If polygamy can empower women, why not legalize it?

[Emelina]

&list=WL0E100504AC4201ED

An interesting feminist perspective on polygamy, as practiced by modern-thinking groups. WHy not allow it if all people are at least 18 and make the choice to live as a group rather than a couple?

[Blue_Adept]

1. Ugh

Still dislike the polygamy thing, especially since it's tied to religion so much.

Much, much more preference for polyamory and what that all stands for and means.

[Emelina]

3. Then why not allow that too?

Besides, not all polygamy is tied to religion, but so what if it was? Everyone should have freedom of choice.

[Xithras]

13. Legally there's little difference between polygamy and polyamory.

In most states, polyamorous couples can be prosecuted and imprisoned under the same bigamy laws used to prosecute polygamous couples. In many states, the only requirement is that more than two people live together and are sexually active.

[Blue_Adept]

23. But the term...

doesn't have quite the stigma that polygamy does. Sometimes you just can't win with a particular word and have to move away from it, reinvent it with something new and change the approach. Polygamy and polyamory aren't the same thing by a longshot.

[Xithras]

25. While true, the OP was talking about legalization.

Legally, most states don't actually prohibit polygamy...they prohibit bigamy. Bigamy laws are written to cover the act of entering into a marriage with one person (or presenting yourself as spouses, even if not legally married) while married to another, irrespective of the genders of the people involved, or the power dynamics between them.

I tend to take a very libertine attitude toward marriage myself and believe that it should all be "legal". You shouldn't have to ask the government for permission to marry someone. Gay or straight, two or twenty.

[TampaAnimusVortex]

91. What a group of sane adults voluntarily do to each other isnt my business...

If they want to call themselves married or not, paint each other purple with pink polka dots, if they want to duct tape Christmas ornaments to their elbows and walk around like a duck... whatever.

Long as they aren't violating each other's rights or abusing children, who are we to tell them they cant do what they want? Long as anyone isn't being forcibly restrained from leaving the arrangement (or through threat of force), I don't see an issue.

[leftyladyfrommo]

2. Polygamy doesn't empower women.

I'm from Utah. Those polygamous wives are nothing but slave labor and easy sex for mostly disgusting men who like getting their jollies off with young girls.

Yuck!

Polyandry is when there is one wife and multiple husbands. Would you also be in favor of that?

[Emelina]

4. Did you listen to the anthropologist interviewed in the video?

There are good polygamists and there are bad just as there are bad monogamists and others good.

[leftyladyfrommo]

7. My degree is in Anthropology.

It was one thing to practice this kind of stuff when it made things easier for survival in hostile lands.

I'm just sick to death of women falling for all the male bullshit. Three wives? Great for the guy. He can sleep with all of them. And they can do all the work.

Come on.

[lumberjack_jeff]

15. It's not so great for most men either.

lost boys

[msanthrope]

93. Indeed. No one likes to talk about the male cubs that get cast off. nt

[Warpy]

55. Well, great for the women, too

when it comes to things like housework and childcare.

I knew one non religious polygamist family back in Mass. It ended badly, the women decided to throw hubby out and keep living with each other because it made so much more sense.

I have no objection to plural marriages. I only object to the "marriages" that involve girls who are still more child than woman and the ones where present wives have no say over who joins the family.

[Squinch]

59. And where the woman's total value is as a breeder. Ick.

[Warpy]

74. Not always true

Don't judge all polygamist families on the yardstick Warren Jeffs set up. Many of them are quite reasonable and many women have found it's the only way to have it all, kids and career, when other women pitch in doing the childcare.

Also keep in mind that the Quiverful families are monogamous ones and women in those are valued only as incubators for the next generation of crackpot Christians.

The commonality in both of them is the misogynist, male centered religion, not the number of partners in a marriage.

Condemning all polygamist families as female cattle farms is in error, just as it would be to condemn monogamist families as breeding farms because of the Quiverful nuts.

[Squinch]

77. Whenever it is associated with fundamental Mormonism,

even when it is in more "lenient" communities like Centennial Park (which does not follow Jeffs) the purpose of the multiple wives is to have as many children as possible so that they can populate the planets that their husbands will eventually become gods of.

And when that happens, the wives all get to wash the husband's feet with their hair. Woo hoo.

For real.

[leftyladyfrommo]

84. Yea! That's right.

If women want glory in heaven they have to have children - and as many as possible.

The whole idea is based on women as child bearers and sex partners.Kind of a limiting lifestyle.

[Warpy]

92. Then the problem is fundamentalist Mormonism

and not the number of consenting partners in any household.

[Squinch]

94. True. But fundamentalist Mormons are the vast majority of polygamists in the US, I think.

[Warpy]

95. But nothing

The problem is crackpot religion, not polygamy.

Polygamy can be a good system for some people.

[leftyladyfrommo]

79. Well, it was Utah.

Where women have to have lots of children so that they can get into heaven. There are all these little spirits flying around out in space. And every time a woman has another child she brings one of thos little spirits back to live on earth.

That place is so crazy. People just believe the strangest things.

[leftyladyfrommo]

8. Kind of like the hippy communes.

I lived thru those.

Now I just can't believe how stupid I was to fall for that stuff.

[Puzzledtraveller]

12. That made me laugh

That was good, thanks.

[EOTE]

38. Do you really think that anyone here who supports polygamy wouldn't also support polyandry?

I'm pretty sure that "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" would be your typical reply.

[Bluenorthwest]

51. the question was asked to a specific person, who did not in fact answer it at all.

Talked right past it actually.

[EOTE]

53. Well, I'd imagine the great, great bulk of DUers who support polygamy

would support polyandry as well. It would certainly be well beyond hypocritical if they didn't. I take the same position I've had the great bulk of my life. If it involves consenting adults, the government should have no business restricting it.

[Bluenorthwest]

63. That's as maybe, but my point is that when asked the OP did not say

good for goose, good for gander, they repeated that polygamy can be good or bad. That is telling. What the 'bulk' of DU would say has nothing to do with what the OP did not in fact say. You seemed to be attempting to fill in for the OP because you think you have similar views. I do not think you are correct. Most who practice polygamy are very opposed to polyandry, that's the fact because polygamy is almost always religiously based, not some communal freedom thing. To assume a polygamy advocate supports polyandry or marriage for LGBT people is a very poor assumption.

[appleannie1]

5. You could also argue that allowing females to have as many mates as they please would empower them.

They could lord it over a group of men unwilling to share their mate to their heart's content instead of having to deal with a group of catty women.

[HappyMe]

14. That's true.

I just don't see having to deal with a couple of other women as empowering. It just sounds like a miserable experience for everyone - petty arguments, jealousies, people ganging up on others...
The same with the one woman, multiple husbands.

If this is somebody else's thing, go ahead.

Legalize this? How about we get same sex marriage in all 50 states first.

[appleannie1]

31. Having been married 47 years, I find just keeping one person happy enough of a job for me.

I also found it difficult to exist in the same house with my mother when she got old and we moved her in with us. I can't imagine a whole group of women sharing the same abode or husband. It is not my thing either.

[In_The_Wind]

6. I live with two men. Things are done my way most of the time.

[Aerows]

9. Is it sexual?

Just curious, and not judgmental.

[In_The_Wind]

29. Only with one.

[hobbit709]

10. Why not polyandry?

[alp227]

11. How about a "my body my choice" law to replace all laws?

No more stupid laws like soda sizes or marriage sizes?

[Yo_Mama]

16. It doesn't. n/t

[siligut]

17. Polygamy dis-empowers women

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]
Polygamy empowers men, men who believe they are gods in the making.

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]
Polygamists also throw male children out of the cult so they don't take their share of the females.


I guess those boys should be glad that they weren't just given to the White Walkers the day they were born (Game of Thrones reference).

[HappyMe]

21. Polygamy is one person with a few mates.

There could also be one woman with many husbands.

[siligut]

24. One woman with > males is polyandry

In general, either way the singular spouse has the power. I recognize that people raised in polygamous groups may see the benefits and I also recognize that they have been conditioned to believe it is a good thing. But as pointed out up-thread, in these times, the destructive nature of polygamy far outweighs any advantage. The Mormons were seeking to build a large community of brethren to combat the US, so polygamy was a way to do that.

[HappyMe]

30. Thanks for the correct word.

If I wanted multiple partners, I would not have got married. I am also not willing to share my husband. I guess I'm just old fashioned that way.

If this kind of relationship works for some (other than Mormons) then have at it.

As far as making this legal - I don't think so. Let's get same sex marriage legal in all 50.

[Squinch]

64. Actually, technically, one man with many women is polygyny. One of either sex with

multiples of the other is polygamy.

[Squinch]

61. Is wearing draperies like those women in the photo are doing

also empowering to women?

That photo is chilling and grotesque and funny at the same time.

[geek tragedy]

18. Why am I suspicious of a new poster essentially posting

that the logical extension of marriage equality (from a progressive perspective) is polygamy, just as the Republicans claim it is.

Oh yeah . . .

I await the next newbie who will ask of the next progressive frontier in marriage is the ability to marry a box turtle . . .

[EOTE]

39. Polygamy is a consensual agreement.

If it's not, of course it should not be allowed. Box turtles cannot provide consent.

[geek tragedy]

40. People are already allowed to shag whomever they want on a continuing basis. nt

[EOTE]

42. Yep. And yet there are still consenting adults who can't marry who they want.

Pretty sick, isn't it?

[geek tragedy]

43. I favor the simple rule that any two consenting adults should be able to marry. nt

[EOTE]

46. So, it's just the number that's arbitrary.

I prefer to not tell consenting adults what to do if they're not hurting anyone. Just so you know, your number is every bit as arbitrary as deciding who should marry based on sexual orientation or color.

[geek tragedy]

48. Having the state attach legal rights and obligations goes beyond

"telling consenting adults what to do."

Logistically, allowing for >2 person marriages simply doesn't work from the standpoint of society's or the government's interests.

No one is discriminated against by the "two consenting, non-related adults" rule.

Whether or not you consider it to be arbitrary, it is not a civil rights issue to restrict it to two adults in an exclusive legal relationship.

[EOTE]

49. No one other than polygamists/polyandrists, that is.

It works perfectly fine, actually. There are plenty of successful examples of it just as there are plenty of successful examples of monogamous relationships. If you can divide property 2 ways, it can be divide 3, 4 or 5 ways. A divorce in a monogamous relationship can be incredibly complicated, a divorce in a polygamous relationship can be complicated too. The government should have zero say in the harmless things that consenting adults want to do.

[geek tragedy]

52. Sure, it's worked just fine in sharia law.

If the polygamist cultists in rural Utah want to claim a constitutional right to have harems sanctioned by the state, with the state enforcing the rules of those harems, they can file suit in federal court.

[EOTE]

54. Those scary Muslims also breathe air! We should stop immediately!

If your argument against something has been reduced to "But the brown heathens do it!", then you pretty much have no argument to begin with.

[geek tragedy]

57. Polygamy is associated with backwards, patriarchal

religiously fundamentalist societies and is against the public policy goals of the progressive movement.

It fits somewhere between marrying relatives and marrying pets in the civil rights pantheon.

Two consenting, non-related adults. That's where the debate will ultimately end.

[EOTE]

58. So, guilt by association. I expected nothing less.

Only those backward hillbillies drink whiskey, BAN IT! And that comparison is well past inane. Marrying relatives can cause horrific birth defects. And pets, once again as you seem terribly confused by this, cannot consent. So again, it boils down to your prejudice against brown people and your fixation on an arbitrary number.

[geek tragedy]

65. Yawn.

It's not compatible with American law or society. People who can't live without multiple spouses are free to move to places like Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan. Or to one of the fundy Mormon cults in rural Utah.

[EOTE]

67. Now the bigotry shines through.

Gay marriage is simply not compatible with American law or society. Those wacky gays are free to move to Vermont or Amsterdam. And besides, any gay person is more than welcome to marry any adult of the opposite sex they choose. Yawn.

[geek tragedy]

69. I favor full marriage equality for same-sex couples.

It is not bigotry to say we should not adopt Saudia Arabia's rules on marriage.

Go ahead and alert on this: polygamy is a sexist, male supremacist, backwards cultural practice. It has no place in the United States.

[EOTE]

71. No, it's bigotry to suggest that certain things are bad because certain groups of people do them.

Your kind of bigotry doesn't belong in this country. And it's quite clear who the sexist is here. It's clear that you think that consenting adults should be able to do as they please, unless you find what they do icky. Or perhaps if scary brown people also do it. Your bigotry just oozes. And by the way, I don't alert on posts.

[geek tragedy]

72. You're very angry and saying a lot of nonsensical things.

Last word is yours.

[EOTE]

73. I figured you might have a problem with plain english.

But that's totally on you.

[CincyDem]

60. Finally. Community support for me and my Yertle.

I'm sure by now Santorum is thinking up man on turtle talking points.

Same as man on dog but slower?

[geek tragedy]

66. .

http://www.bing.com/search?q=john+cornyn+box+turtle&src=IE-SearchBox&FORM=IE8SRC&adlt=strict

[CincyDem]

75. yeah...so I missed the part where this was an actual comment made by someone in public

I guess I shouldn't be surprised. All I can say, in my own defense, is that the "man on _______" comments usually fall below my WTF meter so I missed the esteemed gentleman from Texas sharing the depth of his feelings on the topic with the Heritage Foundation. I'm sure the audience was on the edge of their seats wondering what species would next be dragged through the mud of being compared to same sex marriage.

Dip shits - be with who you want and let's move on.

[geek tragedy]

76. I thought he bested Senator Man-on-Dog with that one nt

[Quantess]

68. Are you suggesting he and Mitch McConnell are "a thing"?

[Sheldon Cooper]

19. I don't care how you try to dress it up, polygamy doesn't "empower" women.

If consenting adults want to arrange themselves into poly relationships, I'm the last person to give a shit about it. But don't claim that the women involved are empowered because they are not.

The main problem I have with polygamy is the way that it's usually practiced, where there are religious beliefs involved. Girls who are raised in this environment are almost never able to give informed consent to being in a polygamous marriage, yet they are expected to comply and at impossibly young ages as well. I am sickened by it.

[leftyladyfrommo]

81. And those old men are so creepy.

Can you imagine how you would feel if you were 12 and were told that you were a 50 year old scuzball? God!

[lumberjack_jeff]

20. It is illegal because it is socially destabilizing.

http://www.academia.edu/175877/The_Problem_of_Polygamy

[MadrasT]

22. I don't have a problem with people having multiple committed partners.

Doesn't work for me because I am an introvert and don't even want to have ONE around most of the time. Multiple relationships take too much energy for me.

But whatever works for other people, is OK with me. I have a number of happy polyamorous friends. (I also know a number of people who have tried polyamory and were utterly miserable but I am not sure "polyamory" was to blame for that.)

The idea that relationships should always be a one-to-only-one commitment seems kind of silly to me.

[LadyHawkAZ]

36. ^that

[leftynyc]

26. Because it doesn't empower women

The whole thing is a bullshit argument generally coming either from religious freaks or those who try and argue that gay marriage will lead to polygamy. Which are you?

[Emelina]

34. The anthrolopogist interviewed does not appear to be a religious zealot...

So why would anyone saying let women choose automatically be a freak or zealot????

[leftynyc]

35. Because they generally are

Just look at the groups that practice it and look at how women are treated in those cases. It's not a hard concept.

[noiretextatique]

87. common sense

my crazy nephew converted to islam because he has problems with women. now he has two wives. i don't think either of them are "empowered" by each other's existence, but the arrangement sures serves HIM. the first wife has enough sense not to allow the second one in their home...thank goodness.

[get the red out]

27. Religion

I don't care about how others choose to live. I do, as a citizen, care when certain cult practices are allowed to, in effect, prevent fellow citizens from knowing they have rights or exercising them. This pisses me off and always will.

I also oppose anything that puts women's hard-fought equality at risk.

[clarice]

28. This got me wondering.....

Are there cases of "reverse polygamy" where a woman has more than one husband? (shudder).

[NCTraveler]

32. I think you have been shown way too much respect in this thread.

Shows that many duers are very good and tolerant people.

[pnwmom]

33. Because it doesn't. n/t

[reflection]

37. Every time I articulate my desire for legal same-sex marriage

some right-wing mouthbreather always says "well what about pedophilia and beastiality?" Having had this stupid conversation several times before, I can easily swat them away with the "non-consensual, try again" answer.

But lately they have been saying "well what about polygamy?" So I put all my preconceived notions to the side and thought about it. If marriage is a way to consolidate property and establish certain rights granted by marriage, who am I to say polygamy is wrong?

Until I hear a compelling argument (and I'm always willing to listen), as long as all parties are brought to the table in agreement, and their interests are protected in the event of a dissolution of the marriage, I can't really say I have to right to deny polygamous-minded people the opportunity to marry.

Of course, that opens up some ancillary questions such as "what if another party wishes to enter the partnership?" I suppose all of the existing parties would have to agree to the inclusion of the new person, with any of the existing spouses having veto power, and the same protections would have to be amended to include the new partner.

[geek tragedy]

41. So, how about a 10,000 person marriage then?

Make it more than two people, and it becomes a limited partnership or corporation, not a marriage.

Two consenting adults is the perfect place to draw the line.

[reflection]

44. I agree that I have had that same internal question also.

And yes, a 10,000 person marriage would be unreasonable. But I could see the line being drawn at a number greater than two. I just don't know what that number is. And I also know that when the line is drawn at X number, there is a group comprised of X+1 that will ask me why their marriage should not be valid and I don't know how to answer that.

[geek tragedy]

45. Any more than two, and it really isn't a marriage.

Just going through the logistical considerations--if a woman has two wives, are her wives married to each other, what to do with marital property and child custody in divorce proceedings, how to deal with domestic violence, etc etc etc.

If I have two wives, can each of my wives have two husbands, and if so am i married to their husbands?


Just doesn't work. The argument for same sex marriage is very simple--GLBT folks are born that way and it is profoundly unjust to deny them rights based on that.

[reflection]

47. As I said earlier

All parties would have to come to the table and lock in the agreement. Whether or not the two wives are married to each other is something that could be established during the agreement.

Protecting the property rights of all parties in the event of a dissolution is also something I addressed. Child custody would definitely be problematic.

If you had two wives, they could not have two husbands unless they were part of the original agreement.

[geek tragedy]

50. If one had 100 years one could eventually figure it out, maybe.

But, there's simply no policy or societal reason to completely revamp marriage and end marriage as we effectively know it.

Same-sex marriage doesn't affect heterosexual marriages. Allowing for this polygamist nonsense certainly would.

Not a civil rights issue, no societal benefit, not gonna happen, nor should it.

[reflection]

62. Agreed, probably not going to happen.

I'm not emotionally wrapped up in the issue, as I know no one who is struggling with it. But I try to imagine others' point of view. I personally wouldn't dismiss it as nonsense. It's certainly not the norm in the USA, but cultures vary.

My marriage wouldn't be affected by someone else's polygamous union.

[geek tragedy]

70. And that's kind of the rub--there's no domestic constituency in the US

who's being oppressed by the prohibition on polygamy.

Your marriage would be affected if they rewrote the legal meaning of your marriage to accomodate polygamy.

[treestar]

80. True, what a mess

In a way I think we should do away with marriage altogether and as far as property, etc., each person has their own only. Thus no divorce and figuring out whose property is whose and who gets what. Relationships take place outside of property considerations, or they have to make contracts to preserve rights they have.

Two people could own their house as tenants in common, 50/50 or any other arrangement they chose, and if they split up, the value of the house gets split by the percentage.

[geek tragedy]

83. That wouldn't be practicable either.

Who owns the house? The car? Custody of the kids? One spouse often works to put the other through graduate school, etc.

Getting rid of marriage and divorce wouldn't get rid of the messy property issues, it would only make them messier.

[treestar]

85. Then you wouldn't put a spouse through graduate school

Or, you'd be a lot less motivated. You'd want contract protection of some kind. Everyone already knows the divorce rate, it's kind of cute how people getting married themselves think they are going to be an exception, but if people faced reality they'd always want a pre-nup.

Kids are already treated equally if legitimate or illegitimate. Custody is an issue whether the parents were married or not. So is child support. It would all continue the same.

[geek tragedy]

86. Legal paternity would be a lot thornier absent marriage.

As would adoptions for that matter.

People are already free to not avail themselves of the insitution of marriage. Why take away the option of getting married?

[treestar]

88. So society does not have to deal with divorce

Trying to figure out a just distribution for property and having fights about alimony. Which the litigants never appreciate anyway. They both claim the court is no good and screwed them or is biased against women/men. Just do it all by contract. As far as property goes.

And so people don't lean on someone and then find themselves shafted - like putting someone through college. If you are not wealthy, put only yourself or your kids through college. The divorce rate is too high for average people to rely on someone else in that way.

[geek tragedy]

89. The benefits of marriage outweigh the pains of divorces that do happen. nt

[notadmblnd]

56. I'll take 5 please

One to pay the bills
One to give me money and buy me things
One that can do chores and fix things
One I can talk to
One to have sex with.


I think that will about cover it. Did I mention they all need to have their own places to?

[jberryhill]

78. Child support, custody, and tax issues galore

[badtoworse]

82. Holding a marriage together is the hardest thing I've ever attempted

At the same time, getting married has been the most rewarding thing I've ever done. We've been married 18 years, but we had rough spots along the way and there were times when it was tough to keep it together. We love each other and there's nothing we wouldn't do for each other - I believe that is true in most marriages that survive the first few years. I can't begin to imagine how much more difficult it would have been if there was another woman in the relationship. There is no way our marriage could have survived that.

I don't believe polygamy empowers anyone who actually cares about the person(s) he or she professes to love.

[riderinthestorm]

90. It doesn't empower women. nt

[EdKociela]

96. It doesn't quite work out that way

Theoretically, polygamy among consenting adults sounds like an issue of personal choice. However, in practice, it rarely is. In the majority of polygamist communities in modern-day America, polygamy entails the sexual, physical, and emotional abuse of children and women. It entails fraud as these "families"illegally obtain government health and welfare benefits. It entails the denial of basic civil rights among women who are coerced by religion to exchange their independence for a form of slavery and obedience to achieve salvation in the afterlife. To understand polygamy in practice one must understand the context of the practice, not the idealism. It is easy to dismiss it as an act that should be allowed among consenting adults, however it is much more complex than that.

[MattBaggins]

97. Just a few set of rules though

They have to stay in their own country/state and any extra boys they have, can not leave either.

They do not get to kick their angry young men out and foist them on the rest of us.

[Sheldon Cooper]

99. Are you sure those young men are angry?

I was under the impression that these were teenaged boys, who have no education or useful skills and, sadly, some of them turn to prostitution to survive. They may indeed be angry, but I feel great sorrow for them.

The problem with polygamy as it's practiced in those cults is that the young girls are sexually assaulted and the young boys are turned away to fend for themselves. They are horrible to their children.

[MattBaggins]

100. Yes they are horrible

I would require that these parents be held financially and legally responsible for their children until those kids are 25.

[Sheldon Cooper]

101. If they are angry, I can't say that I blame them.

They got a raw deal. I do agree that their parents should be responsible for them until they are adults.

[Zorra]

98. I have no problem with legalizing polygamy, but polygamy sounds like a nightmare

to me.

I'm very happily polyamorus, and polyamory means never having to say divorce.