My Poll: "Should polygamy be required, permitted, or prohibited?"

I made the comment:

Please select your best answers. Note that question number 2 allows you to select multiple answers, so please check all that apply. Thanks for your input, everyone.

EDIT: By request, a few clarifications are in order (my apologies). First, by "modern LDS teaching" I am referring to everything from the Woodruff manifesto forward. Second, definitions: "Polygyny" = man having multiple wives. "Polyandry" = woman having multiple husbands. "Polygamy" = polygyny and polyandry. Also, the question about legalization of polygyny and polyandry refers to whether the state will recognize the marital contract as enforceable and permitted under the law (as opposed to mere decriminalization or the state deeming the relationship a "marriage" instead of some other term).

Here are the results to my poll:

Should polygamy be required, permitted, or prohibited? Writing on a blank slate Rate Topic: Poll: If you had to assume that modern day LDS teachings on the subject did not exist, where would you come out? (24 member(s) have cast votes)
Should Polygamy be required, permitted, or prohibited?
Polygyny should be required to the extent commanded by God, but otherwise prohibited and polyandry should also be prohibited (2 votes [8.33%])
Percentage of vote: 8.33%
Polygyny should be required but polyandry should be prohibited (0 votes [0.00%])
Percentage of vote: 0.00%
Polygyny should be permitted but polyandry should be prohibited (2 votes [8.33%])
Percentage of vote: 8.33%
To the extent God commands, polyandry and polygyny should be required, but both should otherwise be prohibited (1 votes [4.17%])
Percentage of vote: 4.17%
Polygyny should be permitted to the extent God commands, but should otherwise be prohibited, and polyandry should be prohibited (0 votes [0.00%])
Percentage of vote: 0.00%
Polygyny and polyandry should be permitted to the extent God commands, but should otherwise be prohibited (4 votes [16.67%])
Percentage of vote: 16.67%
Polygyny and polyandry should be prohibited period, because God never commands or permits them (1 votes [4.17%])
Percentage of vote: 4.17%
Polygyny and polyandry should both be prohibited, for non-religious reasons (2 votes [8.33%])
Percentage of vote: 8.33%
Polygyny and polyandry should both be permitted, so long as there is full disclosure and consent among adults with capacity to consent (10 votes [41.67%])
Percentage of vote: 41.67%
Polygyny, but not polyandry, should be permitted, so long as there is full disclosure and consent among adults with capacity to consent (1 votes [4.17%])
Percentage of vote: 4.17%
Polyandry, but not polygyny, should be permitted, so long as there is full disclosure and consent among adults with capacity to consent (0 votes [0.00%])
Percentage of vote: 0.00%
Other (1 votes [4.17%])
Percentage of vote: 4.17%
What guiding principles influenced your answer to the first question above? (check all that apply)
God can and does issue commandments concerning whether polygyny and polyandry are required, permitted, or prohibited (12 votes [14.63%])
Percentage of vote: 14.63%
God never permits non-mongamous relationships, but I do not fully understand why (1 votes [1.22%])
Percentage of vote: 1.22%
God never permits non-mongamous relationships, because they are inherrently immoral (1 votes [1.22%])
Percentage of vote: 1.22%
God generally stays out of dictating to us how many partners of the opposite sex we choose to marry, and leaves that decision up to us (3 votes [3.66%])
Percentage of vote: 3.66%
Since I don't believe in God, I think consenting adults should be allowed to decide the type of relationships they want without religious constraints (6 votes [7.32%])
Percentage of vote: 7.32%
Marital relationships with multiple partners have potential benefits which could not be realized if polygyny and/or polyandry were prohibited (7 votes [8.54%])
Percentage of vote: 8.54%
Polygyny is inherrently coercive and allowing it necessarily invites abuse (3 votes [3.66%])
Percentage of vote: 3.66%
Inherent differences between men and women justify a different standards as to whether polygyny versus polyandry should be permitted or required (4 votes [4.88%])
Percentage of vote: 4.88%
Men and women are more likely to have fulfilling relationships if their choice in selecting a partner or partners is unconstrained by legal prohibitions against polygyny and/or polygamy (7 votes [8.54%])
Percentage of vote: 8.54%
Monogamy is in all instances bound to be a more fulfilling relationship than polygyny or polyandry (4 votes [4.88%])
Percentage of vote: 4.88%
Allowing polygyny and/or polyandry should be prohibited because of the confusion it would create in determining the rights and responsibilities of the parties involved and affected by the arrangement (2 votes [2.44%])
Percentage of vote: 2.44%
Religious leaders, if allowed to determine who can and cannot have a polygynous/polyandrous relationship, will likely be corrupted and exercise spiritual coercion (4 votes [4.88%])
Percentage of vote: 4.88%
Polygyny and polyandry should never be a condition of any reward after this life from God (i.e., salvation, exhaltation, etc.) (5 votes [6.10%])
Percentage of vote: 6.10%
Polygyny and polyandry, if allowed, foster a better-functioning and/or more efficient economy in that parties are more free to structure responsibilities such as child rearing, providing for families, education, etc. (4 votes [4.88%])
Percentage of vote: 4.88%
Polygyny and polyandry, even if purely consensual, are necessarily unhealthy for children growing up in such families (2 votes [2.44%])
Percentage of vote: 2.44%
Some people would rather share a partner with others than choose a less desirable parter whom they could have all to themselves (9 votes [10.98%])
Percentage of vote: 10.98%
To share a marital partner with someone else, even if done consensually, is inherrently degrading and the state should therefore not even allow someone to enter into such an arrangement voluntarily (3 votes [3.66%])
Percentage of vote: 3.66%
Polygynous and/or polyandrous relationships will likely lead to more sex, which would be unhealthy and/or inherrently corrupting (1 votes [1.22%])
Percentage of vote: 1.22%
Polygyny and/or polyandry simply amount to prostitution by another name (3 votes [3.66%])
Percentage of vote: 3.66%
Allowing polygyny/polyandry would create unfairness to people who, by virtue of physical appearance or poor economic status, would be less likely to find a partner (1 votes [1.22%])
Percentage of vote: 1.22%
Would you be in favor of legalizing polygyny and polyandry, provided laws were in place to help ensure full disclosure, consent, capacity, lack of coercion or duress, and protection from abuse or inequitable treatment upon divorce?
Yes (16 votes [66.67%])
Percentage of vote: 66.67%
Yes, but with additional requirements/conditions (1 votes [4.17%])
Percentage of vote: 4.17%
Never (3 votes [12.50%])
Percentage of vote: 12.50%
Need more time to think about it (0 votes [0.00%])
Percentage of vote: 0.00%
Not now, but I might reconsider if something changed (1 votes [4.17%])
Percentage of vote: 4.17%
I have no idea (0 votes [0.00%])
Percentage of vote: 0.00%
Only if my religious leaders said I should support such a measure (3 votes [12.50%])
Percentage of vote: 12.50%
Other (0 votes [0.00%])

To which one person responded:

"Some people would rather heed the words of dead prophets over the living. This applies to other areas as well."

To which I responded:

If we are concerned about people heeding the words of dead prophets, perhaps we ought to rethink the whole notion of prophetic inerrancy. Even prophets err, living or dead. Consequently, no prophet's teachings, living or dead, should be immune from scrutiny and critical analysis. The idea that we should automatically accept counsel/doctrine/teachings from a new prophet which contradicts that of an old prophet reminds me of Shakespeare's Taming of the Shrew, wherein a husband instructs his wife that the sun is really the moon, and proceeds to go back and forth on what it is, chastizing her each time she follows his prior instruction because it contradicts the new instruction. I believe that the doctrine of polygamy, as taught by Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and John Taylor, is irreconcilably inconsistent with the church's present-day blanket condemnation of everyone who practices polygamy today, as well as the church's current lack of support for (and probable strong opposition to) the legalization of polygamy.

And another person commented:

"I am sure that somewhere a history of polygamy exists somewhere, but I throw this out for thought. When JS began his affair with Fanny, polygamy was illegal in every state of the union. According to some historians I read, somewhere, one of the reasons why Smith got in trouble was that non-LDS townsfolk saw her pregnant, and since the town was very small, the amount of gossip about her and JS was very high.

Critics will state that that is why he got the "special revelation from God" in order to circumvent the existing laws on bigamy, and that also included polyganous relationships by definition.

Prior to Utah becoming a state, a 9-0 US Supreme Court case, Reynolds v. US declared in 1879 that polygamy was illegal in all of the US states and territories. That court ruling has never been reversed, and is almost certain to remain on the books forever.

Therefore, I ask why is it that some are seeking to do what is illegal in every state in the Union? Even should there be an independent nationn-within a nation of "deseret" be established like some Native American Indian reservations are done now, that does not give anyone the privilige to break the laws of the greater United States, to which the "independent nations" are held accountable.

There are many profound implications of the LDS people to want to re-establish polygamy which are extraneous to the main issue,

How do others see it?"

To which I responded:

As I recall, the Reynolds case did not make polygamy illegal. Rather, it upheld a statute criminalizing the practice notwithstanding the convict's contention that the constitution guaranteed his right to freely exercise his religion, including practicing polygyny as required by his (the LDS) church. The Court relied on several theories, among which were the fact that most civilizations throughout history were monogamous, that polygamy was troublesome, and that it would be unfair to punish one person for polygamy when another gets a free pass because it is part of their religious devotion.

In the centuries since the Reynolds decision, the U.S. Supreme Court seems to have adopted an ever more liberal interpretation of the "free exercise" clause of the First Amendment. I think it is certainly not a foregone conclusion that, if the right case were to come before the Supreme Court on the constitutionality of anti-polygamy laws, Reynolds would be reaffirmed. In addition, it is even less likely that polygamy will remain statutorily prohibited countrywide for the next two or three decades. I think it is very likely, at the very least, that some of the more liberal states would enact laws legalizing the practice under certain conditions. It will be particularly interesting to watch the Church's reaction to such trends, and to see whether the LDS Church leadership launches an anti-polygamy campaign similar to its support for Prop 8 in California.