This is called a false dilemma. Where's the option:

I'm for monogamous marriage equality

PS. If this is your idea of fun, you may need some counseling.

In principle, I'm not opposed to polygamist marriage, but in practice, from what I've seen in terms of evidence, there's quite a bit of abuse in the relationships and it tends to not work out for the most part. With that being said, we can't legislate based on conjecture, because I don't think there's quite enough evidence to say that even a majority of polygamist unions are legitimately abusive.

So, with that being said, I'm am down for everything across the board, including multiple husbands/wives.

"Liberal perverts want to define marriage as orgies and bestiality!!!!!!"

Great way to feed the GOP machine, Rankles.

Your poll - on the slim chance that it is sincere - misses including all of the options and only leaves anti-answers.

To answer the question you leave unasked - "is polygamy OK?" - no, not in the common sense of a single man marrying multiple wives.  The Biblical version of this is the ownership of women.  The FLDS version of this is training girls to be the property of men.

What two or more independent adults choose to do in their relationships and/or bedrooms is their own choice, but polygamy in all its most common forms is equivalent to slavery.

"Great way to feed the GOP machine, Rankles."

I think he is a cog in the GOP machine.

So I reject your poll.  You provide only a choice of "one man and two wives."  What about one woman and two husbands?

I still say the best way to equality is to get the government out of this arena entirely.  The government shouldn't be "marrying" anyone--it should be establishing legally-recognized civil unions and/or domestic partnerships.  This would apply for a man and a women; two men; two women; a man and two women; two men and a woman; or any other combination you could name.  The only requirement would be that they're working together to support a household and want to grant certain rights to each other like filing taxes jointly and allowing hospital visitation and all the many other rights granted to married couples.

I disagree with those saying that there's something inherently proprietary in a polygamous marriage.  Monogamous marriage, for most of the world, is no longer about a man taking a wife as his property; why would polygamous marriage still be?  You can't make an argument based off what one fundamentalist LDS sect believes, because I assure you there are lots of fundamentalist sects around the world that still treat regular old monogamous marriage as a property contract.

Where's the option for marrying food products?

Luckily, there's a candidate out there who is in favor of letting marriage be defined by whatever church you favor.

Barack Obama's stance is that marriage is a religious right, while the rights and responsibilities currently inherent in marriage should be part of a comprehensive civil union program that includes all couples, straight, gay, transgendered, whatever.  Let churches argue over who gets to say that they're "married" while we're over here ensuring that any two people can make sure that they have property, tax, and visitation rights concurrant with what modern couples associate with marriage.

...and limiting for other reasons.

You mention a man living with two wives, but not a woman living with two husbands?  That's the problematic right there - the way polygamy has tended to work out in this country and in others, it is women who bear the burden of oppression and exploitation, but men who get the "reward" of multiple partners.

Moreover, the only options are that "A man living with two wives doesn't bother me" - which isn't a statement of legality, but of morality or taste.  I don't think polyamorous relationships are an ideal plan, and it bothers me a bit especially when those situations are abusive or coercive.  The abuse and coercion can be obvious - as in the FLDS crowd - or it can be covert, in attitudes, ways of talking and thinking, etc. that tell women (as the original polygamist LDS, and contemporary monogamous LDS, suggest) that they forego heaven if they don't marry.  In all but a few situations in more forward-thinking places, I think, polygamy equals gender oppression.  That bothers me quite a bit.

However, I think consenting adults should be able to enter into whatever legal union they want.  The key word being consenting - and there should be a much stronger test for polygamous relationships than for monogamous ones in that regard, at least for the time being, given the history of polygamy and gender oppression.

Moreover, while this would be an interesting thought piece coming from anyone else, your history on this site (and that of your sockpuppets) of pure, unabashed trollishness leads me to wonder what exactly your motives are in posting it.  Especially given the abusiveness of your alter-ego above, it seems to me that this diary is an attempt to divide this community.

SANTORUM: In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality --

AP: I'm sorry, I didn't think I was going to talk about "man on dog" with a United States senator, it's sort of freaking me out.

rankles/switching sides/switching sides2/ lemon714! I can't believe you've managed to get all these people to feed you. Congrats!

How in the fuck does this idiot still have an account here?  How much more obvious does it have to be that this person is a troll that uses multiple accounts?

Oh yeah, and this diary is a turd sandwich.