General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIf polygamy can empower women, why not legalize it?
&list=WL0E100504AC4201EDAn interesting feminist perspective on polygamy, as practiced by modern-thinking groups. WHy not allow it if all people are at least 18 and make the choice to live as a group rather than a couple?
Still dislike the polygamy thing, especially since it's tied to religion so much.
Much, much more preference for polyamory and what that all stands for and means.
Emelina
(188 posts)Besides, not all polygamy is tied to religion, but so what if it was? Everyone should have freedom of choice.
Xithras
(16,191 posts)In most states, polyamorous couples can be prosecuted and imprisoned under the same bigamy laws used to prosecute polygamous couples. In many states, the only requirement is that more than two people live together and are sexually active.
Blue_Adept
(6,402 posts)doesn't have quite the stigma that polygamy does. Sometimes you just can't win with a particular word and have to move away from it, reinvent it with something new and change the approach. Polygamy and polyamory aren't the same thing by a longshot.
Xithras
(16,191 posts)Legally, most states don't actually prohibit polygamy...they prohibit bigamy. Bigamy laws are written to cover the act of entering into a marriage with one person (or presenting yourself as spouses, even if not legally married) while married to another, irrespective of the genders of the people involved, or the power dynamics between them.
I tend to take a very libertine attitude toward marriage myself and believe that it should all be "legal". You shouldn't have to ask the government for permission to marry someone. Gay or straight, two or twenty.
TampaAnimusVortex
(785 posts)If they want to call themselves married or not, paint each other purple with pink polka dots, if they want to duct tape Christmas ornaments to their elbows and walk around like a duck... whatever.
Long as they aren't violating each other's rights or abusing children, who are we to tell them they cant do what they want? Long as anyone isn't being forcibly restrained from leaving the arrangement (or through threat of force), I don't see an issue.
leftyladyfrommo
(18,874 posts)I'm from Utah. Those polygamous wives are nothing but slave labor and easy sex for mostly disgusting men who like getting their jollies off with young girls.
Yuck!
Polyandry is when there is one wife and multiple husbands. Would you also be in favor of that?
Emelina
(188 posts)There are good polygamists and there are bad just as there are bad monogamists and others good.
leftyladyfrommo
(18,874 posts)It was one thing to practice this kind of stuff when it made things easier for survival in hostile lands.
I'm just sick to death of women falling for all the male bullshit. Three wives? Great for the guy. He can sleep with all of them. And they can do all the work.
Come on.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Warpy
(111,406 posts)when it comes to things like housework and childcare.
I knew one non religious polygamist family back in Mass. It ended badly, the women decided to throw hubby out and keep living with each other because it made so much more sense.
I have no objection to plural marriages. I only object to the "marriages" that involve girls who are still more child than woman and the ones where present wives have no say over who joins the family.
Squinch
(51,072 posts)Warpy
(111,406 posts)Don't judge all polygamist families on the yardstick Warren Jeffs set up. Many of them are quite reasonable and many women have found it's the only way to have it all, kids and career, when other women pitch in doing the childcare.
Also keep in mind that the Quiverful families are monogamous ones and women in those are valued only as incubators for the next generation of crackpot Christians.
The commonality in both of them is the misogynist, male centered religion, not the number of partners in a marriage.
Condemning all polygamist families as female cattle farms is in error, just as it would be to condemn monogamist families as breeding farms because of the Quiverful nuts.
Squinch
(51,072 posts)even when it is in more "lenient" communities like Centennial Park (which does not follow Jeffs) the purpose of the multiple wives is to have as many children as possible so that they can populate the planets that their husbands will eventually become gods of.
And when that happens, the wives all get to wash the husband's feet with their hair. Woo hoo.
For real.
leftyladyfrommo
(18,874 posts)If women want glory in heaven they have to have children - and as many as possible.
The whole idea is based on women as child bearers and sex partners.Kind of a limiting lifestyle.
Warpy
(111,406 posts)and not the number of consenting partners in any household.
Squinch
(51,072 posts)Warpy
(111,406 posts)The problem is crackpot religion, not polygamy.
Polygamy can be a good system for some people.
leftyladyfrommo
(18,874 posts)Where women have to have lots of children so that they can get into heaven. There are all these little spirits flying around out in space. And every time a woman has another child she brings one of thos little spirits back to live on earth.
That place is so crazy. People just believe the strangest things.
leftyladyfrommo
(18,874 posts)I lived thru those.
Now I just can't believe how stupid I was to fall for that stuff.
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)That was good, thanks.
EOTE
(13,409 posts)I'm pretty sure that "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" would be your typical reply.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Talked right past it actually.
EOTE
(13,409 posts)would support polyandry as well. It would certainly be well beyond hypocritical if they didn't. I take the same position I've had the great bulk of my life. If it involves consenting adults, the government should have no business restricting it.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)good for goose, good for gander, they repeated that polygamy can be good or bad. That is telling. What the 'bulk' of DU would say has nothing to do with what the OP did not in fact say. You seemed to be attempting to fill in for the OP because you think you have similar views. I do not think you are correct. Most who practice polygamy are very opposed to polyandry, that's the fact because polygamy is almost always religiously based, not some communal freedom thing. To assume a polygamy advocate supports polyandry or marriage for LGBT people is a very poor assumption.
appleannie1
(5,074 posts)They could lord it over a group of men unwilling to share their mate to their heart's content instead of having to deal with a group of catty women.
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)I just don't see having to deal with a couple of other women as empowering. It just sounds like a miserable experience for everyone - petty arguments, jealousies, people ganging up on others...
The same with the one woman, multiple husbands.
If this is somebody else's thing, go ahead.
Legalize this? How about we get same sex marriage in all 50 states first.
appleannie1
(5,074 posts)I also found it difficult to exist in the same house with my mother when she got old and we moved her in with us. I can't imagine a whole group of women sharing the same abode or husband. It is not my thing either.
In_The_Wind
(72,300 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)Just curious, and not judgmental.
In_The_Wind
(72,300 posts)hobbit709
(41,694 posts)alp227
(32,068 posts)No more stupid laws like soda sizes or marriage sizes?
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)siligut
(12,272 posts)[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]
Polygamy empowers men, men who believe they are gods in the making.
[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]
Polygamists also throw male children out of the cult so they don't take their share of the females.
I guess those boys should be glad that they weren't just given to the White Walkers the day they were born (Game of Thrones reference).
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)There could also be one woman with many husbands.
siligut
(12,272 posts)In general, either way the singular spouse has the power. I recognize that people raised in polygamous groups may see the benefits and I also recognize that they have been conditioned to believe it is a good thing. But as pointed out up-thread, in these times, the destructive nature of polygamy far outweighs any advantage. The Mormons were seeking to build a large community of brethren to combat the US, so polygamy was a way to do that.
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)If I wanted multiple partners, I would not have got married. I am also not willing to share my husband. I guess I'm just old fashioned that way.
If this kind of relationship works for some (other than Mormons) then have at it.
As far as making this legal - I don't think so. Let's get same sex marriage legal in all 50.
Squinch
(51,072 posts)multiples of the other is polygamy.
Squinch
(51,072 posts)also empowering to women?
That photo is chilling and grotesque and funny at the same time.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)that the logical extension of marriage equality (from a progressive perspective) is polygamy, just as the Republicans claim it is.
Oh yeah . . .
I await the next newbie who will ask of the next progressive frontier in marriage is the ability to marry a box turtle . . .
EOTE
(13,409 posts)If it's not, of course it should not be allowed. Box turtles cannot provide consent.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)EOTE
(13,409 posts)Pretty sick, isn't it?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)EOTE
(13,409 posts)I prefer to not tell consenting adults what to do if they're not hurting anyone. Just so you know, your number is every bit as arbitrary as deciding who should marry based on sexual orientation or color.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)"telling consenting adults what to do."
Logistically, allowing for >2 person marriages simply doesn't work from the standpoint of society's or the government's interests.
No one is discriminated against by the "two consenting, non-related adults" rule.
Whether or not you consider it to be arbitrary, it is not a civil rights issue to restrict it to two adults in an exclusive legal relationship.
EOTE
(13,409 posts)It works perfectly fine, actually. There are plenty of successful examples of it just as there are plenty of successful examples of monogamous relationships. If you can divide property 2 ways, it can be divide 3, 4 or 5 ways. A divorce in a monogamous relationship can be incredibly complicated, a divorce in a polygamous relationship can be complicated too. The government should have zero say in the harmless things that consenting adults want to do.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)If the polygamist cultists in rural Utah want to claim a constitutional right to have harems sanctioned by the state, with the state enforcing the rules of those harems, they can file suit in federal court.
EOTE
(13,409 posts)If your argument against something has been reduced to "But the brown heathens do it!", then you pretty much have no argument to begin with.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)religiously fundamentalist societies and is against the public policy goals of the progressive movement.
It fits somewhere between marrying relatives and marrying pets in the civil rights pantheon.
Two consenting, non-related adults. That's where the debate will ultimately end.
EOTE
(13,409 posts)Only those backward hillbillies drink whiskey, BAN IT! And that comparison is well past inane. Marrying relatives can cause horrific birth defects. And pets, once again as you seem terribly confused by this, cannot consent. So again, it boils down to your prejudice against brown people and your fixation on an arbitrary number.
It's not compatible with American law or society. People who can't live without multiple spouses are free to move to places like Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan. Or to one of the fundy Mormon cults in rural Utah.
EOTE
(13,409 posts)Gay marriage is simply not compatible with American law or society. Those wacky gays are free to move to Vermont or Amsterdam. And besides, any gay person is more than welcome to marry any adult of the opposite sex they choose. Yawn.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)It is not bigotry to say we should not adopt Saudia Arabia's rules on marriage.
Go ahead and alert on this: polygamy is a sexist, male supremacist, backwards cultural practice. It has no place in the United States.
EOTE
(13,409 posts)Your kind of bigotry doesn't belong in this country. And it's quite clear who the sexist is here. It's clear that you think that consenting adults should be able to do as they please, unless you find what they do icky. Or perhaps if scary brown people also do it. Your bigotry just oozes. And by the way, I don't alert on posts.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Last word is yours.
EOTE
(13,409 posts)But that's totally on you.
CincyDem
(6,411 posts)I'm sure by now Santorum is thinking up man on turtle talking points.
Same as man on dog but slower?
CincyDem
(6,411 posts)I guess I shouldn't be surprised. All I can say, in my own defense, is that the "man on _______" comments usually fall below my WTF meter so I missed the esteemed gentleman from Texas sharing the depth of his feelings on the topic with the Heritage Foundation. I'm sure the audience was on the edge of their seats wondering what species would next be dragged through the mud of being compared to same sex marriage.
Dip shits - be with who you want and let's move on.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Quantess
(27,630 posts)Sheldon Cooper
(3,724 posts)If consenting adults want to arrange themselves into poly relationships, I'm the last person to give a shit about it. But don't claim that the women involved are empowered because they are not.
The main problem I have with polygamy is the way that it's usually practiced, where there are religious beliefs involved. Girls who are raised in this environment are almost never able to give informed consent to being in a polygamous marriage, yet they are expected to comply and at impossibly young ages as well. I am sickened by it.
leftyladyfrommo
(18,874 posts)Can you imagine how you would feel if you were 12 and were told that you were a 50 year old scuzball? God!
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)MadrasT
(7,237 posts)Doesn't work for me because I am an introvert and don't even want to have ONE around most of the time. Multiple relationships take too much energy for me.
But whatever works for other people, is OK with me. I have a number of happy polyamorous friends. (I also know a number of people who have tried polyamory and were utterly miserable but I am not sure "polyamory" was to blame for that.)
The idea that relationships should always be a one-to-only-one commitment seems kind of silly to me.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)The whole thing is a bullshit argument generally coming either from religious freaks or those who try and argue that gay marriage will lead to polygamy. Which are you?
Emelina
(188 posts)So why would anyone saying let women choose automatically be a freak or zealot????
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)Just look at the groups that practice it and look at how women are treated in those cases. It's not a hard concept.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)my crazy nephew converted to islam because he has problems with women. now he has two wives. i don't think either of them are "empowered" by each other's existence, but the arrangement sures serves HIM. the first wife has enough sense not to allow the second one in their home...thank goodness.
get the red out
(13,468 posts)I don't care about how others choose to live. I do, as a citizen, care when certain cult practices are allowed to, in effect, prevent fellow citizens from knowing they have rights or exercising them. This pisses me off and always will.
I also oppose anything that puts women's hard-fought equality at risk.
clarice
(5,504 posts)Are there cases of "reverse polygamy" where a woman has more than one husband? (shudder).
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Shows that many duers are very good and tolerant people.
pnwmom
(109,020 posts)reflection
(6,286 posts)some right-wing mouthbreather always says "well what about pedophilia and beastiality?" Having had this stupid conversation several times before, I can easily swat them away with the "non-consensual, try again" answer.
But lately they have been saying "well what about polygamy?" So I put all my preconceived notions to the side and thought about it. If marriage is a way to consolidate property and establish certain rights granted by marriage, who am I to say polygamy is wrong?
Until I hear a compelling argument (and I'm always willing to listen), as long as all parties are brought to the table in agreement, and their interests are protected in the event of a dissolution of the marriage, I can't really say I have to right to deny polygamous-minded people the opportunity to marry.
Of course, that opens up some ancillary questions such as "what if another party wishes to enter the partnership?" I suppose all of the existing parties would have to agree to the inclusion of the new person, with any of the existing spouses having veto power, and the same protections would have to be amended to include the new partner.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Make it more than two people, and it becomes a limited partnership or corporation, not a marriage.
Two consenting adults is the perfect place to draw the line.
reflection
(6,286 posts)And yes, a 10,000 person marriage would be unreasonable. But I could see the line being drawn at a number greater than two. I just don't know what that number is. And I also know that when the line is drawn at X number, there is a group comprised of X+1 that will ask me why their marriage should not be valid and I don't know how to answer that.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Just going through the logistical considerations--if a woman has two wives, are her wives married to each other, what to do with marital property and child custody in divorce proceedings, how to deal with domestic violence, etc etc etc.
If I have two wives, can each of my wives have two husbands, and if so am i married to their husbands?
Just doesn't work. The argument for same sex marriage is very simple--GLBT folks are born that way and it is profoundly unjust to deny them rights based on that.
reflection
(6,286 posts)All parties would have to come to the table and lock in the agreement. Whether or not the two wives are married to each other is something that could be established during the agreement.
Protecting the property rights of all parties in the event of a dissolution is also something I addressed. Child custody would definitely be problematic.
If you had two wives, they could not have two husbands unless they were part of the original agreement.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)But, there's simply no policy or societal reason to completely revamp marriage and end marriage as we effectively know it.
Same-sex marriage doesn't affect heterosexual marriages. Allowing for this polygamist nonsense certainly would.
Not a civil rights issue, no societal benefit, not gonna happen, nor should it.
reflection
(6,286 posts)I'm not emotionally wrapped up in the issue, as I know no one who is struggling with it. But I try to imagine others' point of view. I personally wouldn't dismiss it as nonsense. It's certainly not the norm in the USA, but cultures vary.
My marriage wouldn't be affected by someone else's polygamous union.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)who's being oppressed by the prohibition on polygamy.
Your marriage would be affected if they rewrote the legal meaning of your marriage to accomodate polygamy.
treestar
(82,383 posts)In a way I think we should do away with marriage altogether and as far as property, etc., each person has their own only. Thus no divorce and figuring out whose property is whose and who gets what. Relationships take place outside of property considerations, or they have to make contracts to preserve rights they have.
Two people could own their house as tenants in common, 50/50 or any other arrangement they chose, and if they split up, the value of the house gets split by the percentage.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Who owns the house? The car? Custody of the kids? One spouse often works to put the other through graduate school, etc.
Getting rid of marriage and divorce wouldn't get rid of the messy property issues, it would only make them messier.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Or, you'd be a lot less motivated. You'd want contract protection of some kind. Everyone already knows the divorce rate, it's kind of cute how people getting married themselves think they are going to be an exception, but if people faced reality they'd always want a pre-nup.
Kids are already treated equally if legitimate or illegitimate. Custody is an issue whether the parents were married or not. So is child support. It would all continue the same.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)As would adoptions for that matter.
People are already free to not avail themselves of the insitution of marriage. Why take away the option of getting married?
treestar
(82,383 posts)Trying to figure out a just distribution for property and having fights about alimony. Which the litigants never appreciate anyway. They both claim the court is no good and screwed them or is biased against women/men. Just do it all by contract. As far as property goes.
And so people don't lean on someone and then find themselves shafted - like putting someone through college. If you are not wealthy, put only yourself or your kids through college. The divorce rate is too high for average people to rely on someone else in that way.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)One to pay the bills
One to give me money and buy me things
One that can do chores and fix things
One I can talk to
One to have sex with.
I think that will about cover it. Did I mention they all need to have their own places to?
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)badtoworse
(5,957 posts)At the same time, getting married has been the most rewarding thing I've ever done. We've been married 18 years, but we had rough spots along the way and there were times when it was tough to keep it together. We love each other and there's nothing we wouldn't do for each other - I believe that is true in most marriages that survive the first few years. I can't begin to imagine how much more difficult it would have been if there was another woman in the relationship. There is no way our marriage could have survived that.
I don't believe polygamy empowers anyone who actually cares about the person(s) he or she professes to love.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)EdKociela
(3 posts)Theoretically, polygamy among consenting adults sounds like an issue of personal choice. However, in practice, it rarely is. In the majority of polygamist communities in modern-day America, polygamy entails the sexual, physical, and emotional abuse of children and women. It entails fraud as these "families"illegally obtain government health and welfare benefits. It entails the denial of basic civil rights among women who are coerced by religion to exchange their independence for a form of slavery and obedience to achieve salvation in the afterlife. To understand polygamy in practice one must understand the context of the practice, not the idealism. It is easy to dismiss it as an act that should be allowed among consenting adults, however it is much more complex than that.
MattBaggins
(7,905 posts)They have to stay in their own country/state and any extra boys they have, can not leave either.
They do not get to kick their angry young men out and foist them on the rest of us.
Sheldon Cooper
(3,724 posts)I was under the impression that these were teenaged boys, who have no education or useful skills and, sadly, some of them turn to prostitution to survive. They may indeed be angry, but I feel great sorrow for them.
The problem with polygamy as it's practiced in those cults is that the young girls are sexually assaulted and the young boys are turned away to fend for themselves. They are horrible to their children.
MattBaggins
(7,905 posts)I would require that these parents be held financially and legally responsible for their children until those kids are 25.
Sheldon Cooper
(3,724 posts)They got a raw deal. I do agree that their parents should be responsible for them until they are adults.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)to me.
I'm very happily polyamorus, and polyamory means never having to say divorce.