This essentially means there will be more sexually and emotionally frustrated people who are also under education and unemployed or lowly employed and millions of these kind of people do great things; remember Greece? Remember the i am the 99% protests? The Arab dawn? All these are the result of frustration and and i can tell you the riots are not pretty nor are they productive to your country's economy and international image.
BigLundi wrote...
Actually polygamy doesn't justify adultery, and I personally don't see what's so immoral about orgies, would you mind demonstrating that orgies are morally wrong?
Dude I said amoral not immoral, English might not be my first language but i am certain my English is not that bad, let me bring out a dictionary for you.
amoral†‚[ey-mawr-uhl, a-mawr-, ey-mor-, a-mor-]
adjective-not involving questions of right or wrong; without moral quality; neither moral nor immoral.
Issues like polygamy, incest, adultery orgies are all amoral issues meaning they are neither right or wrong but are generally frowned upon by the general public (unless you are living in a cave).Polygamy justifies adultery because there will be no such thing as adultery; Sex is not uncommon during dating and dating after you are married well that's what polygamy is about isn't it.
BigLundi wrote...
Well, if we're going to go with that, I'd like to point out that this is the EXACT SAME argument against homosexual marriage that I find silly "Marriage is defined as a man and a woman! Expanding it to include same sex would cheapen it!" And yes, that is the same logic you're giving, "Marriage is between two people! Expanding it to mean multiple lovvers cheapens it!"
I don't buy it.
Marriage is suppose to change your social status meaning you move from single and available to married and unavailable. Polygamy effectively negates the change and therefore nullify the need for marriage. I say it cheapens marriage because it defeats the entire purpose of marriage something which gay marriage does not do.
BigLundi wrote...
We already have an over 50% divorce rate, many people are multiply divorced AND multiply married, and...what's the problem with womenand men seducing eachother?
You say this leads to an amoral society, but you haven't really been as clear about how that's the case as you seem to think.
There is no problem with men and women seducing each other just now men and women can seduce married man/women or worst married man/woman seducing other married man/woman. This is a spiral of amorality that essentially destroys the institution of marriage as marriage loses it's purpose.
BigLundi wrote...
*blinks* Wait...no political party would support it...because it doesn't have general support...but most of the posts here show that people seem to be fore it.
I think most people, if the issue were explained clearly, would fall along the lines of "Well I don't know if I would partake, but I suppose what other consenting adults do in their bedroom is their deal."
No act will become law unless a politician lobbies and stand as the face of the movement and ultimately gain approval from congress. What i'm saying is this even in a extremely pro-choice forum like this adult site forum you poll shows that people barely supports polygamy, well good luck in trying to make it anything more then a fantasy.
-1
realisationinme wrote...
FK I'm talking to a retardThat's not nice :P
i can tell you the main reason why very few people partake in this kind of crime. Most man do not wish to sacrifice 5 years of their life not being able to marry for 5 grand usd approximately and it is extremely dangerous for the middleman to arrange this kind of deal as few would agree(People that disagree could very well report the middleman to the police).Now imagine if polygamy is allowed, the market for this kind of dealings will skyrock, now the man/woman can get 5 grand for no effort at all and there is very little risk involve since the government cannot possible track every immigrant marriage and check it's authenticity.
Again, even if polygamy isn't allowed, this argument still applies to the current standings of marriage. If you have a problem with IMMIGRATION laws in the country, then fine, but that's what you're addressing, not polygamy.
In the united stats the sex ratio is currently 97 males to 100 females 2011. At birth the ratio is 105 males to 100 females. YES this means that there are more males then females born for every year since the year 1980s
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2018.html
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2018.html
...k...still doesn't mean anything. Also, sex and birth ratios aren't flat...they change. So I don't even see your point here.
By allowing polygamy rich people will always have the sign above them;I'M FKING AVAILABLE. And i dare say they will get more lovers and more wives than they are getting now. This essentially means there will be more sexually and emotionally frustrated people who are also under education and unemployed or lowly employed and millions of these kind of people do great things; remember Greece? Remember the i am the 99% protests? The Arab dawn? All these are the result of frustration and and i can tell you the riots are not pretty nor are they productive to your country's economy and international image.
Ok, you STILL don't understand all the levels that this argument fails. so let me make a few points.
1. Rich people already hold giant signs over their heads saying "IM FKIN AVAILIABLE!" Letting them marry all the girls they hook up with doesn't really change the situation whatsoever.
2. Did you seriously just compare lack of availiable sex to economic collapse?
3. Even if it were the scase that the rich were taking everyone to marry...that includes the 99% that would be doing the protests, so it's a complete non issue.
Dude I said amoral not immoral, English might not be my first language but i am certain my English is not that bad, let me bring out a dictionary for you.
amoral†‚[ey-mawr-uhl, a-mawr-, ey-mor-, a-mor-]
adjective-not involving questions of right or wrong; without moral quality; neither moral nor immoral.
amoral†‚[ey-mawr-uhl, a-mawr-, ey-mor-, a-mor-]
adjective-not involving questions of right or wrong; without moral quality; neither moral nor immoral.
Oh, so your argument was just COMPLETELY non-issue related, as you were simply saying, "It doesn't lead to anything bad or good...I'm just sayin."
Issues like polygamy, incest, adultery orgies are all amoral issues meaning they are neither right or wrong but are generally frowned upon by the general public (unless you are living in a cave).Polygamy justifies adultery because there will be no such thing as adultery; Sex is not uncommon during dating and dating after you are married well that's what polygamy is about isn't it.
Two more points.
1. "They're neither right or wrong but are generally frowned upon by the general public(unless you're living in a cave) The question to address is WHY? If they're frowned upon, then there are reasons, right? What are those reasons? Are they good reasons? If they're not, then why the fuck should anyone frown upon them? These are things to address, as if you DON'T, then you're not really making a point, you're just saying words.
2. Adultery is having sex OUTSIDE of a marrtiage. Polygamy is multiple partner marriage. So...there's STILL marriage...which means there's still quite such a thing as adultery. The thing is, when people engage in polgyamy, they also engage in polyamory(not always, but let's presume the people involved aren't religious crazy people) Which literally says, "I am going to be married to this group of people, and none of us will have sex with anyone but eachother." So...your point is invalid. :)
Marriage is suppose to change your social status meaning you move from single and available to married and unavailable. Polygamy effectively negates the change and therefore nullify the need for marriage. I say it cheapens marriage because it defeats the entire purpose of marriage something which gay marriage does not do.
Again, two more points.
1. To your first sentence, you're factually incorrect, as as I said above, the polygamy that goes with polyamory leads to people being married...and unavailiable.
2. What exactly is the purpose of marriage? If it's just that social status thing...then your point is moot here as well, as polygamy doesn't inherently negate that at all.
There is no problem with men and women seducing each other just now men and women can seduce married man/women or worst married man/woman seducing other married man/woman. This is a spiral of amorality that essentially destroys the institution of marriage as marriage loses it's purpose.
Again, wtf is marriage's purpose, for one, and again, none of that is at all inherently true. again, learn what polyamory is. You seem to have this idea that polygamy is just everyone fucking everyone. This...isn't true. It's called polygamy because it IS marriage. Because it DOES construct an institution. and it's not permission for married people to seduce other married people.
You're thinking about Swingers...not polygamy.
No act will become law unless a politician lobbies and stand as the face of the movement and ultimately gain approval from congress. What i'm saying is this even in a extremely pro-choice forum like this adult site forum you poll shows that people barely supports polygamy, well good luck in trying to make it anything more then a fantasy.
Did you just make a presupposition that the people on this forum are inherently liberal? Do you not understand that there are MANY pro-lifers in this forum, that there are PLENTY of people who aren't for gay marriage, that there are PLENTY of people in the forum of ALL different political views, from christians, to muslims, to atheists, we'rE ALL here...and my poll showed that of a complete melting pot of all diffferent views, 50% of people were perfectly ok with it, and all the people who VOICED an opinion in posts majoritively were ok with it. Again, your point is just wrong.