Legalization of Polygamy in America

Pages

Re-posted from the Prop 8 thread.

Dimmerswitch wrote:
farley3k wrote:

If his definition of marriage is 1 man and 1 woman, and that definition is being changed to 1 man/woman and 1 man/woman it is somewhat logical to wonder why the "1" has to stay.

In other words if we can change the gender part of "marriage" why can't we change the numerical part?

Is there a good reason why it has to remain between 1 and 1? Or is that just us sticking to our preconceived notions just like Moore is sticking to his?

There is not a good reason that the numerical part can't change. Marriage between whatever number of consenting adults is nobody's business who isn't in that relationship.

And it's always hilarious to me when conservatives fall all over themselves to try to use the Bible to prevent gay marriage, while simultaneously decrying gay marriage as a gateway to the apparently-much-worse plural marriage.

Surprisingly, they're a little hazy on the Biblical justification for that last bit. :)

Dimmerswitch wrote:
Trophy Husband wrote:

Plural marriage has been pretty problematic historically. Is that something we would really want to endorse coming back?

Citations needed.

I'd argue that how consenting adults choose to structure their romantic and family life is nobody's business but theirs.

Dimmerswitch wrote:
farley3k wrote:
Dimmerswitch wrote:

There is not a good reason that the numerical part can't change. Marriage between whatever number of consenting adults is nobody's business who isn't in that relationship.

From an ethical standpoint I agree with you but, as a society, we grant certain privileges to married people. Things like tax breaks would be very very much complicated if you could file jointly with 37 other people!

Given the current complexity of tax law I don't think the needle would be moved too much by granting legal recognition to poly marriages.

From a legal standpoint, a marriage is just a contract. While contracts between larger numbers of parties do become more complicated, this hasn't been an insoluble problem in other areas of contract law. For instance, LLCs are allowed to have an arbitrarily-large number of members, but I haven't seen anyone argue that the tax benefits granted to an LLC are somehow too-complex when there are more than a particular number of members.

Trophy Husband wrote:
Dimmerswitch wrote:
Trophy Husband wrote:

Plural marriage has been pretty problematic historically. Is that something we would really want to endorse coming back?

Citations needed.

I'd argue that how consenting adults choose to structure their romantic and family life is nobody's business but theirs.

Not sure I'd be able to find anything that could satisfy the citation request. Plenty of anecdotal stuff out there on the treatment of women in polygamist environments, but proponents of polygamy could attribute that to other things.
http://www.cracked.com/article_19595...

Has there been an example of polygamy being practiced successfully and responsibly in the last 100 years or so?

Yonder wrote:

Polygamy can take forms other than one 40 year old man and 6 teenage girls.

Ideally in theory yes, but doesn't it generally invite that type of behavior? I'm genuinely interested in understanding if polygamy is successfully practiced on a broad scale. It appears to be one of those ideas that are good in theory, but terrible in practice.

Trophy Husband wrote:

Has there been an example of polygamy being practiced successfully and responsibly in the last 100 years or so?

Polygamy is outlawed in most developed countries, so the only examples you can find are in the developing world (where women tend not to have equal rights to begin with in any aspect of society).

I imagine that there will be a natural progression to it: from the old school generally accepted polygyny (with women viewed as subserviants/property to be acquired), to the rise of women's rights, to the outlawing of polygamy in recognition of those rights, to ultimately the re-legalization of polygamy once such legislation no longer seems necessary for protection.

I think this also makes it substantively different than gay marriage, since outlawing polygamy seems to me to be historically rooted in a genuine interest in the well-being of women, whereas outlawing gay marriage never served any useful purpose.

edit - repost

Do we really give a sh*t what consenting adults do? Why is this not a waste of time?

I think the state should get out of the marriage business entirely, and just treat it all as straight contract. Religious and private organizations can then define marriage however they like; having government be the mediator here seems weird on a lot of levels.

clover wrote:

I think the state should get out of the marriage business entirely, and just treat it all as straight contract. Religious and private organizations can then define marriage however they like; having government be the mediator here seems weird on a lot of levels.

I feel like that is the answer.

Polygamy would only give people in existing polyamorous relationships legal recognition. The 40 year old man marrying teenage girls is a different thing entirely. Currently, that 40 year old can only marry 1 teenage girl, so yes, if we had legal polygamy, a 40 year old could now marry the other 5.

Edwin wrote:

Do we really give a sh*t what consenting adults do? Why is this not a waste of time?

Only a waste of time if you visit and post to the thread.

Trophy Husband wrote:
Yonder wrote:

Polygamy can take forms other than one 40 year old man and 6 teenage girls.

Ideally in theory yes, but doesn't it generally invite that type of behavior? I'm genuinely interested in understanding if polygamy is successfully practiced on a broad scale. It appears to be one of those ideas that are good in theory, but terrible in practice.

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/5HpKFCP.jpg)

SallyNasty wrote:
clover wrote:

I think the state should get out of the marriage business entirely, and just treat it all as straight contract. Religious and private organizations can then define marriage however they like; having government be the mediator here seems weird on a lot of levels.

I feel like that is the answer.

Agree.

obirano wrote:
SallyNasty wrote:
clover wrote:

I think the state should get out of the marriage business entirely, and just treat it all as straight contract. Religious and private organizations can then define marriage however they like; having government be the mediator here seems weird on a lot of levels.

I feel like that is the answer.

Agree.

BUT WITHOUT A STRONG MORAL COMPASS TO GUIDE OUR LEGISLATORS, WE WILL BE LIVING IN HELL ON EARTH.

You're right. It's much better for them to have mistresses and cheat on their wives instead of just having two wives.

obirano wrote:

You're right. It's much better for them to have mistresses and cheat on their wives instead of just having two wives.

As it was in the beginning, and now, and always, and to the ages of ages. Amen.

BUT WITHOUT A STRONG MORAL COMPASS TO GUIDE OUR LEGISLATORS, WE WILL BE LIVING IN HELL ON EARTH.

I'm convinced! Where do I subscribe to your newsletter?

Trophy Husband wrote:
Yonder wrote:

Polygamy can take forms other than one 40 year old man and 6 teenage girls.

Ideally in theory yes, but doesn't it generally invite that type of behavior? I'm genuinely interested in understanding if polygamy is successfully practiced on a broad scale. It appears to be one of those ideas that are good in theory, but terrible in practice.

So the concern is that people might be entering into marriage with people who are under age? Preventing under-age marriage is something I'd support, regardless of the number of partners involved.

clover wrote:

I think the state should get out of the marriage business entirely, and just treat it all as straight contract. Religious and private organizations can then define marriage however they like; having government be the mediator here seems weird on a lot of levels.

Strongly agreed.

In cultures that permit men to take multiple wives, the intra-sexual competition that occurs causes greater levels of crime, violence, poverty and gender inequality than in societies that institutionalize and practice monogamous marriage.

http://news.ubc.ca/2012/01/23/monoga...

fangblackbone wrote:
BUT WITHOUT A STRONG MORAL COMPASS TO GUIDE OUR LEGISLATORS, WE WILL BE LIVING IN HELL ON EARTH.

I'm convinced! Where do I subscribe to your newsletter?

www.vigilantcitizen.com

Trophy Husband wrote:
In cultures that permit men to take multiple wives, the intra-sexual competition that occurs causes greater levels of crime, violence, poverty and gender inequality than in societies that institutionalize and practice monogamous marriage.

http://news.ubc.ca/2012/01/23/monoga...

What about when women take multiple male partners?

Based on nearly 1,500 quantitative and qualitative questionnaires that were distributed in 12 Malaysian states, the Sisters in Islam study is one of the largest ever conducted on the issue.

Its findings were alarming. Results showed that not only did polygamy negatively affect the wives, it also had extremely harmful effects on children who were the product of such unions. Many reported being neglected by their father when he had obtained a new wife.

As the number of wives and consequently the number of children grew, there were fewer resources and lesser attention or affection to go around. In cases where the father had more than 10 children from two or more wives, the children reported that he could often not recognise them, asking them to which mother they belonged when they went to ask for pocket money or school fees.

The condition also imperilled the children’s relationship with their mothers, whom they saw as weak and unable to get proper attention from their fathers. In simple terms, because the mother was the only parent that they knew and frequently interacted with, they often held her responsible for the fact that their father was not paying enough attention to them.

http://www.dawn.com/news/1135346

Trophy Husband wrote:
Yonder wrote:

Polygamy can take forms other than one 40 year old man and 6 teenage girls.

Ideally in theory yes, but doesn't it generally invite that type of behavior? I'm genuinely interested in understanding if polygamy is successfully practiced on a broad scale. It appears to be one of those ideas that are good in theory, but terrible in practice.

No. A lack of laws/enforcement of laws on the minimum consensual age of sex or marriage invites that situation. Polyamory simply invites more than 2 people to be in a relationship with one another. It doesn't steer any of those people to pedophilia any more than homosexuality steers people towards pedophilia. The above quote is no different from:

"Homosexuality can take forms other than a 40 year old man and a teenage boy."
"Ideally in theory yes, but doesn't it generally invite that type of behavior?"

No.

I don't know what the actual numbers are, because it's not tracked by the census and there are dangers to coming out*. But the idea that polyamory and polygamy is some crazy thing that doesn't actually happen in healthy relationships every day is just flat out wrong. And the best examples of a polygamous lifestyle are probably not the ones popularized by federal raids to dismantle their cult oppression of women and children. There are far better examples right here on this forum.

*In that specific case there was actual neglect as well, but that doesn't change the fact that the catalyst that actually got the court system involved and ruling against the family was the fact that the mother had an alternative lifestyle.

Children, too, appear to suffer in polygamous cultures. Henrich examines a study comparing 19th-century Mormon households, 45 of them headed by wealthy men, generally with multiple wives, and 45 headed by poorer men, generally with one wife each. What’s surprising is that the children of the poorer men actually fared better, proving more likely to survive to age 15. Granted, this is a small study, but it’s consistent with other studies, including one from Africa showing that the children of monogamous households tend to do better than those from polygynous households in the same communities. Why? Some scholars suspect that polygyny may discourage paternal investment. Men with lots of children and wives are spread too thin, and to make things worse, they’re compiling resources to attract their next wives instead of using it on their existing families.

http://www.slate.com/articles/double...

Trophy Husband wrote:
Based on nearly 1,500 quantitative and qualitative questionnaires that were distributed in 12 Malaysian states, the Sisters in Islam study is one of the largest ever conducted on the issue.

Its findings were alarming. Results showed that not only did polygamy negatively affect the wives, it also had extremely harmful effects on children who were the product of such unions. Many reported being neglected by their father when he had obtained a new wife.

As the number of wives and consequently the number of children grew, there were fewer resources and lesser attention or affection to go around. In cases where the father had more than 10 children from two or more wives, the children reported that he could often not recognise them, asking them to which mother they belonged when they went to ask for pocket money or school fees.

The condition also imperilled the children’s relationship with their mothers, whom they saw as weak and unable to get proper attention from their fathers. In simple terms, because the mother was the only parent that they knew and frequently interacted with, they often held her responsible for the fact that their father was not paying enough attention to them.

http://www.dawn.com/news/1135346

This is rich. "Super patriarchal societies that seek to remove all resources from all women lead to worst scenarios for women when there are lots of powerless women living off of the support from a single entity".

That's an argument against patriarchal society, not against polygamy.

NathanialG wrote:
Trophy Husband wrote:
In cultures that permit men to take multiple wives, the intra-sexual competition that occurs causes greater levels of crime, violence, poverty and gender inequality than in societies that institutionalize and practice monogamous marriage.

http://news.ubc.ca/2012/01/23/monoga...

What about when women take multiple male partners?

That's a good question. I don't believe there's any information on that. At least I haven't been able to dig any up.

Trophy Husband wrote:
Children, too, appear to suffer in polygamous cultures. Henrich examines a study comparing 19th-century Mormon households, 45 of them headed by wealthy men, generally with multiple wives, and 45 headed by poorer men, generally with one wife each. What’s surprising is that the children of the poorer men actually fared better, proving more likely to survive to age 15. Granted, this is a small study, but it’s consistent with other studies, including one from Africa showing that the children of monogamous households tend to do better than those from polygynous households in the same communities. Why? Some scholars suspect that polygyny may discourage paternal investment. Men with lots of children and wives are spread too thin, and to make things worse, they’re compiling resources to attract their next wives instead of using it on their existing families.

http://www.slate.com/articles/double...

Every single post you make just cements how unable you are to imagine any sort of gender equitable system of multiple partners, which says troubling things about your idea of gender equality in general.

The focus of all these studies is on polygyny specifically, with a nearly complete disregard for polyandry and polyamory.

It is an important distinction, because most of our data stems from polygyny in patriarchal cultures.

I am a die-hard monogamist, but that's my personal preference. I prefer the idea of doing away with marriage as a legal institution and replacing it with legal partnerships of whatever stripe the people entering the contract wish. Leave "marriage" as an unofficial thing people can celebrate however they choose.

Trophy Husband wrote:
NathanialG wrote:
Trophy Husband wrote:
In cultures that permit men to take multiple wives, the intra-sexual competition that occurs causes greater levels of crime, violence, poverty and gender inequality than in societies that institutionalize and practice monogamous marriage.

http://news.ubc.ca/2012/01/23/monoga...

What about when women take multiple male partners?

That's a good question. I don't believe there's any information on that. At least I haven't been able to dig any up.

We'll just paint a giant red A on their foreheads.

Yonder wrote:
Trophy Husband wrote:
Children, too, appear to suffer in polygamous cultures. Henrich examines a study comparing 19th-century Mormon households, 45 of them headed by wealthy men, generally with multiple wives, and 45 headed by poorer men, generally with one wife each. What’s surprising is that the children of the poorer men actually fared better, proving more likely to survive to age 15. Granted, this is a small study, but it’s consistent with other studies, including one from Africa showing that the children of monogamous households tend to do better than those from polygynous households in the same communities. Why? Some scholars suspect that polygyny may discourage paternal investment. Men with lots of children and wives are spread too thin, and to make things worse, they’re compiling resources to attract their next wives instead of using it on their existing families.

http://www.slate.com/articles/double...

Every single post you make just cements how unable you are to imagine any sort of gender equitable system of multiple partners, which says troubling things about your idea of gender equality in general.

I would happily post data on true polygamous studies, however the fact is none of them exist. Not because the researchers are against gender equity, but because polyandry is not common enough to be studied. I think you're also making some assumptions about me personally that are neither based in fact nor productive.

Farscry wrote:

The focus of all these studies is on polygyny specifically, with a nearly complete disregard for polyandry and polyamory.

It is an important distinction, because most of our data stems from polygyny in patriarchal cultures.

I am a die-hard monogamist, but that's my personal preference. I prefer the idea of doing away with marriage as a legal institution and replacing it with legal partnerships of whatever stripe the people entering the contract wish. Leave "marriage" as an unofficial thing people can celebrate however they choose.

We should just all incorporate.

"Hi I'm Yonder, I own 20% share in the O'Reilly household."

Yonder wrote:
Farscry wrote:

The focus of all these studies is on polygyny specifically, with a nearly complete disregard for polyandry and polyamory.

It is an important distinction, because most of our data stems from polygyny in patriarchal cultures.

I am a die-hard monogamist, but that's my personal preference. I prefer the idea of doing away with marriage as a legal institution and replacing it with legal partnerships of whatever stripe the people entering the contract wish. Leave "marriage" as an unofficial thing people can celebrate however they choose.

We should just all incorporate.

"Hi I'm Yonder, I own 20% share in the O'Reilly household."

God, why would you want any percentage of Bill's household? Gotta be for the money.

Trophy Husband wrote:
Yonder wrote:
Trophy Husband wrote:
Children, too, appear to suffer in polygamous cultures. Henrich examines a study comparing 19th-century Mormon households, 45 of them headed by wealthy men, generally with multiple wives, and 45 headed by poorer men, generally with one wife each. What’s surprising is that the children of the poorer men actually fared better, proving more likely to survive to age 15. Granted, this is a small study, but it’s consistent with other studies, including one from Africa showing that the children of monogamous households tend to do better than those from polygynous households in the same communities. Why? Some scholars suspect that polygyny may discourage paternal investment. Men with lots of children and wives are spread too thin, and to make things worse, they’re compiling resources to attract their next wives instead of using it on their existing families.

http://www.slate.com/articles/double...

Every single post you make just cements how unable you are to imagine any sort of gender equitable system of multiple partners, which says troubling things about your idea of gender equality in general.

I would happily post data on true polygamous studies, however the fact is none of them exist. Not because the researchers are against gender equity, but because polyandry is not common enough to be studied. I think you're also making some assumptions about me personally that are neither based in fact nor productive.

The problem with your studies is that they continue to be from groups that have basically devalued women and stripped them of their agency and rights. THAT is the problem with historical polygamy and current polygamy in settings where women's rights are minor to non-existant either legally or socially. It has little to nothing to do with the idea of polyamorous marriages in our current society. We have historical evidence of a completely different situation being bad... but does that mean that should be applied to this modern representation? Not really.

Yes, some douchey/greedy/perverted human beings will still abuse people with modern laws in place... just like they are already doing anyway. Why should healthy and normal human beings be stopped from living their lives in the way they feel makes them happy for the sake of of some assholes? It's like saying we should dismantle the social safety net for all people because a small percentage/fraction of the people using it are abusing it.

Yonder wrote:
Farscry wrote:

The focus of all these studies is on polygyny specifically, with a nearly complete disregard for polyandry and polyamory.

It is an important distinction, because most of our data stems from polygyny in patriarchal cultures.

I am a die-hard monogamist, but that's my personal preference. I prefer the idea of doing away with marriage as a legal institution and replacing it with legal partnerships of whatever stripe the people entering the contract wish. Leave "marriage" as an unofficial thing people can celebrate however they choose.

We should just all incorporate.

"Hi I'm Yonder, I own 20% share in the O'Reilly household."

"Buy low, sell high" seems to be the general guideline for some people when it comes to marriage.

Pages