Should We Legalize Polygamy ?

[Threlizdun]

Try dating two people simultaneously, while being completely open about your intentions with all parties, before you think that polygamy is for you. And just to be on the safe side, have them date another person as well (or even each other) because if it's good for the goose it's good for the gander.

Next on Springer

Statistically, polyamarous relationships actually involve better communication than monogamous ones. Of course, you have to be prepared to devote a lot of time to communicating, or things get bad quickly.

[Imperial Esplanade]

Why should we legalize polygamy?

What suggests polygamy is a good thing in the slightest bit?

[Caymine]

Sure. I've been in a polyamorous relationship. It worked out fine. (Not in it anymore, but that's beside the point) Just make sure it's all based on love, not the urge to bang 4 chicks at once.

Why not.

I'm curious, mate- how old are you?

[United Dependencies]

First we would have to figure out all the legal stuff. Then sure, why not.

I'm not so certain we could get the legal things settled out.

Instead of getting married, why don't these people just set up trusts and corporations?

That would be so much easier on my life as a government bureaucrat.

[Patagonia Island]

Next on Springer

Statistically, polyamarous relationships actually involve better communication than monogamous ones. Of course, you have to be prepared to devote a lot of time to communicating, or things get bad quickly.

I'm fairly positive if you use that same standard for monogamous relationships you'd find similar results.

[Rechtsverein]

Yes, marriage should not be an issue of state. It is inappropriate for the state to grant special legal privileges (including tax credits) to what amounts (or would amount, were it not for the state's decree) to a private contractual arrangement between individuals. The impartiality of the law demands the privatization of the institution of marriage.

[Imperial Esplanade]

Statistically, polyamarous relationships actually involve better communication than monogamous ones. Of course, you have to be prepared to devote a lot of time to communicating, or things get bad quickly.

I'm fairly positive if you use that same standard for monogamous relationships you'd find similar results.

The whole concept of "communication" tends to fly over the heads of some people. I fail to see the logic behind legalizing polygamous marriages. Would it really involve better communication? Talking to more people about the same things is not necessarily better quality communication. Also, let's be real, if one cannot be mature enough to sustain a faithful monogamous relationship, how in the hell are they going to juggle two or mor--oh wait, now I see what's really going on here.

[Neutraligon]

First we would have to figure out all the legal stuff. Then sure, why not.

I'm not so certain we could get the legal things settled out.

Instead of getting married, why don't these people just set up trusts and corporations?

That would be so much easier on my life as a government bureaucrat.

Because marriage includes third party things that need to be taken into account. It would be highly expensive to do so using trusts and the like.

[United Dependencies]

I'm not so certain we could get the legal things settled out.

Instead of getting married, why don't these people just set up trusts and corporations?

That would be so much easier on my life as a government bureaucrat.

Because marriage includes third party things that need to be taken into account. It would be highly expensive to do so using trusts and the like.

I know I know, It's just, I have a hard enough time as it is trying to help people figure out who the proper heirs are of an intestate estate. Adding more spouses would make the process ridiculous. Not to mention that it would probably escalate the number of cases the court would have to hear when surviving heirs don't agree to the portions they receive.

[Bohari]

You seem to have some confusion about what the difference between right and wrong is.

Polygamy and other ideas that seek to destroy the sanctity of marriage are definitely wrong.

Freedom entails the freedom to have your own set of morals, regardless of anyone else's interpretation. Given that it breaks no laws, and harms no one. I'm all for polygamy with practical limits.

There is no freedom without law, order and basic moral values.

Pure Anarchy=Absolute freedom. I'm no advocate of pure anarchy, but you're wrong. There is nothing wrong with gay marriage or polygamy, so long as it's between consenting adults.

[Thermodolia]

Now that gay marriage is legalized, should we legalize polygamy ? My answer is yes. First, it is included in the Holy Scripture. In the Old Testament, many practiced polygamy. Therefore, I think we could practice it safely.
The concern I have with it is that only males could practice it. I would insist that females could practice it too. I think many females would be open to the notion of having say seven males living in there house. They could work and bring home there money to their wife.
So, what do you think N.Were ? Are you for it or against it ? How do you feel about having your wife in charge ?

I have the same stance with this that I have with drugs, Legalize it all!

[The New Sea Territory]

There is no freedom without law, order and basic moral values.

Orwellian doublethink, nothing more.

[Imperial Esplanade]

Polygamy and other ideas that seek to destroy the sanctity of marriage are definitely wrong.


There is no freedom without law, order and basic moral values.

Pure Anarchy=Absolute freedom. I'm no advocate of pure anarchy, but you're wrong. There is nothing wrong with gay marriage or polygamy, so long as it's between consenting adults.

Um, children that arise out of such marriages might be a somewhat critical consideration.

Pretty sure everyone within academia would agree that it doesn't bode well for them either.

[The New Sea Territory]

Polygamy and other ideas that seek to destroy the sanctity of marriage are definitely wrong.


There is no freedom without law, order and basic moral values.

Pure Anarchy=Absolute freedom.

Now this guy gets it.

[Jumalariik]

There is no freedom without law, order and basic moral values.

Orwellian doublethink, nothing more.

No. If there is no law, you are guaranteed nothing. That's not freedom.

[PaNTuXIa]

Yeah, there's literally nothing wrong with it.

[PaNTuXIa]

Orwellian doublethink, nothing more.

No. If there is no law, you are guaranteed nothing. That's not freedom.

Huh? My comrade is right, you are doublethinking. There is no freedom with moral values.

[Imperial Esplanade]

There is no freedom without law, order and basic moral values.

Orwellian doublethink, nothing more.

There is a (usually obviously gargantuan) difference between Orwellianism and governance.

[Bohari]

*twitch*

Get that twitch checked out mate could be something bad.

Just like homophobia.

[Llamalandia]

what's with all these edgy questions on NSG lately concerning banging people like your cousins or having ten wives

Well gay marriage had been kinda a mainstay controversial topic, now that it's basically been decided we need something to replace it.

[PaNTuXIa]

Orwellian doublethink, nothing more.

There is a (usually obviously gargantuan) difference between Orwellianism and governance.

He's not referencing Orwellianism, he's referencing the term "doublethink."

[Barboneia]

Eh, sure.

[Llamalandia]

Next on Springer

Statistically, polyamarous relationships actually involve better communication than monogamous ones. Of course, you have to be prepared to devote a lot of time to communicating, or things get bad quickly.

Well that right there is a reason not to legalize. Marriages are supposed to be about petty bickering insane shouting and general dysfunctionality.

[PaNTuXIa]

what's with all these edgy questions on NSG lately concerning banging people like your cousins or having ten wives

How is desiring multiple wives/husbands "edgy?" If the guy/girl is hot enough to get two wives/husbands that he/she loves, why is that illegal.

[Bohari]

Pure Anarchy=Absolute freedom.

Now this guy gets it.

Yeah I do.

Orwellian doublethink, nothing more.

No. If there is no law, you are guaranteed nothing. That's not freedom.

Freedom is the ability to do as you please without restrictions from any state or otherwise authority, yes? Therefore, pure anarchy means freedom in it's finest form. Ask any disestablishmentarian or anti-statist.