Why is polygamy being defended on DU?

[saracat]

There is a thread entitled"Polygamy Rife Among Town Cops" In which many posters are defending polygamy ! I am amazed that I should have to point out the evils of this lifestyle/religious choice? on a progressive site. I would have thought almost everyone would support equal rights!

[Baltimoreboy]

1. Link?

[Sirveri]

2. here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=105&topic_id=1255088&mesg_id=1259462

[dsc]

3. Yeah like the right to marry whom you want when you want

I would think that is part of equal rights.

[Baltimoreboy]

4. Downright silly

You can't marry your parents. You can't marry your brother or sister, etc. We already limit marriage and polygamy is part of that.

[dsc]

199. that is due to the offspring being incestuous

and the resulting medical problems. But polygamy has no such problems. If all involved are concenting adults I fail to see a problem with it.

[saracat]

7. Yeah, like the right to devalue

themselves.You have that right I guess.

[leftistagitator]

30. Yes, a person does and should have that right.

[saracat]

105. And women who have been conditoned to believe that

they"deserve" abuse are entitled to receive it without intervention. Right.

[leftistagitator]

185. I'm not sure where the government should step in

If it's happening to a child it's child abuse, but adults are expected to be able to make their own decisions in life. I don't like it when the government intervenes to "save you from yourself", so I really don't know what to do with societal viruses like cults of personality, which is what the kind of polygamous relationship your referring to really is. And in fact, most of the abuses your hinting at are child abuse. Either children being sexually abused or mentally abused by their "husbands" making them into mind-slaves. I'm not arguing this should be legal, I'm only arguing adults should have the right to choose for themselves what kind of relationships to enter with other adults.

[NCLib23]

193. I assume you support

the forced governmental control of all self-harmful behavior.

... drug use
... bad diet
... too much tv
.......

[graham67]

5. I don't have a problem...

with poly-anything as long as it involves consenting adults.

[Liberal Classic]

6. If gay marriage/civil unions are defended

Why not plural marriage?

You're not going to argue that marriage can only exist between exactly two people, and plural marriage is wrong because it is immoral?

[DIKB]

8. Given free-choice

I don't think any of it should be illegal. Though we should have standards on unions that the govt recognizes, but that's as far as govt intervention should go.

[NCLib23]

13. That's what we have now

Or can you explain why only recognizing heterosexual marriage isn't a 'standard on unions that the govt recognizes'...

[Guaranteed]

55. Totally agreed.

This is the problem with legalizing gay marriage. Why stop at two?

[Sapphocrat]

219. First, answer me this:

What does marriage between two persons of the same sex have to do with multiple marriages?

The day you can show me that "polygamous marriage" is solely the domain of same-sex partners, that's the day I'll give you -- and everyone else -- a break for repeating the same, tired, foundation-less, apples-to-oranges comparison between same-sex marriage and polygamy (or bestiality, or incest, or necrophilia, or whatever this week's most popular argument may be).

But queers don't exactly have the market cornered on polygamy, do we? In fact, I'd be willing to be good money that the majority of polygamists arguing for "polygamy rights" are straight -- or at least mixed (as in male-female).

And what makes you think that we who are fighting for the right to marry are fighting for anything other than the right for just two people to marry? How do you make the connection between me wanting to marry my partner with whom I share a strictly monogamous relationship, and anyone else in the world wanting to marry three or seven or 16 other people?

Why do you want to penalize my partner and me for something that has nothing to do with us?

We may as well outlaw heterosexual marriage right now. After all, if we let two of you marry, what's to stop you from wanting to marry an entire harem? Or your cousin, for that matter? Or your dog?

It's obvious that straight folks make the rules; perhaps we should drop the same-sex marriage fight, and concentrate on stopping you from, say, allowing 14-year-olds to marry-- Oops, sorry! My bad! With parental consent, 14-year-olds can get married in many states!

AFAIC, I don't give a flying fajita if groups of unrelated adults above the age of majority want to marry one another. It's not what I'm fighting for, and it has no effect on my life whatsoever.

The difference between me and those who make these slippery-slope arguments against same-sex marriage is this: If polygamists want to marry in groups, I may not care -- but I won't try to stop them.

You don't have to like the idea of same-sex marriage. But why stand in our way if it doesn't hurt you?

[foreigncorrespondent]

221. Please explain to me...

...how polygamy is the same as a gay or lesbian couple marrying? Especially considering that a polygamous relationship usually entails multiple partners and a gay or lesbian relationship usually involves two people ONLY!

[Syrinx]

9. I'm socially quite libertarian

Peoples' personal lives are pretty much their own to lead as they see fit.

[Terry_M]

10. I'm fine with polygamy as long as

the more spouses one has the fewer tax benefits there are, so that people don't get into these marraiges only for financial purposes.

[Unperson 309]

11. "Awwww... Don't Be Mean To Polygamies!..."

..."They can't help it if they're not tall!"

-- Goldie Hawn -- Laugh-In

309

[Susang]

12. A lot of people are not educated on this issue

The women in these marriages are kept uneducated by their families, then married off early, sometime as early as 11 or 12, to men much older than themselves. It is a woman's rights issue, no matter how you spin it.

[NCLib23]

14. Because an archaic version of this happens

we should deny consenting adults from being happy?

I really think saying traditionally this is bad is a terrible argument.

[Susang]

18. I didn't say anything about tradition

I'm talking about in practice. Children as young as 9 being married to men as old as 90. Wives who try to run away, being held against their wills. Here's one of many links, if you care to check it out.
http://www.polygamyinfo.com/frontdoor.htm

[NCLib23]

23. We have age of consent laws

if you want to argue against marrying children, I'm with you.

Consenting adults should have no more restriction on the number of people they marry than the specific people.

Practicing oppressive polygamny is bad, but because some people do it, doesn't mean all do. Also, why do you talk only about polygyny. Is it not possible that polyandry is a viable option?

[Susang]

29. Polygamy/polygyny is what the thread is about

That is why it is being discussed. Perhaps no one is discussing polyandry because it isn't institutionalized by religion and few, if any, cultures currently practice it, particularly in the United States.

Here's another site you should take a look at. Its run by ex-polygamist wives. http://www.polygamy.org/media.shtml

[NCLib23]

31. I'm not saying all polygamists are good

All I am saying is posting anecdotal evidence of poorly practiced polygamy is not a justifiable case for denying the rights of consenting adults.

[Susang]

35. Funny, I think it is

And my evidence isn't anecdotal. Its documented, or don't you believe the women who've left? Do you think they are lying about the abuse they have suffered because of polygamy?

[NCLib23]

38. Some definitions here

anecdotal:
Function: adjective
1 a : of, relating to, or consisting of anecdotes <an anecdotal biography> b : ANECDOTIC 2 <my anecdotal uncle>
2 : based on or consisting of reports or observations of usually unscientific observers <anecdotal evidence>
3 : of, relating to, or being the depiction of a scene suggesting a story <anecdotal painting> <anecdotal detail>
- an·ec·dot·al·ly /-t&l-E/ adverb

Their stories, by definition, are anecdotal.

Their experience does not cover the whole range of polygamy experiences, nor does cover the whole range of possible polygamy practices.

Also, what gives you the right to tell a consenting adult woman who wants to be subservient to her husband she has no right to do so?

[Susang]

43. Didn't bother to visit the websites, did you?

For if you had, you would have seen documentation of court cases, including kidnapping and abuse.

As far as me telling any consenting woman what to do, I'm not. If an adult, fully educated (as mandated by law) woman chooses that path, then it is her right. But, as you have chosen to ignore, the practice is not really embraced by fully grown educated women, now is it? If it were, then why would most of these women be married off before they were 18?

But hey, you caught me on a bad night. I'm sick and exhausted and have no more energy to counter your bizarre championing of polygamy. However, one more thing before I go. Here's another definition of anecdotal. You see, in medicine, anecdotal evidence is often far more valuable than clinical, since situations and interactions crop up in post trial cases that were never even imagined by the scientists who dreamt up the studies.

anecdotal

Report of clinical experiences based in individual cases, rather than an organised investigation with appropriate controls, etc.

Origin: G. Anekdota, unpublished items, fr. An-priv + ekidomi, to publish
http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?query=anecdotal&action=Search+OMD

(05 Mar 2000)

[NCLib23]

44. I don't champion polygamy

I champion equal rights.

[Cheswick2.0]

110. sorry, you just had your ass handed to you by susang

"I champion equal rights" makes no sense whatsoever in your defense of polygamy. These women do not have civil rights protections. If they did they would have highschool degrees and not be married off before 18.
Do you have any examples of communities where these are not the circumstances of polygamous families?

[NCLib23]

116. Stick to one example

and then make up whole laws restricted the freedom of consenting adults based on that.

If polygamy were instituted as recognized marriage, can you explain to me exactly how these women lose civil rights protection?

It si not a society, but Martha Hughes Cannon, the sirst women elected to the state senate of Utah was a polygamous wife.

"On November 3, 1896, Mattie defeated her husband, Angus M. Cannon, to become the first woman elected to the Utah State Senate. As a state senator, she worked for the passage of one of the first "pure food" laws in the nation. Mattie sponsored legislation creating the first Board of Health and then became an active board member. She established the state's first nursing college and the first schools for the deaf, dumb, and blind. Mattie was active in the women's suffrage movements. She later became the first woman to vote in Utah."

http://www.yourtruehero.org/content/hero/view_hero.asp?16826

[Cheswick2.0]

119. one example

when I said that women was probably an exception. But nice side lateral arabesque. I asked you if you could show proof of any society where polygamy was generally good for women and children than bad for women and children. You give me proof of one woman who was well educated and did well in life.

[WillParkinson]

126. Ass handed?

Doubtful.

People keep saying "CONSENTING ADULTS" and everyone keeps talking about how these women are forced into the marriage.

Has anyone ever talked to women who are happy in a polygamous marriage (assuming that such women exist)?

Yes, I know there are examples of horrible wrongs done but there are similar examples in regular 2-person marriages, too.

[Leprechan29]

205. Do abusive relationships only exist with Polygamy?

Of course not - it is the participants who make the relationships abusive, not the system itself.

[Cheswick2.0]

108. sure, don't listen to the people who have lived it

more important to hang onto some "if it works for you do it man" argument. Do you have any evidence of societies where polygamy is practiced well?

[NCLib23]

117. I'm not lobbying for polygamy

I just haven't seen anything that merits restricting the rights of consenting adults to marry. You sound a lot like the people who used sweden or scandinavia as examples of why we shouldn't allow gay marriage.

DO you treat the people who support communism with the same contempt, since we've yet ot have an example of that being run well?

[Susang]

144. Could have fooled me

And please stop equating unlike social situations. Polygamy in the United States is not the same as gay marriage, no matter how many times you repeat that you think it is. Perhaps if you compared it to NAMBLA, you might be more accurate.

Nor is it in any way similar to communism, but good try.

[Radical Activist]

19. It wasn't like that when it was legal

Polygamous women in Utah in the 1850's when polygamy was legal had more rights and were more educated than the average women in other parts of the US. The first woman elected to a State Senate was a polygamous wife in Utah. It was the second territory to allow women the right to vote. Women had more rights to divorce their husband in Utah than men did at that time. Many polygamous wives received advanced education and were in professional careers, which was obviously rare back then.

Polygamy as it exists today on the fringe of society is terrible, but I don't see how making generalizations about all polygamous marriages being bad is any different than making generalizations about all gay marriages being harmful.

[Cheswick2.0]

111. I seriously doubt those well educated and free women

were anything more than a rare exception. If you have proof otherwise I would like to see it. In the meantime the site susang posted is full of accounts of women from the time you extol. They don't sound happy to me.

[mopinko]

20. i think the same can be said about

many monogomous marriages. it has always seemed to me to have potential for a real sisterhood of support. but i have never seen such in the flesh. i think the focus should stay on the treatment of the women and children invovled, and not on how many people live together.

[shimmergal]

204. If the women weren't brainwashed to believe the man's word was law,

they could wield a lot of power in polygamous marriages. In fact the man could be gently "managed" to do the right thing, if the wives come to consensus about how they want him to act.

[saracat]

26. This Is A Women's Rights Issue!

Polygamy is meant to elevate the man above the women in society by allowing him to fertize multiple partners in order to allow his line to dominate. He becomes of primary importance as the sperm donor. The women is reduced in importance as she is allowed only one partner and can only produce offspring from one source. This also reduces the importance of her bloodline as it cannot be as widely distributed.There is NO equality in the concept of polygamy! Even if the situation where reversed, Usually, the female can produce only one child at a time, but a male could impregnate several females at once.Marriage creates a parity where each can only produce one child together.

[Supply Side Jesus]

51. tsk tsk

such a narrow view of polygamy. Come now broad minded folks, why can't the woman have 5 husbands? Bit of a stereotype there dontcha think? And why cant I have 7 wives and wife number 3 have 4 husbands? Not much inequality there. But let us shove our beliefs down the throats of others as long as we aren't offened! As long as the adults are consenting, whats the BFD?

[Guaranteed]

57. Further, why does the woman have to marry or stay married

to the guy in the first place? Divorce IS legal, and so is NOT getting married.

And can't men, and women, for that matter, have children with multiple partners as it is today?

[orthogonal]

87. Polygamy is bad for MEN

Polygamy is meant to elevate the man above the women in society

Actually, polygamy is mostly bad for most men.

Think about it: as a woman, would you rather share Ben Affleck (substitute here whomever you consider the most attractive man to marry) -- and his money, fame, and good genes -- with another woman, or have Joe Average -- and his lackluster job, beer-gut, and halitosis -- all to yourself?

If you say you'd prefer Joe Average, then explain to me why at least 10% of all children born to married women in this country are not the biological children of the woman's husband.

Polygamy is good for the few men at the top of society: the richest, the ablest, the best looking -- and bad for all the other men. These top males can generally easily afford the household costs of the additional wives, so it's not the women who are suffering: every woman gets to marry an alpha male, an economically well off and privileged man. This is axiomatic: if the women are given the choice, they'll marry the men they judge best; if the men are the choosers, it will be the most powerful men who get the most wives.

But when the alpha male polygamously marries five women, assuming a society with a 1:1 sex ratio, that leaves four men of inferior states without wives -- perhaps without any sexual outlet at all, and with little chance of having a family or offspring.

Indeed, the argument can be made that polygamy was first banned to preserve society -- few things are more destabilizing than a majority of men (most of them young, as women traditionally tend to prefer older, established men as husbands if not necessarily as lovers) on the loose and without the rooting influence of a family and kids. These unattached men have little to lose, which generally results in aggression and violence.

[WillParkinson]

128. This is a women's rights issue?

So if a woman WANTS it then it should be OK, right? Or does that mean that if more women don't want it then their rights should supersede others?

[Leprechan29]

206. Polygamy -

Multiple spouses: It could be many men and one woman as well (at least I dont see why not)

[saracat]

50. Progressive thinking

I guess we have come full circle and have decided it's okay to demen women as long as the women themselves think it's okay! I guess Roe is in a lot more danger than I thought if "progressives" think this way!

[Liberal Classic]

53. I wonder, how can this issue be rightly separated from gay marriage?

I am sorry you are both disgusted and horrified that I would suggest consenting adults have the right to marry whom they will. That seems to me to be the entire basis of gay marriage or civil unions what have you. If you going to say there's no reason a man and another man can't elope, what's the reason against a man and another man and a woman can't elope? With apologies to Marshall Mathers.

[saracat]

84. It is not consenting adults

I am concerned with .It is the nonconsenting adults that bother me!

[orthogonal]

89. Progressive or oppressive?

I guess we have come full circle and have decided it's okay to demen women as long as the women themselves think it's okay! I guess Roe is in a lot more danger than I thought if "progressives" think this way!

Well, that's what "choice" is all about: letting women choose for themselves how to live their lives.

I find it offensive when a Bible-belt preacher tells women he'll decide whether or not a woman can have an abortion.

I also find it offensive when a self-styled "progressive" tells women she'll decide whether or not a woman can marry whom she wishes.

The preacher claims he has the right to decide for women because he has a direct line to God -- what's the progressive's excuse?

[7th_Sephiroth]

94. my stance on the issue

i have 2 girlfriends, were all best friends growing up and we all date eachother, were all consenting adults who really dont believe in marrage, we just get together and have fun, i dont see what the problem is with multiple partners

[Guaranteed]

56. Anti-gay marriage arguments sound a lot like that.

Massive, judgmental generalizations.

[Cheswick2.0]

114. there is no evidence that gay people over 18

are vitimized by gay marriage. How can you possibly compare the two?

[Cheswick2.0]

107. Yes, but some men here will argue otherwise

they are the same ones who will tell you prostitution is just another job option. It is all about some fantasy of keeping their options open.

[WilliamPitt]

155. Weirdest. Flamewar. Ever.

[Beatrix]

15. Well I will say

that polygamy is a valid and recognized practice (both in society and under law) in many nations both present and past.

In some nations it is not.

So long as it is between consenting adults (i.e. not an excuse to rape kids like in Utah) I don't have a problem with it.

[Cheswick2.0]

115. Where in the world is it a practice of only consenting adults?

?

[HEyHEY]

16. Because you don't understand what is being said

Nobody is saying poligamy practised in a a way that isn't equal and encourages child abuse is right. They're simply saying if a man and woman want more than one SO...they should be allowed.
Again you're looking at the way some groups practice it and assume there is no way it can be practised in a better manor.

[saracat]

88. I do understand what is being said

and I find it chilling.Apparently many can't grasp the premise of polygamy. That is to elevate the status of the male at the expense of the female.I am sorry but structured inequality by consent or not is wrong.Some groups might practice slavery in a humane manner with the consent of the slaves ,as in conscription with no other choice.Do you think that is acceptable?

[Magrittes Pipe]

100. "Apparently many can't grasp the premise of polygamy."

Like you, apparently....

[Cheswick2.0]

113. care to make a point

what exactly is it that the other poster doesn't understand.

But eh, freaking brilliant otherwise. :7

[Magrittes Pipe]

136. I did.

The original poster cannot grasp the concept of polygamy.

The type of polygamy that is practiced by some people out west -- the quasi-consensual "marriages" between a man and several women (and, in some cases, young girls) IS demeaning to women.

This, however is NOT the only type of polygamy.

Polygamy has been practiced in numerous cultures without demeaning women. This Utahan polygamy that is (justly) decried is simply decended from this quaintly Occidental type of sexual morality that treats women as property. The father gives his daughter to her husband. This is what is demeaning to women, whether she is an only wife or one of several.

Polygyny is different from polygamy. Polygamy goes both ways. Women and men who choose to live with more than just one partner do NOT demean anyone -- it is the idea of wife as property that is demeaning.

I suggest that you do a little reading (what a thought!) on some of the ancient polygamous cultures that featured matrilineal inheritance -- which is, of course, the natural order of things, because maternity has always been easy to establish with certainty.

Unfortunately, many people don't like to read, especially when said reading would challenge their prejudices.

[Hoping4Change]

186. What pomposity. Exactly what are your sources?

In Fiji the traditional practice of Polygamy used to be rare and can now be practised by any men who takes on ‘Big Man’ status. This could be head teachers, social workers or anyone who is considered having a high status among their peers

Women do not have the choice in agreeing to a polygamous marriage and often women in these situations have to compete for resources with the co-wives.

Men often treat their many wives as a production unit raising pigs and maintaining gardens generating wealth for the husband.

[VelmaD]

187. Here again the problem isn't polgamy...

it's pervasive sexism in the society in question. How are Fijian women in monogamous marriages treated? Any different?

[Hoping4Change]

192. Status of woman is extremely low in polygamous soceities

"polygamy ...conflicts with the numerical equality of the sexes, with the jealousy, sense of proprietorship, equality, dignity and general welfare of the wife, and with the best interests of the offspring.

In all those regions in which polygamy ...exists, the status of woman is extremely low; she is treated as man's property, not as his companion; her life is invariably one of great hardship, while her moral, spiritual, and intellectual qualities are almost utterly neglected.

Even the male human being is in the highest sense of the phrase naturally monogamous. His moral, spiritual, and aesthetic faculties can obtain normal development only when his sexual relations are confined to one woman in the common life and enduring association provided by monogamy.

The welfare of the children obviously demands that the offspring of each pair shall have the undivided attention and care of both their parents." http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09693a.htm


"Polygamy all too often destroys the happiness of a marriage and family, and implications for the children involved are almost always ignored," http://www.hrwf.net/html/malaysia_2003.html

[Hoping4Change]

188. Thanks for your informed comments. I too find it chilling

that many aren't grasping polygamy's premise. These posts are so profoundly unenlightened, besides discounting the slavery aspect of polygamy, the comments take no account of how polygamy negates women's emotional needs. :yourock:

[HEyHEY]

189. IT'S THE WAY IT'S BEING PRACTISED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Holy fuck people, this is silly. What you're saying is the equivalent of saying homosexuality means that everyone is sleeping around with everyone else. You're generalizing based on your assumptions that everyone who wants more than one spouse is a sexist.
Maybe it's just a case of haitng men.

[Susang]

196. Interesting

And it only took about 200 posts for someone to accuse the DUers who are anti-polygamy of hating men.

News flash - this subject has NOTHING to do with homosexuality.

[VelmaD]

190. PLease explain to me how it negates...

my emotional needs for me to have more than one husband (and a couple of wives too for that matter...hell I'm equal-opportunity).

[Hoping4Change]

195. Without commenting on your facetiousness,

polygamy has never been extended to women because men would never accept the inherent inferiority of being one husband among many. To be one among many is to wait cap in hand to have sexual and emotional needs met. Polygamy as it is extended to men acknowledges the male's emotional reality such as jealousy, whereas the woman who shares her spouse has to endure suffering from any jealousy. Women are viewed solely objects without any subjective reality.

[Piltdown13]

203. Actually, it has

It's called polyandry, and it *is* quite rare as marriage customs go. Dredging up what I can recall from my cultural anthropology class almost 10 years ago.... Generally, the societies that practiced polyandry were located in rather marginal environments and, IIRC, had patrilineal descent, with property also being passed down through the male line. Apparently, these societies developed polyandry as a way to prevent farm and/or grazing lands from being divided up into parcels too small to support a family, which could happen if each son inherited a piece of the family lands and established his own family on that piece. Thus, you have situations where a group of brothers marries one woman (can't remember if additional women are ever added to the mix, but I don't think so), thus keeping the family lands together. Unfortunately, I can't remember any specific societies...just the textbook description of the practice!

Interestingly, it's resource stress that leads to polyandry in our primate relatives also. Only a few species of small monkeys ever practice polyandry, and when they do, it tends to be in response to environmental conditions that make it impossible for a male-female pair -- which is the usual mating arrangement in these species -- to provide for their offspring by themselves (twin births are the norm in these species, and the babies are very large relative to the size of the adults).

[Hoping4Change]

213. Well live and learn. Thanks for the insight.

[shimmergal]

207. Ack! Women's emotional needs aren't always so simple.

Quite a few women, I think, would feel relieved at not carrying the sole responsibility for the care, feeding, and emotional support of a man. It can be exhausting, no matter how much she loves him.

Sex is not the only factor to be considered in this dynamic.
.

[Hoping4Change]

212. What you are failing to see is that women

are not considered to have the same emotional needs as men. The reason why women get exhausted is that their needs often don't get met. Women don't have wives anticipating their needs.

Women are treated like objects which means their subjectivity (i.e. emotions, thoughts, creativity) is ignored. Women are there to cater to others, to care, feed, and support others.

It's been difficult for women to achieve "personhood" status. Don't forget that women were only deemed intelligent enough to cast a vote a mere 75 years ago. 76 years ago women weren't deemed to have the inner life necessary to decide who ought to be elected.

So if in a monogamous-based society women can't expect, as their birthright, to have their human needs met in a relationship, if their needs are invisible to their husbands how much worse is it to be just one of several wives? Sure the pressure if off but where is the joy?

[HEyHEY]

17. ANd because we're all married to each other here

[delete_bush]

21. Polygamy is hardly being defended on DU...

checked out the "offending" thread and came up with about 4 posters with good things to say about this.

While I'm opposed to the practice, it's a stretch to say that "many are defending polygamy". I would say by their absence that "almost everyone" IS supporting equal rights.

[neebob]

22. People outside of Utah

who have never seen the kind of polygamists in question or know anything about their history may not fully get what you're talking about. It's easy to defend in the abstract, assuming normal consenting adults.

Those who are inclined to defend the practice should spend a weekend driving around Southern Utah to check their assumptions. Go hang around Hilldale or Hurricane and see some actual polygamists. Try talking to them. Or read Under the Banner of Heaven by Jon Krakauer.

These are not normal consenting adults getting together to share their love and pool their resources.

[NCLib23]

24. I agree

let's ban anyone from getting married for the wrong reasons.

Only government approved reasons will be acceptable for a marriage to be recognized.

[orthogonal]

90. Let's throw in some eugenics laws, too!

Only government approved reasons will be acceptable for a marriage to be recognized.

(I realize you're being sarcastic; so am I.)

Yes, let's limit it to Aryans of pure blood, and only to those who promise to produce lots of children to fill the ranks of the Wehrmacht and the Bund Deutscher Mädel.

[Guaranteed]

58. But you can't ban something because of the "types" of people who

engage in it, or because they practice it in a twisted way.

You can ban the twisted way, if you like. If you don't think children should be able to get married with their parents' permission, ban that. But, just like gay marriage, ultimately this is a lifestyle choice that people should be able to make their own decision about.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

86. Gee in some countries, it's a father who introduces the daughter to sex

I might add they are countries where women have no rights so it's par for the course...yeah you CAN ban something practiced in a twisted way without saying it then justifies limiting the rights of another group.

Your repetition of this argument does not make it any less of a straw man and a slippery slope than it is.

You are comparing marrying multiple partners to marrying two:

In a straight marriage, there is a contract between a man and a woman.
In a gay marriage, there is a contract between two people of the same sex.

In a polygamous relationship, I hadn't noticed that there was a contract amongst all the partners, but rather what ultimately results in servitude to the male....no contract amongst all the wives....

If you can sort out all the various contractual complications of polygamy versus the similar and equivocal contracts between gay marriage and straight marriage then I'll let you continue on the slippery slope...if not..concede you are wrong.

[ProfessorGAC]

125. Good Thesis, NSMA

That narrows it. The contract in a polygamous marriage is not inclusive. It, therefore, cannot be be looked at as an equal partnership, even if the rare practice of it indicates it's possible.

It is clearly a one way partnership with a family "manager". This isn't marriage.
The Professor

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

149. I say they can incorporate but not marry

[VelmaD]

150. You're confusing...

the way some people practice polygyny with polygamy in general. There's nothing about polygamy that requires a contract where multiple women are in servitude to a male. That's simply how it's practices by some groups.

Explain to me why multiple partners could not have the same kind of equal partnership you state happens in straight or gay marriages (even though we both know it doesn't always work that way).

I've said it before on these threads and I'll say it again...if some people practicing plygamy in a sexist way is the argument for banning polygamy...then the fact that some people practice monogamous marriage in a sexist way should be the argument for banning monogamous marriage as well.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

181. No...one has to consider the OVERALL benefit/ harm to society

Marriage between two people causes NO OVERALL benefit/harm to society, although you could argue that divorce does.
Statistically if one were to sanction polygamy based on the infractions by the SMALL percentage of society that currently practices it and extrapolate those out to a larger portion of society practicing it..the overall harm to society via welfare fraud, child abuse, neglect, endangerment, sexual exploitation, abandonment etc would increase substantially...

furthermore...I feel since you are the one arguing the legitimacy of the arrangement, the burden is on you to demonstrate HOW three people can enter successfully in what would then be a 9 way contract.

[VelmaD]

184. I thought in the US...

it was the one arguing to curtail someone's rights who had to make a case for why certain behavior should not be allowed. Oh well.

I'm not sure where you get that marriage between two people causes no overall benefit/harm to society given how it has been used for centuries as a means of subjugating women.

I don't think you can make the argument that you can extrapolate from the small population that practices polygyny now to the larger population. There are too many significant differences between the far-right Mormons we're essentially arguing about and the general population for it to be a valid extrapolation.


Finally, plenty of people already enter into 3 way business contracts now and no one seems to have a problem with that. If marriage is really just a contract then I don't see what the problem is since there's contract law to cover contracts with more than 2 parties. If marriage is MORE than a contract (which is what I belive)...if it's about people and love, then I also don't see where the problem is with more than 2 people being involved.

[Guaranteed]

214. Now you're opening yourself up to more anti-gay-marriage arguments.

I just don't get you, NSMA.

[AndyTiedye]

25. "Triad"

(D. Crosby)

You want to know how it will be
Me and him and you and me
You both stand there your long hair flowing
Your eyes alive your mind still growing
Saying to me--"What can we do now that we both love you",
I love you too-- I don't really see
Why can't we go on as three
You are afraid--embarrassed too
No one has ever said such a thing to you
Your mother's ghost stands at your shoulder
Face like ice--a little bit colder
Saying to you--"you can not do that, it breaks
All the rules you learned in school"
I don't really see
Why can't we go on as three
We love each other--it's plain to see
There's just one answer comes to me
--Sister--lovers--water brothers
And in time--maybe others
So you see--what we can do--is to try something new--
If you're crazy too--
I don't really see
Why can't we go on as three.

[Cheswick2.0]

112. and then he grew up

At least I hope so for the sake of his wife and children. Unfortunately there are some women who will accept humiliation in the name of "love".

[Zomby Woof]

27. now that's a musical I would see

"Polygamy Cops In Tights".

[Susang]

32. Oh, if only....

But who could possibly star in such a vehicle? }(

[Zomby Woof]

33. Batboy, Matcom, and me

:evilgrin:

[Susang]

37. With special guest star GOPisEVil

As the Really Bad Lieutenent. }(

[Lestat]

28. I have no problems with grown, consenting adults...

who want to marry more than one person. What they do is their business. Not mine.

[kiahzero]

34. Because some people can seperate abstraction from implementation

And can therefore understand that just because some people have a practice which denies equal rights, does not mean every instance of that practice denies equal rights.

[Susang]

39. You do realize that polygamy refers to multiple wives only?

Hardly equal, even in the abstract.

[NCLib23]

40. wrong

polygamy - marriage in which a spouse of either sex may have more than one mate at the same time

polyandry - marriage where a woman may have multiple husbands

polygyny - marriage where a man may have multiple wives

polygamy covers both polygyny and polyandry, as well as same sex multiple partner relationships.

[kiahzero]

42. Polyandry and polygyny are gender-independant for the one

A group of women who were all married to one another could be a polygynous marriage, and the same could be said for polyandry (obviously, with men).

The situation where polygamy is the only acceptable word to describe the situation would be where there are multiple partners of both genders.

[kiahzero]

41. Additionally, some people actually know what they're talking about

Poly - Multiple
Gamy - Spouses
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=polygamy

You're thinking of polygyny: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=polygyny

Next time you start lecturing people about not believing in equality, perhaps you should figure out what you're talking about first.

[neebob]

45. So if there are a million people practicing polygamy in the U.S. -

I have no idea how many there actually are and I doubt it's that many, but let's say a million for the sake of an argument. And if 100,000 of them practice the kind of polygamy where women and children are oppressed, abused, and denied the most basic rights - 100,000 being an actual estimate for the western United States - the government should not intervene?

What if, in addition to the abuse and oppression, a large portion of these 100,000 are collecting millions of dollars in welfare payments - so that, basically, if you live in a state with a lot of these polygamists, you're funding the abuse and oppression? And the main reason it continues is a rich and powerful church that claims no association with or responsibility for the polygamists doesn't want it becoming public knowledge that they're practicing what the founder of this church actually taught. Is that okay with you?

[NCLib23]

47. I think it is a straw man argument to associate

supporting a freedom to marry other consenting adults with supporting spousal and child abuse.

[neebob]

49. I don't think I made that association

what I did was suggest that plural marriage has to be illegal because a large number of plural marriages result in abuse, and that the government has a responsibility to stop the abuse and take care of the abused - and I don't mean by paying and enabling the abusers.

[NCLib23]

109. Abusers are abusers

whether they be single, in couple marriages or in polygamous ones.

Depending on who you talk to, I'm sure you can hear that 'a large number' of any kind of marriage results in abuse. Should we just ban all marriage?

A large number of school children are bullied, should we end schools?

[kiahzero]

48. False argument

I have no idea how many there actually are and I doubt it's that many, but let's say a million for the sake of an argument. And if 100,000 of them practice the kind of polygamy where women and children are oppressed, abused, and denied the most basic rights - 100,000 being an actual estimate for the western United States - the government should not intervene?

You don't need to ban all polygamous relationships to prevent abuse of women and children. For one thing, you can prevent children from entering into marriage, which takes that element right out. As for saving the women involved, I would imagine that they would be better protected if they weren't in an illegal contract (in other words, polygamous marriage being legal would mean they could call the police, that kind of thing).

And the main reason it continues is a rich and powerful church that claims no association with or responsibility for the polygamists doesn't want it becoming public knowledge that they're practicing what the founder of this church actually taught.

It's pretty much common knowledge that the Church of LDS used to support polygyny.

[neebob]

52. Uh-huh, and they still do

and I would guess most of the 11 million or how many members they now claim have no clue. I guess you would have to have been raised in it to see how they twist and cover things up, and how they perpetuate this problem they could probably afford to solve.

[Tom Kitten]

36. Ladies of the DU forum, countfloyd is ready and waiting!

Look, I've been single long enough and need at least 5 or 6 wives as soon as possible in order to make up for lost time! Please email me ASAP, don't forget the self addressed stamped envelope, don't forget to include a recent photo and an official appraisal on the net worth of your dowry! Handwritten sexy notes will earn extra consideration!

[Delano]

46. Personally, I don't care for polygamy, but...

I don't think the state has any business to tell people what they can or can't do in the bedroom. I truly believe that a life of wanton casual sex with multiple partners is much more likely to be an unhappy one than a life committed to a loving partner.

But there are those who disagree, and that's their right.

However, if the polygamy is happening BETWEEN cops who are on the same police force, that is fraternization. It's unprofessional, and usually punishable by termination.

EDIT: I apparently misunderstood the post - I thought they meant mere promiscuity. If multiple marriages are the problem, that is obviously illegal, and I wouldn't defend it.

(I don't really see it as evil, though. Just kinda weird.)

[Guaranteed]

54. Polygamy is a lifestyle, homosexuality is a lifestyle.

How can you criticize one without criticizing the other?

It's all good.

[Liberal Classic]

59. It seems to me to be hypocritical

To support gay marriage on one hand but condemn plural marriage on the other.

Can't have it both ways, if you'll excuse the expression.

[Guaranteed]

60. Totally agreed.

Look at the arguments that people use against polygamy. They're exactly the same kinds of arguments fundies use against the gay lifestyle.

[Liberal Classic]

61. Particularly suggestions

...that children of plural marriages are more at risk of rape than children in traditional families. The child abuse argument is one of the primary arguments against gay marriage/civil unions. This is not to say that abuse does not occur in far away places like the Sudan or right in our backyard in Utah. However, as a general rule children are most likely to be abused by a friend or relative than a complete stranger. No one suggests that we should outlaw marriage between men and women because most child abuse occurs in hetero marriages.

Ultimately, if gay marriage is legitimized, I see little valid argument for not also legitimizing plural marriage.

[neebob]

64. Child abuse is one of the primary arguments against gay marriage?

I hadn't heard that one. How does that work?

[Liberal Classic]

66. You didn't hear that?

Goodness, one of the major arguments among certain well known American religious leaders (whom I won't mention) was that homosexuals, being more promiscious, are more likely to abuse children in their care.

[neebob]

73. Not in the context of gay marriage

and there's no truth to it, either. Gimme a truthful argument against gay marriage.

[Liberal Classic]

75. But that is one among many arguments made against gay marriage

I don't support that argument, of course, but it is made. There are other value judgements made about gay marriage as well, most of them wrong.

It seems to me that there is a double standard at work here. Gay marriage is okay because homosexuals tend to vote for left wing candidates, but plural marriage is not because they tend to be right wing.

[neebob]

121. I said nothing about politics, left or right

To me it's a question of who's being harmed and who's not. People who aren't allowed to marry anyone they're attracted to are being harmed. So are people who are forced to marry others they aren't attracted to, and so are the children these marriages produce. And if there are a lot of people being harmed, ya gotta change the law - or, in the case of polygamy, just enforce it.

People who can't marry another person because they're already married to someone else and people who merely have to see or know that others are marrying people of the same sex? Not being harmed.

[neebob]

62. Not really

because there is no truth to the argument that gays recruit or force others into their "lifestyle" or that it's unnatural and wrong or even that it's a choice. Women and children ARE forced into polygamy, which IS a choice, AND it's wrong (if they are forced and/or abused). So I feel perfectly comfortable supporting gay marriage but not plural marriage.

[Liberal Classic]

63. Would you care to elaborate?

Women and children ARE forced into polygamy, which IS a choice, AND it's wrong.

Being forced into a marriage does not meet my definition of choice.

Should we also use the force of law prevent American Hindus from arranging marriages?

[saracat]

65. Yes.

If either of the potential spouses objects.If they agree to the situation it is not force.

[Liberal Classic]

69. Yes?

We should prosecute American Hindus for arrainging marriages?

[saracat]

80. Yes.

If it is without the consent of the two principals.If it is without consent, it is already illegal!

[Liberal Classic]

92. No Hindu in the U.S. is *forced* to enter an arranged marriage, however

The social consequences for them are severe if they turn their backs on their family and culture. In this sense, consent does not always equate with agreement.

As an aside, how far should the government go is eradicating arranged marriages?

[saracat]

96. If they choose to consider the social consequences

more important than the choice of a life partner, then it is still a choice, and they are implying consent. and there should not be government intervention. If there is no implied consent and one of the parties is opposed to the marriage and agrees only because of threat or fear compels them to cooperate, then we should crack down. No one should be coerced into marriage.

[Liberal Classic]

97. I would certianly agree that consent under duress is not consent

Threats and fear of shunning are very real among Hindus, even in these modern days and in this country. The social consequences are not as deadly these days as in times passed, but the legacy remains. The coersion is real. On the flip side it could be argued (and I imagine it is) than Mormon women are free to accept the social consequences of living among gentiles.

However, it is a very fine hair we are splitting.

[saracat]

99. Very fine.

For how could one argue about a choice to be had, if one was not psychologically capable, as in the case of the Mormon women,to realize such a thing a choice existed?

[sus]

135. "No one should be coerced into marriage." ....tell that to my mother.

ba-dum CHING!

[neebob]

68. I did not say being forced is a choice

but the type of marriage is. And I'm talking about the kind of polygamists in Southern Utah. Those women are forced. They have no choice.

[Liberal Classic]

71. Could there not be other "kinds" of plural marriage?

A secular plural marriage entered into freely as most other marriages, including gay marriage in those localities which allow it?

Because Mormons and Muslims treat their girls poorly, does that mean I can't marry two women? I am neither Mormon nor Muslim.

[neebob]

72. The problem is

if you are allowed to marry two women, then so are the brethren in Hilldale and Colorado City and Salt Lake and everywhere else these pervy old shitheads live. If there were fewer of them, I might have a different opinion. It's about drawing a line, and in this case I think it's appropriate to draw it on the side that also, however unfortunately, prevents you from marrying two women - regardless of your religion.

[Liberal Classic]

74. And there exist no

Homosexuals who do bad things?

I am beginning to believe there's a double standard at work here.

[Cheswick2.0]

118. Could there be workable plural marriage

The question is, is there workable plural marriage. Can you give any examples of such a thing? If not, why argue for the practice when the evidence show that in practice it generally abuses and vicitimized women and children?

[Liberal Classic]

122. Why argue for the practice?

Because it's a free country, and conscientious adults should be able to live with whom they choose. Furthermore, the issue of legitimate gay marriage has raised this issue as the next logical question.

[saracat]

67. Gay Marriage

is a partnership of equals. Polygamy is a demeaning situation that devalues the female.

[Liberal Classic]

70. You have made this claim

But what do you have to support it?

Would a plural marriage in which one woman is married to two men be demeaning to men, and devalue the male?

[saracat]

81. I would think it would demean the man

if he could only impregnate the one women. His ability to propagate his line would be diminished by half unless the other guy was shooting blanks.

[Liberal Classic]

91. Then why is gay marriage not demeaning?

Procreation in gay marriage is effectively nil, unless David Crosbyesque measures are taken.

[saracat]

93. Because they are not marrying to procreate!

They enter into an equal partnership. They aren't playing warped genetic one upsmanship.They don't "choose"' to be gay, as another poster pointed out. But polygamists choose plural marriage as a lifestyle.

[Liberal Classic]

95. If they're not marrying to procreate

Why do they want to adopt? Why do some lesbians undergo artificial insemination if they're not marrying to procreate? Why do they demand (and rightly so) the same rights as hetero couples, among them raising children?

It still seems to me that there is a double standard.

[saracat]

98. The standard is not the same because

even in the examples you site there is not the bloodline competitiveness and power play of one partner to be dominent over another in terms of status.A gay relationship adhering to the same standards of polygamy in the demeaning of a partner would be equally wrong.Raising children is NOT the issue.

[Liberal Classic]

101. The standard seems to change with each question I ask

Forgive me, but I do not quite see your line of reasoning yet. I am not sure that the issue of childrearing can be so easily dismissed from the equasion. As I said before if it were, gays and lesbians would not be demanding all of the rights and responsibilities of hetero couples. Gay and lesbian couples want children, and social conservatives don't want them to have children. Gay marriage is about much more than simply insurance coverage.

If the plural marriage were all homosexual, for example three men, how does one determine which man is demeaned and which is the oppressor? I am sorry if I am being difficult, but I truly believe that this double standard exists among both the political left and the political right, if in different forms. The social conservative make moral judgements against gay marraige just as you are making moral judgements against plural marriage. Ironically, social conservatives more readily admit the legitimacy of polygamy because it suits their sensibilities, just as social liberals more readily admit the legitimacy of homosexuality. Both have existed from as far back as there have been people. If we're going to legitimize either, we must legitimize both or else be hypocrites.

[saracat]

102. Sorry .

One, polygamy is a choice,and a lifestyle. Homosexuality is not a choice. I don't believe that homosexuals want to marry with the intent to demean one of the parties. This makes all the difference in the world.And polygamy ,as currently practiced is designed to demean the female. Look at islam and Mormonism. Polygamy is dthe deliberate marginalization of women.

[Liberal Classic]

104. Homosexuality may not be a choice as you say, but gay marriage surely is

If two gay men can choose to marry, who is to say three gay men cannot choose to marry? Who is to say three consenting adults could not marry without any degredation? You claim that any marriage with more than two people is inherently degrading and should be legally prohibited. Social conservatives claim that any marriage between two people of the same sex is degrading and should be legally prohibited. On the flip side there is plenty about plain old marriage that is demeaning, to say nothing of divorce. Don't get me started. The homosexual culture is not perfectly sweetness and light, either. There are negative aspects to that subculture as with any. To imply otherwise is to wear rose colored glasses. If we really want to be consistent, we need to just outlaw marriage and raise children in state-run creches.

Look at islam and Mormonism. Polygamy is dthe deliberate marginalization of women.

I still do not believe that your conclusion follows from your premise.
The conclusion I reach is that Islam and Mormonism deliberately marginalized their women to prop up their misogyny. There is far more to either Islam's misogyny and Mormonism's misogyny than simply polygamy. Surely there are other cultural factors which exacerbate the problems. In some Muslim cultures, women are little more than chattel slaves. Men don't as much marry more than one as own more than one. No one in this thread is advocating chattel slavery. The Mormon is thankfully less extreme, as far as I know there is no female circumcision among Mormons or do Mormons engage in slavery. I am not trying to apologize for them, but I don't believe they're as bad.

[saracat]

106. Believe what you want.

Plural marriage could be whatever consenting adults make it, whether they be homosexual or straight. Polygamy was designed to elevate the mans position in society by the spreading of his seed and the control of women's ability to procreate. Maybe this is just a word game but any institution designed to subjugate another is immoral. Any relationship that is entered into through coercion or force is reprehensible.You admit Islam and Mormonism marginalized their women"to prop up their misogny. They did this by polgomy. This is about choice.Without choice we are advocating chattel slavery and that is exactly what polgomy as practiced today is.And by choice I mean concious choice. Many women don't even realize there is a choice. I don't believe that is true consent.

[Liberal Classic]

120. I've been generally advocating plural marriage this whole thread

Also I have been critical of Mormonism and Islam for their misogyny. These two examples are certianly not the only ones, the practice has been found all over the world is one form or another. I do not believe that the practice of having more than one wife is misogynistic on its face, because there are many other cultural factors leading to the subjugation of women. In some of the Islamic cultures, polygamy is but one aspect of it, from female circumcism, prohibitions on educating women, allowing them to travel unescorted. I consider the Talibs in Afganistan as a good example (or bad example if you will) of this phenomenon. Without a doubt they treated their women as less than property, if not a burden. How they must fear them, eh?

However, Just because the Mormons or Talibs are misogynistic does not mean some form of plural marriage would not work for educated and willing adults. Especially if gay marriage is to be legitimized, we should also consider this idea.

I am sorry if you think I am playing silly word games. I personally find the subject facinating, and I appreciate your responses.

[neebob]

124. No, the argument keeps changing

because you keep introducing new elements. The standard is very simple and unchanging: If significant numbers of people are being hurt by something, it's not a good idea.

[Liberal Classic]

127. With all due respect

This is what I have been saying:

One, it's a free country and what consenting adults do is nobody's business. Two, if gay marriage is legitimized, plural marriage is likely to be next issue. Three, by plural marriage I mean hetero, homo, or both. I am not suggesting legimimizing polygamy only, i.e. marriage between one man and multiple women but not two men and one woman. Four, just because some other cultures are misogynistic does not mean all of them are.

Reading through Saracat's posts again, here is a summary of what she said.

Gay marriage is between equals. Plural marriage is not.
Polygamy denegrates women. Polyandry denegrates men.
Gay marriage is not for procreation "warped genetic one upsmanship"
Artifical insemination of lesbians does not encompass "bloodline competitiveness"
Homosexuality is an innate trait, plural marriage is a choice

Here is where I think we began to miscommunicate:

Plural marriage could be whatever consenting adults make it, whether they be homosexual or straight. Polygamy was designed to elevate the mans position in society by the spreading of his seed and the control of women's ability to procreate.

I am thinking that Saracat and I arrived at pretty close to the same conclusion.

[neebob]

131. Well, then I guess I'm just stuck in this really simple place

where large numbers of women and children are being abused by men in violation of an existing, reasonable law and the government has a responsibility to stop it. And where people are being denied rights because of their sexual preference and the government has a responsibility to stop that as well. I don't agree that if same-sex marriage is allowed then plural marriage has to follow.

[Liberal Classic]

132. I'm now thinking sara and I were in agreement but I missed it

Well, that's insomnia for you.

In my opinion, I do not see how these two issues can be separated. If gay marriage is legitimized, that raises the question of other alternative types of family.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

85. Homosexuality is a lifestyle? Bullshit

Maybe for some gay people it is, but for many it isn't. No one is BORN a polygamist, some people are born gay....that is an incredible reduction based solely on your ability to think in a binary fashion when it suits you.

It's in fact bigoted in a sense...next thing you're going to tell me being black is a lifestyle.

[Guaranteed]

164. People don't naturally want to have sex with more than one

person?

Are you telling me you've only had a sexual relationship with one person in your WHOLE life?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

183. Straw man....

and again bigoted whether you recognize it or not.

[Guaranteed]

211. Nope, wrong on both counts.

I just showed you that people have, naturally, a sex drive that drives them to multiple partners- whether at the same time or not, and almost certainly at the same time. That's the issue at hand. You're just wrong.

And exactly how is that bigoted, when you must say all the time that the homosexual sex drive is natural? WTF? Total contradiction. You can't have it both ways.

[NCLib23]

194. Born gay?

From a biological perspective I've seen no serious, replicated scientific work that proves with rigor that homosexuality is genetic. The only conclusion I have seen is that human sexual development, whatever the persuasion and including fetishes, is complex and evolves over one's early life, even before complex thought is possible. There are sets of unknown genetic predispositions and countless incidents during early developmwnt which form our sexuality.

It does not seem like a stretch to assume that heterosexual monogamy, homosexual monogamy, heterosexual polygamy and homosexual polygamy are all reasonable and possible outcomes of human sexual and emotional development.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

198. Wrong. There are animal studies that confirm NOT only homosexual

relationships but monogamous ones.

I would suggest you have seen NO scientific works that confirm with equal rigor that it is entirely environmental. If you have, prove it.

[NCLib23]

202. Where am I wrong

1) Animal behavioral studies provide, at best, theorhetical explanations for human behaviour.

2) How does a study confirm homosexual monogamous relationships? That they exist? Since we know what polygamy and incest exist (Lions, Seals, non-human Primates) in major animal populations, does that not prove that those things are valid human sexual developments.

3) There has been NO NONE NADA definitive, rigorous, repeatable work on human sexual development. The agreement I stated was that there was an interplay of genetic predispositions and early life experiences which shaped human sexual development.

[molly]

130. One is BORN gay - the other is a choice.

[Guaranteed]

163. That's not true, and even if it was, so what?

Humans are BORN with the natural tendency to want to have sex with more than one person.

Even if polygamy isn't "natural," it's still something that consenting people should be able to practice. If homosexuality wasn't natural, would you then say it should be banned?

[molly]

166. I prefer serial monogamy myself

would you like someone you love to be sleeping around?

[Guaranteed]

168. My girlfriend has slept with other people.

Not while with me, of course (I think).

But my point is that people don't mate for life.

[VelmaD]

170. If both partners agree to it...

and are honest and open about it, what's the problem?

Just because you personally wouldn't choose and don't understand a polyamorous lifestyle doesn't mean there aren't other people that it works for.

[molly]

175. How many women do you know of that have had

more than 1 husband serially? It's a man thing!

[VelmaD]

179. Gotcha...

I actually have known a woman who had more than one "husband" at a time. My favorite ex from back in high school spent several years living with a woman who had another "husband" besides him.

And lord knows I know plenty of women who have been married over and over and over. My best friend's mom (4 marriages), my favorite cousin (6 marriages).

[geniph]

182. Actually, I know a number of poly couples

who have both other male mates and other female mates.

There are a LOT of us out there. You just don't see us on the news, so people don't understand how many of us there are.

Not everyone is monogamous by nature, and some of us are much happier in poly relationships. Some of those relationships are long-term enough that they ARE marriages, whatever the law calls them.

[Guaranteed]

210. Oh, I see. So you're just trying to attack men. nt

[HuckleB]

152. Uh, no.

You are born homosexual. You are not born a polygamist. One is a genetic given. The other is a lifestyle "choice."

[VelmaD]

153. Actually one can be born polyamorous...

just like one can be born homosexual. Whether or not to marry however is a choice. Why should that choice be denied to any consenting adults?

[HuckleB]

154. The evidence of genetics on this is?

Just wondering.

[VelmaD]

157. Probably in the same place...

as the evidence that being born gay or straight or monogamous or any other place on the spectrum of human sexuality is purely genetic.

I'm willing to accept on faith when my gay friends tell me "I was born this way". I am also willing to accept it when my polyamorous friends say "I was born this way".

[HuckleB]

159. More studies regarding gay genetics come out every year.

It's not just a matter of "faith." I've yet to see anything resembling that for polygamy.

[VelmaD]

161. Given the high incidence of...

polygamy and spouses "cheating" on each other...I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to find that humans are hard-wired to have more than one mate at a time.

I'll admit I haven't done a lot of research on this but I'll ask around and see if any of my poly friends know of anything.

I think however that my basic point in all of this stands and does not need genetic research to back it up. What consenting adults do isn't any of our business. Yes, the situations where women are forced into marraige, especially young girls, are wrong and should be stamped out...hard. But there are plenty of women who are forced into and subjugated in monogamous marriages as well and I don't see anyone arguing that as a reason monogamous marriage should be banned as well.

[HuckleB]

167. You're going away from our discussion.

Whether consenting adults should be able to do as they choose is one thing. Calling it a genetic-based trait is another.

[VelmaD]

169. Actually saying someone is "born that way"...

doesn't necessarily have to mean it's genetic but that's getting into metaphysics and whether or not you believe our personalities are formed in part before we get here. :)

[HuckleB]

177. Indeed.

One could go down any number of roads from there, of course. I admit that I'm more apt to stay in my little world, where genetics plus gestation plus environment (which includes millions of factors, of course) lead to who we are. Of course, the roads within that little world are far too many for me to travel in one lifetime, as it is.

This thread is getting way too big for me and my dial-up connection.

Nice chatting with you.

Salud!

[Guaranteed]

171. I believe that the study of evolution suggests that humans

tend to like to have sex with more than just one person.

[Guaranteed]

172. If that's not enough for you, just go into any bar on a Friday night,

look around at the goings on, maybe listen in on a few guys' conversations.

[VelmaD]

174. or girls'

:-)

[HuckleB]

180. Now you're hurting your argument.

Bar talk, for the most part, as any honest male will tell you, is very much a learned behavior.

[Guaranteed]

209. But sex drives aren't.

The initial sexual attraction to a man/woman is not a learned behavior- really. At least according to those that argue that being gay is genetic.

[HuckleB]

217. Changing the subject?

Not sure what your point is here.

[HuckleB]

178. Perhaps, but we're talking about genetics.

That's really just a historical part of the evolutionary literature, very much an aside, at best, in terms of hard science.

[Guaranteed]

208. Genetics and evolution are pretty tight.

They rely an awful lot on each other.

[HuckleB]

216. Yes, but, again, you're talking about history, not evolution.

[Champ]

76. Wow people talking about my thread?

You know I don't think it's much of a problem if they don't go after the underage girls like that Tom Green with a 16 year old wife?!? It's their religion (many refer it to as a cult) but both are protected under the 1st amendment. But this is an interesting discussion though.

[Liberal Classic]

77. Without looking it up

I can say that most states allow marriage under the age of 18 with parental consent.

[Champ]

78. That is true

I forgot about that. Hmm still an interesting discussion though, I'm enjoying reading the responses in this thread. Alot of good points being made.

[Liberal Classic]

79. I find it a facinating topic

A co-worker of mine and good friend is Hindu, and because of an arranged marriage had to move to another state. Before he left I took him to the local nudie bar at lunch. I think his words were something like "I love social permissiveness!" or other. I hope he's doing alright. Rav whereever you are I hope it's worth it!

[TheWizardOfMudd]

82. I defer to the Beach Boys in this matter

"Two girls for every boy."

Heh. :o

[orthogonal]

83. It's none of my business

I haven't been defending polygamy in the thread you referenced, but in general, I don't think it's my business to tell others whom to love or whom to marry.

Gay, straight, Christian, Mormon, Hindu, atheist -- whatever, how you choose to run your life isn't for me to judge, until and unless someone is constructively harmed by it.

Look, I just don't care: if two guys want to get married, if three girls want to marry one guy, if a guy and his dog and his cousin want to get married -- it's just none of my business. Let them do what makes them happy. I don't have a direct line to the Almighty -- indeed, I don't even believe in the Almighty -- and I'm not about to arrogate to myself the right to tell anyone else how to live their lives in the privacy of their own homes.

If underage girls are being forced into marriage, it's the being forced that's objectionable, not the number of wives in the marriage; conversely, if everyone in some multiple-spouse marriage is a consenting adult, my opinion on the matter should have no legal standing.

[Veggie Meathead]

103. I think polygamy is preferable to fooling around on the sly.

If everybody involved is an adult and consents to the arrangement,it can actually be a life enhancing thing.But, who is an adult in our society anymore? So, count yourself lucky if you can make a success of your relationship in monogamy.

[emad]

123. Polygamy demeans women. No woman should have to share

her man in the name of religion.

Imagine the fuss there would be in, say, the State of Utah, if all women were suddenly allowed to have up to four HUSBANDS.....

[Darranar]

129. Well, if it's a abuseless consensual relationship between adults...

I don't have a problem with it - or with a woman having multiple husbands, for what it's worth.

The problem, of course, is that many traditions force polygamous marriages that are neither consensual nor between only adults. This should certainly remain illegal, as should abuse of any sort.

And, to clarify: Any new member of the marriage should be consented to by ALL members of the marriage, or else it would no longer be consensual.

[sus]

133. well said.

[sniffa]

134. zzzzzz

my god, just agree with her before she wets herseLf.

[Pithlet]

158. Because nobody else

gets passionate about any other issues on DU. Imagine, getting into such a hysterical tizzy over a silly little issue like subjugation of women and children. She should just shut up already. Isn't it annoying when people stand up for what they believe? </sarcasm again. I can't help myself>

[VelmaD]

160. But she's not just complaining...

about subjugation of women and children. By stating that all polygamy is wrong she is insulting polyamorous liberals on this site who don't subjugate anyone and who would like to be able to share a public committment with the partners of their heart.

[Pithlet]

162. I'm not saying that I agree with everything she is saying.

I just object to the "shut her up, already" feeling of that post. It seems to happen most often when women's issues are being discussed by a woman. How many times have you ever seen a post like that when anyone else is discussing other political matters?

[VelmaD]

165. Good point...

and I don't particularly want her to shut up either given that I'm a veteran of that attitude during the "bitch" wars.

Personally I'd prefer to have everyone keep right on talking until maybe we can all understand one another.

[Pithlet]

173. So do I.

I think the points about how oppressive many polygamous arrangements are are very valid ones. I don't think banning them is the answer, and I think it can actually make things worse. But, the abuse and subjugation these women and children face in the worst case scenarios is a very real issue.

I'm rather conflicted, because I understand that there are consenting adults who practice this in non abusive and subjugating ways, but I don't think those arrangements are quite the same thing. But, by banning all polygamy, you discriminate against those who don't practice it in such an abusive matter. It's a tough subject.

[VelmaD]

176. One of the best parts about liberals...

is that we sit down and talk and argue these things out and think about all these little nuances and worry about who's getting hurt or who could get hurt if we change things. Sometimes it feels like we just go round and round and round in circles. But it's better than the opposition and their bedrock belief in a black and white world where they know THE TRUTH.

[SiouxJ]

137. For those who think this is ok, you might want to educate

yourself a little.

This topic is covered a lot in my local paper because of the situation in Colorado City (in northern AZ). This is a cut off town where Mormon extremists practice polygamy. They basically hold their people prisoner and force them to conform to this way of life. They support their lifestyle through welfare fraud. I've seen interviews with former members - women (well, girls actually) who have managed to escape, and it's really not something to be joked about. It's on a par with the Taliban. These girls are purposely kept uneducated and their only purpose is to marry one of these polygamists and reproduce. The town is completely controlled by these extremists. I've been through there and it's freaky. Feels like Stepford or something. More about this:

A five-month New Times investigation has revealed:

• Women and children are considered property of the religious leadership, called the Priesthood, which, in turn, is controlled by the Prophet.

• More than 50 families have been ripped apart and "reassigned" to new husbands on the Prophet's command. New husbands sometimes marry the daughters of their reassigned wives.

• Many young men deemed unworthy of the Priesthood are driven out of town with police assistance so that they cannot compete with men in polygamous marriages.

• Many followers of the Prophet would kill to defend him from arrest, leading Arizona authorities to fear another Waco.

• The Colorado City town government has never had a contested election, or even a political campaign.

• The Colorado City marshal, the chief law enforcement officer in town, is a polygamist, and police routinely ignore cases where teenagers are having sex with much older men who purport to be their husbands.

• Child molestation by fathers and older brothers is common.

• The religion has created an economic collective called the United Effort Plan that controls land ownership and ruthlessly evicts women and men (and their families) accused of violating FLDS tenets.


The whole article: http://www.polygamyinfo.com/plygmedia%2003%2011newtimesaz.htm

[Magrittes Pipe]

138. By your logic...

...just because some monogomous husbands beat their wives, the entire idea of monogomy is demeaning to women. That you fail to get that renders your subject line quite humorously ironic.

Yes. There are specific instances of polygamy that cannot be called anything short of deplorable. There are other instances that are not. There are instances of women having plural husbands, men having plural wives, and a bunch of people living together of both sexes calling each other "husband" and "wife" in which no domination or subjugation occurs.

You might want to educate yourself a little.

[SiouxJ]

141. What logic?

I never said anything about monogamy being demeaning to women. Quit trying to read things that aren't there. All I said was read up on the issue before you make your decision as to whether this is ok or not.

Sure in a "perfect world" polygamy sounds like a great idea (to many men, and some women). The problem is that we don't live in a perfect world and this situation can easily lead to child abuse. The fact that the mainstream Mormons moved away from it indicates they saw its potential.

I have no more to say on the issue. I just think people should read up on it before they make flippant remarks.

[Magrittes Pipe]

143. Yes, you really should read up before making flippant remarks.

"I never said anything about monogamy being demeaning to women. Quit trying to read things that aren't there. All I said was read up on the issue before you make your decision as to whether this is ok or not."

You said polygamy is evil based upon the actions of some. LOGIC then dictates that since some MONOGOMOUS relationships are abusive, that monogamy is evil as well. You cannot attribute the actions of a few to everyone. All sorts of bigotry is based upon such stereotypical assumptions.

And yes, to claim that ALL polygamists are abusers is bigoted.

[Radical Activist]

140. You might want to educate yourself

about how polygamy has worked in other times, cultures and situations. I don't think anyone has attempted to defend the polygamous cults that exist today in the US. Most of the arguments about how evil it is focus on how young the girls are and the fact that its forced. Well, some teenage girls have been forced into abusive monogomous marriages also. If you want to talk about how wrong it is to force young girls into marriage that's fine, but lets not assume that polygamy has always worked that way in all cases in other cultures and time periods or that it only happens in polygamous marriages. I can give endless examples of monogamous marriages being unhealthy but that doesn't mean that all of them are bad does it? Some feminists will argue that any marriage between a man and a woman is destructive and oppressive against the woman but I disagree.

One might also keep in mind that there are always more women on the earth than men. Even if every criminal, rapist and abusive man on earth were married there would still be many women without the opportunity to be married to anyone at all if those so choosed.

[Susang]

142. I'm sure Sioux is educated

Far more than most on this subject.

Would someone who is defending this practice please give me examples of a society where polygamy did not subjugate or basically make women the property of their husbands? Keep in mind, I'm not talking about the women having limited rights under the law, I'm talking about full equal partners. Radical Activist talks about "endless examples" of monogamous marriage being bad. Well, how about some "endless examples" of polygamy being positive? So far, I've seen squat. Anyone?

[Magrittes Pipe]

145. The ancient Celts practiced polygamy.

They were a matrilineal society -- women held all the property rights. Men held other positions of authority. Men and women were not considered equal in every way (some things were "men's work," others "women's work"), but the sum total was very egalitarian.

Partners came and went out of various relationships, and children were raised pretty much comunally. Women and men were both considered worthy of equal respect, and everybody was happy until St. Patrick came and kicked the shit out of them and made them subjugate women in the name of cross and crown.

[Susang]

147. Which ancient Celts?

And how do you know for sure? There are many schools of thought on the subject and ancient Celtic culture is much romanticized. The word Celt itself lumps together a whole bunch of different cultures that were often quite dissimilar and wasn't even coined until the 18th century. So which "Celts" are we talking about here?

[Magrittes Pipe]

151. Touche!

I am specifically refering to the pre-Christian inhabitants of Ireland -- and I admit that my main sources have been Irish histories (and we Irish have never been known to let the facts get in the way of a good yarn ;)). Still, I can't imagine anybody arguing that the status of women improved after the Roman invasion.

My greater issue is simply this -- the implication that because SOME polygamists have done horrible things, then ALL polygamists are evil is bigotry, plain and simple. Equating all polygamists with people like Warren Jeffs is THE SAME THING as equating all Muslims with Osama bin Laden.

[SiouxJ]

146. You are correct

luckily I was allowed to continue my education beyond the 5th grade. And horror of horrors, I even got a BA. ;-)

:hi: Susan

[VelmaD]

148. How about just naming one society...

where women weren't subjugated to men PERIOD whether polygyny was practiced or not.

The problem isn't polygyny...it's pervasive sexism. One could use all the same arguments to say that monogamous marriage should not be allowed because it has been used to subjugate women.

[MadHound]

139. I have no serious reservations against polygamy.

It is not for me, but if the people involved are consenting adults, I see no reason for it not to be legal. Many many societies have practiced polygamy. Some, as is the case with old line Mormons, are vehicles for male dominance. Some, as in the case with various African and Celtic tribes were polyandrous, a phenomenon seen later in the American Old West, where most of the pioneers and settlers were men. The few women out west were highly valued, and married/cohabitated with multiple partners simoultaneously.

Polygamy is has also been practiced down through the ages by Jews, Christians, and Muslims, and still is to this day. The majority of both Christians and Muslims in Africa see nothing wrong with a cooperative polygamous relationship, and in many cases welcome the extra set(s) of hands for help with the raising of children and working the land.

However when the subject of polygamy is brought up in modern America, people automatically think of the modern day, illegal, old line Mormon relationships. They bemoan the child abuse that occurs in such relationships, the utter dominace of the male, and the all too frequent wife abuse that occurs. And yet these same people seem to forget that these very same activities occur just as frequently in monogamous relationships too. Wives are abused, children are abused, and the male in the relationship is the one in complete control. It doesn't matter WHAT type of marital structure a person is in, if they are an abusive type of person, they will still abuse somebody. By outlawing polygamy, society has forced a subset of people to exist out of sight and scrutiny of society at large, and thus increased the chances of abusive behaviour. If polygamy were legalized, such relationships would be opened to public scrutiny, with a better chance of intervention, much as monogamous relationships are now open to public scrutiny and intervention.

Society also tends to forget America's most recent flirtation with polygamy, which was a part of the counterculture movement in the '60s. Group weddings, communal groups, these were common enough phenomenon so as to be known to the public at large. Born out of the protest and counterculture movements, this modern day polygamy was open and mostly free of abuse, a societal construct between consenting adults. A lot of these relationships didn't survive, some morphed into monogamous couplings, and yet some survived intact and undamaged. There are a number of old communes dotting the wilds of southern Missouri that are still in essence functioning group marriage units, with all activities done communally, including the successful raising of children. None of the members of these groups that I have talked with suffered any ill effects from their relationship, and in fact most have been quite pleased with their lifestyle and wouldn't trade it for anything in the world, including(and especially) a monogamous relationship.

So don't knock it out of some misguided notion of protecting the wives and children. For I think(and it has been born out by both history and statistics) that if polygamy were legalized, one would see the instances of child and spousal abuse amongst the old line Mormons decrease, as the full strictures of the law, along with the spotlight of public scrutiny were brought to bear on these abhorent practices.

[geniph]

156. Am I the only person here who knows people who are happily married

to multiple partners? (And no, they're not legally "married" as far as the state is concerned.) I'm part of the polyamory community, and I know a number of persons who've been living quite contentedly in a household with one (legal) spouse and varying numbers of others for years. I'm not talking about bizarro-world cultists like the Mormon fundamentalists - who are incestuous child abusers who belong in prison. I'm talking about adult persons who love more than one partner. There are one whole hell of a lot of us out there. Many have families which include children. Many are child-free by choice. I would venture to say the incidence of abuse in the consensually poly families is actually lower than in the general population, because there is someone else to go to for help, whether it's one of the partners being abused or a child.

I think a lot of people here are equating all poly with the way the cultists practice it, but we in the polyamory community are falling below your radar - because we're not marrying children, putting our partners on welfare, or having 83 kids. We're your neighbors. And we're not weirdos. We're just people who love more than one.

Please don't lump us all together. We are not the same as the cultists. But we ARE polygamous.

[Forkboy]

191. All my wives agree this thread is an overreaction

:P

[GoddessOfGuinness]

197. This thread has given me a headache...

I'll never have more than one husband.
Any others will have to settle for being concubines. :evilgrin:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

200. Apples and oranges here

Yes, I think any enlightened person would condemn the retro Mormon practice of forcing young teenagers to marry older men. Or the similar practices that exist in the Third World.

However, that is a totally different thing from some of the things that consenting adults do in Western countries.

When I lived in Minnesota twenty years ago, I knew a household that had a menage a trois, two women and one man. I didn't realize it when I first met them, but the two women ran a business together, and they shared the legal husband of one of them. They didn't go around advertising it, but anyone who associated with them for any length of time finally figured it out, after hearing the children of both women call the man "daddy."

I'm not saying that such an arrangement is legal, ethical, or desirable. Most people who knew the household thought it was kind of funny and quirky, and I saw no evidence that anyone was being exploited.

[thebaghwan]

201. You mean polygamy is not cool???

n/t

[HawkerHurricane]

215. Personal opinion

The fact that some people abuse children and women under the guise of polygamy is conceeded. I will not argue the point.

The fact that many cultures in history treated women as property without rights is also conceeded.

BUT

what consenting adults do in thier personal relationships is nobody else's business.

Some people abuse alchohol. In the 1920's, alchohol was banned. It did not solve the problem.

Some people abuse a variety of drugs. These drugs were banned. It doesn't solve the problem.

To point out, repeatedly and annoyingly, that in polygamous marraiges children and women are abused, does not mean that all polygamous marraiges are bad, no more than pointing out that since alchohol and drugs are abused means that they are bad. The problem is not polygamy, it is the abuse and sexism.

[Nikia]

218. There needs to be a workable model which might be difficult

There are Americans that practice polygamy of various types although such relationships are not recognized by law. Heterosexual marriage law generally treats the two people in marriage as equals. To allow homosexual marriage, the law only needs to be changed to allow people to marry members of the same sex. To allow people to marry more than one person, the law needs to be changed in many ways for such marriages to be legally recognized.
Polygamous marriages traditionally mean women are subjegated to their husband who is head of the household and some wife or wives are usually given better treatment than others. There can be other arrangements, some of which are not based on sexism but communal living. There are many forms and if it were legal amongst any group of people with benefits extended, there might be many more forms of it. I think people participating in group marriage for benefits could be a problem. Yes, some couples marry only for benefits and don't have what many think of as marriage. Those people are prohibit from marrying others though while married to their benefits partner. If a person could marry as many people as they wanted to marry, there would be many more people married for benefits only. Divorce law might be complex especially if you have group marriage and some members of the group married to different people. Even in its most basic traditional form, divorce would be bad for the divorcing woman who may have worked outside of the home and contributed a great deal financially to the marriage. If she were one of 10 wives, she would get very little financially in the event of divorce. People can do what they want, but I don't see how there can be a workable legal model.

[JVS]

220. Kick