And the slippery slope argument rears its ugly head...

[telecom_goddess]

(And good luck to them; the odds of failure probably go up exponentially with number of partners.)

It does Mine was polyamory rather than polygamy but same thing. But at the same time people should be allowed to have more than one partner without others sticking their nose in.

[BlaqueKatt]

It is possible to have more than two people be equal, but that's not polygamy as generally practiced. Work all the technical bugs out first, and I don't see why allowing the few people who'd want to make a go at a group marriage would be so bad.

Using that logic many couples shouldn't be allowed to get married, I know of many couples where the power is more one partners and they are by no means treated as an equal partner, but that's ok because why? Sorry I don't like double standards.

[AdminAssistant]

I don't like double standards either, but the image of polygamy is often "old Mormon/religious nut job with several young, submissive wives in a forced/arranged marriage." Not 3 people who decide to go into a contract together on equal footing.

[HYHYBT]

Using that logic many couples shouldn't be allowed to get married, I know of many couples where the power is more one partners and they are by no means treated as an equal partner, but that's ok because why? Sorry I don't like double standards.

Legally equal. That doesn't mean they can't choose to live such that one makes the decisions.

[wolfie]

I like how gay marriage got linked to gasp polygamy! The horror!

Article still loading, but I can see one way in which allowing gay marriage can lead to a clampdown on polygamy (especially polygyny). If gay marriage is allowed, you can no longer assume that all sexual activity within marriage is man-woman. Instead, you can assume that there will be sexual activity between ALL combinations of 2 people from a polygamous marriage. Since the abusive polygyny society needs to clamp down on (one old fart, multiple submissive young - and in some cases underage - women) tends to be confined to relatively small communities (i.e. fringe religious groups), the key would be to ban as incestuous ANY marriage where sexual relations between EVEN ONE PAIR of the people involved would be incestuous. Since in those communities it would be hard to find 2 women who weren't each other's sister/niece/1st cousin, that would automatically ban most such marriages.

Disclaimer: I have no objection to polygamous relationships between CONSENTING ADULTS. As for terminology, quite a few people confuse say "polygamy" when the proper term is "polygyny" (one man, multiple women - a subset of polygamy). Polygamy also includes polyandry (one woman, multiple men), 3 or more homosexual men, 3 or more lesbians, and "group marriages" (multiple men, multiple women - sexual activity might occur between all possible combinations of 2 members, only between heterosexual combinations, or between some but not all combinations without regard to heterosexual/homosexual pairings). So long as ALL the people involved are consenting adults, do whatever floats your boat.

[fireheart17]

and it just keeps getting better

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/o...-1226665640545

So while Bernardi has quit (?), he now believes that because 25 people signed a petition calling for polygamous marriages, that his fears are being held "true".

Of course ignoring the fact that 25 people equals practically one classroom worth and the number of people who are for gay marriage would probably fill all the state schools in Australia alone, he is NUTS.