But not on the main page? Because it is driving me nuts over there.

So many so-called progressives are using the same damn arguments that have been used again, and again, to invalidate gay marriage and miscegenation, for that matter. Here are a few summaries of the issues on the main page:

"It inherently victimizes people, mostly women."

To some extent this could be true. I'm sure that some women (and men) will become victims in a poly marriage. But you know what? Women and men are victims in all kinds of marriages. We don't shirk our duty to protect victims but just saying, "oh well, you can't marry this person, then." The potential for victimization should not prevent people in love from marrying, especially when we don't know how statistically relevant the potential even is. You know where else you hear this? In gay adoptions. Gays shouldn't adopt because of the potential for child abuse. As progressives we know this is absolute bullshit, but we are using the same language to describe poly relationships.

"It would be an administrative nightmare."

OMG you guys, remember when new york had to change its forms to no longer say "bride and groom"? Remember how it totally bankrupted the city? Me neither. Do you realize how often legislators craft complex legislation? It isn't a perfect system, but the fact that it is "hard" to deal with isn't a reason to deny someone the opportunity to marry the people they love.

"Just because you love multiple people doesn't mean you need to marry them"?

ORLY? That seems like an argument I've heard recently. How many times have we heard, but the gays have civil unions? I don't mind if they are doing their gay thing but I don't know why they have to be married.

If this statement bothers you as applied to homosexuals, then it isn't ok to say here. Sorry. People marry for myriad reasons, and it isn't your place to tell them they don't "need" to marry or that something else is sufficient.

"I can't imagine why anyone would want to marry multiple people."

Yeah? Well, that is because you are not so inclined. I am not so inclined to date women, but I don't go around saying that to my lesbian friends. Mostly because it ISN'T FUCKING RELEVANT. Who cares that you cannot "imagine" doing something? How is that the basis for legislation? Do you even hear what is coming out of your mouth right now?

"What about divorce! Dividing assets is so hard"—-this one from a person claiming they are a lawyer.

Give me a fucking break dude. Did you ever take Trusts and Estates? Family law?

Are you going to tell me that an estate of several equal adults would be so much harder to administer than an estate with and old dude with hidden assets in the Caymens, children from several marriages entitled to various assets, a step-son (who dude raised as a son) thrown in, and 13 living wills in various iterations of execution hanging around? Because we have cases like that. They come up all the time. And no one has denied this dude the right to marry on the basis that deciphering his finances is about as easy as herding cats.

So the next time you think that you are doing a good job of making a fairly reasoned argument against poly marriage, please check your phrase. If it is a phrase one of your Republican buddies or co-workers used against gay marriage in the last two years it probably isn't a good argument.



I'm didn't write this as a type of "equality now" speech. Honestly, I'm not out picketing for this issue, though who knows, maybe I will.

My point here was to raise an issue, which I think is one of cognitive dissonance, that I saw on the main page. I understand why people feel like polygamy, especially as embodied in that show or as it falls within religious norms, can be problematic. But I think we also forget that those items don't necessarily embody all that non-monogamy has to offer. Everyone has raised some interesting points, but I still stand by the idea that using the same tired arguments that we all bitch about as applied to LGBTQ issues to this situation is a little disingenuous.