No, there's no reason to do that. If you're trying to make a parallel to gay marriage, you're doing a poor job. Gay marriage is about two people who love each other and want the same rights as everyone else. If you have 57 people, they already have the same rights as everybody else.

group marriage should not be legalized.that is just wrong.2 people is enough in a marriage.whether it be heterosexual or homosexual marriage.

I accept polygyny. God accepts polygyny. group marriage is a little different but as a libertarian i see no reason for government to regulate consensual relationships. Employers routinely offer insurance to one dependent. Additional dependents usually result in an additional payroll deduction and are optionally covered by choice of the employee.

It is my opinion that group marriage should be legalized. I feel that the main reason there is so much stigmatism and crime associated with polygamy is because we allow it a breeding ground by keeping the groups in hiding. If we legalize and bring the polygamist out of their hiding spots, they will have no reason to fear the outside and therefor have no reason NOT to report the ones commiting inappropriate acts. As far as benefits, it would be unfathomable to ask employers to supply benefits to ALL members of these large households, but I think they should at least provide benefits to the primary spouse and household.

Marriage should be recognized as a civil contract outside of the religious context it has acquired over time. That is, competent adults should be allowed to enter into legal contracts, with all of the responsibilities, rewards and penalties that attach to other contracts. If churches want to "brand" marriage in certain ways that conform to "their way", then that's fine, too, as long as the civil rules apply as well. With that said, there is no "requirement" for employers to provide benefits of any kind outside of fair wages. (And by "fair" I mean "agreed-upon", less withholdings as required by various legal jurisdictions.) Personally, I think that "health insurance" should be divorced from employment, and we should buy it on an open market similar to the way we buy other forms of insurance: primarily auto, home and life. Pension and similar benefits, if any, would have to be handled by a survivorship provision that has yet to be invented for such a marital relationship. I don't see that as a particularly difficult thing to negotiate. PS: Your wording of "... a single employee's 57 husbands ..." is potentially misleading. An employee with 57 husbands is certainly NOT "single!"

No, I'm sorry, I dont think it should be legalized. Sure, we all have rights...and its not up to another to decide who we may fall in love with. But come on, where do we draw the line with all these moral issues! Two people-yes, but a group of people...? We are in a society where everything is becoming more & more acceptable, wrongful acts are being justified, almost like 'anything goes'. In fact, so many issues have become socially accepted, that marriage, in itself, is not valued as it once was. I think marriage should be the union of 2 people who love and want to commit to each other...that is what its all about right? Just my opinion!=)

As Gay marriage becomes the norm, than so should the rights of other sexual orientations, of which there are several. This would require addressing the rights of bisexuals, as well as those attracted to cousins, siblings, and a parent.