After reading about 'Sister Wives' challenging the state of Utah's stand on marriage of one man - one woman; how is any different than states recognizing same sex marriage. Just wondering if same-sex states also recognize marriage with multiple wives or husbands?

After reading about 'Sister Wives' challenging the state of Utah's stand on marriage of one man - one woman; how is any different than states recognizing same sex marriage. Just wondering if same-sex states also recognize marriage with multiple wives or husbands?

As far as I am aware, they do not. Marriage or Civil Unions are always between TWO consenting adults that aren't already in a similar agreement.

I would say its a HUGE difference. Morally, I couldn't care less, but as far as benefits, etc. go - what a nightmare that would be to list 3-6 spouses.

I would say its a HUGE difference. Morally, I couldn't care less, but as far as benefits, etc. go - what a nightmare that would be to list 3-6 spouses.

Taxes and benefits are where I see the biggest policy issues. Morally, it doesn't bother me. Just not my cup 'o tea.

I don't get plural marriage. It's really beyond me why any chap would want to exponentially increase his opportunity to be oh so very wrong. <VBG>

I don't get plural marriage. It's really beyond me why any chap would want to exponentially increase his opportunity to be oh so very wrong. <VBG>

Imagine the divorce settlement on how that would work...and if the first one would have a domino effect with the others. Five spouses, each takes half when they leave...$1M, $500K, $250K, $125K, $62K.

I couldn't care less if we have plural marriages as long as they're between consenting adults. I feel the same way about same sex marriage. I don't feel like personal choices that are not damaging to an individual are my business. As far as the state is concerned, I'm not sure it's their business as long as everyone pays taxes. If the husband dies, just divide his social security equally between the surviving wives. Or, the reverse: surviving husbands.

I couldn't care less if we have plural marriages as long as they're between consenting adults. I feel the same way about same sex marriage. I don't feel like personal choices that are not damaging to an individual are my business. As far as the state is concerned, I'm not sure it's their business as long as everyone pays taxes. If the husband dies, just divide his social security equally between the surviving wives. Or, the reverse: surviving husbands.


I was discussing this with my wife, who is in HR and also handles benefits. She was giving scenarios where plural marriage could really have negative effects on all employee benefits if all spouses were treated equally in plural marriages.

As far as I am aware, they do not. Marriage or Civil Unions are always between TWO consenting adults that aren't already in a similar agreement.

If the gender isn't important, why should the number? Marriage was always between a male and a female and that was set aside as insignificant. Tradition no longer decides. Why would two be more deserving than three or more?

I don't want to start a huge argument, but it is an outright lie to say that marriage was always between one man and one woman. It's not even the case in the good book...

If the gender isn't important, why should the number? Marriage was always between a male and a female and that was set aside as insignificant. Tradition no longer decides. Why would two be more deserving than three or more?

In the traditional and modern period. Marriage include same sex couples dating back almost 2000 years to Rome, Greece, China, and Europe. So don't argue that point too much. When does tradition start and end? There were plenty of group marriages through the centuries, but that has been outlawed in nearly every country.

Tradition is just a word people use to make them feel good about the way they act or choose to do something. It was tradition to stone people, set them on fire, hang them, cut off limbs, rape them, and so on. Do we accept that tradition? Of course not, it doesn't make us feel good inside and we know better how to treat people. Human society has been ever evolving. Heck in the last century alone we've evolved a ton. Should we go back to respecting tradition and tell women to get back in the kitchen, quit their jobs, serve their man and take care of the kids? Hell no. We have moved past that point of our history...hopefully. Though if we don't look back and evaluate the harm we've caused, we are bound to repeat it going forward and there are many who think that rights we share across all people today are going to be significantly fewer going forward in time.

Interestingly, the LDS religion has not changed their belief that polygamy is God's will and there will be polygamous families in the hereafter. It's a very big deal who you are "sealed to" in their temple rituals. If you're not "sealed" then you may not be with your loved ones in eternity.

I don't want to start a huge argument, but it is an outright lie to say that marriage was always between one man and one woman. It's not even the case in the good book...

I think you are mistaken.

In the traditional and modern period. Marriage include same sex couples dating back almost 2000 years to Rome, Greece, China, and Europe. So don't argue that point too much. When does tradition start and end? There were plenty of group marriages through the centuries, but that has been outlawed in nearly every country.

Tradition is just a word people use to make them feel good about the way they act or choose to do something. It was tradition to stone people, set them on fire, hang them, cut off limbs, rape them, and so on. Do we accept that tradition? Of course not, it doesn't make us feel good inside and we know better how to treat people. Human society has been ever evolving. Heck in the last century alone we've evolved a ton. Should we go back to respecting tradition and tell women to get back in the kitchen, quit their jobs, serve their man and take care of the kids? Hell no. We have moved past that point of our history...hopefully. Though if we don't look back and evaluate the harm we've caused, we are bound to repeat it going forward and there are many who think that rights we share across all people today are going to be significantly fewer going forward in time.

I think we have a much stronger histor of polygamy than same sex marriage. Same sex marriage made no sense until recently when the purpose of marriage became something other than producing and protecting children.

I think you are mistaken.

I'm confused, are you arguing that polygamy is a set of marriages between a man and a woman, and therefore marriage has always been between "one man and one woman?" Just asking, clarification of your argument would be nice.

In lighter news, http://www.theonion.com/articles/vatican-reverses-stance-on-gay-marriage-after-meet,20912/