Interesting - is there a progressive argument against polygamy?

[celtics23]

From: www.davidpakman.com

[loudsue]

1. I've wondered about that question before, too.

Getting to the bottom of "why" it isn't a "pro-choice" argument is difficult.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

4. If its truly voluntary and the participants free will, choice should prevail

But the vast majority of it today is religious based like Colorado City and heavily enforced. That is not choice

I do know some polyamorous couples. Very very rare.

[fasttense]

53. Well Polygamy usually refers to one man with multiple wives

but it can also refer to one woman with multiple husbands, though that is very rare.

The problem is that there is NO multiple wives example that really allows a woman a real choice. Since women in most societies are treated to all the disadvantages experienced by minorities, they are usually in a submissive position that leaves them with very little choice but to do as society pressures them to do. Look at all the religious groups that attempt to force women into polygamous relationships through damnation and god's wrath. When women are true equals to men, they usually decline polygamous relationships.

When large societies promote multiple wives, the issue of men without partners leads to instability. The rich men get all the women and the poor men do what? They are young and have not made their fortunes, yet they are at their sexual peek, what do they do for partners? More likely these unattached men are disenfranchised and agitated which can lead to instability.

I think the reason most liberals are against multiple wife relationships because they are inherently unequal. The male benefits are clear but all the supposed benefits for the women are vague and ill defined. For example with extra wives comes assistance with the labor requirements of keeping a home. But today, most homes can run with one person doing most of the necessary chores. Multiple wives allows husbands multiple partners while leaving the women with one man whose sexual attentions are divided. It is inherently unfair to the woman.

[get the red out]

2. Well, all us progressives just love slavery

We want all girls to grow up knowing that their place is to be a fucking milk cow, and we just love the idea that the police in polygamous communities will capture young women who try to escape their fate and take them back to their God ordained sex slavery. How could any progressive who believes in human rights oppose that? It's wonderful when whole generations after generations are brought up in closed communities without even access to their rights as US citizens or knowledge that they have them. That's the AMERICAN WAY. MEN'S religious desires trump all in this wonderful free land by GAWD.



I know I will get pro-female slavery "she chose it" (even though she had been trained to slavery from birth) flack, and I DON'T GIVE A DAMN. Call me a conservative if you like for opposing this slavery, I don't want a label and will give up the progressive mantel in order to speak out against it. It's been a while since the pro-female slavery people on the web have called me nasty names so have at it.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/2013/01/24/12/03/woman-and-her-six-children-escape-polygamous-sect-after-12-years

http://www.womanthouartgod.com/trap.php

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/04/16/polygamy.escapes/index.html

FEMINIST FIRST, HUMAN RIGHTS SECOND, ANTI-WAR THIRD, THEN ANIMAL RIGHTS, then if there is anything left that someone considers progressive in their eyes, so be it.

[AtheistCrusader]

6. How about if the question is restricted to consenting adults only?

There is also such a concept as polyandry, with the gender ratios flipped around, and polyamorous with multiple partners of each gender.

Not trying to start a fight with you, Polygamy is by far the most common form of this, but the opposite does exist. Would you call those men slaves? I wouldn't. HOWEVER, in some cultural practices (not trying to be mean to Mormons, but they are most often prosecuted for this in the US) it does amount to slavery, as you called it. But that is not the entirety of the issue, as far as I can tell.

[get the red out]

7. It is the MAJORITY of the issue

Polygamy as slavery is by far the majority of the issue in this country. In MOST "cultural practices" in this world polygamy demeans women, removes their rights and amounts to slavery. There is also an issue of what to do with the extra "unwanted" boys who cannot have a mate at all since not everyone in the community can have enough status to merit some slave women of his own. Expulsion of these boys happens in such communities. How sweet! And how do you think any gay offsping in these "cultures" are treated? Think they have any rights or respect? I'm sure any lesbians are just raped into submission like all the other females, don't know what happens to any gay men, but I'd bet it isn't tolerated well.

I couldn't care less what adults who have been raised to know they have rights in this country, and are able in more than theory to leave any relationship whenever they please, do. But polygamy as a way of life does not work to do anything overall but enslave women and violate human rights. It is a system that hides in enclosed shaddow communities, sucking from taxpayer's money to support their human rights violations as the slave women are not legally married and do not work and their male owner seems legally bound to do nothing. They build systems around them that are prisons with little hope for parole.

Let's just legalize ground to air missles for personal use in this country because I am sure there are a few people that won't misuse them.

[AtheistCrusader]

8. Problem is, they do it anyway.

Roommates. 'sister wives', shit like that. Legalizing polygyny (all multiple partner scenarios) for consenting adults doesn't really enable this. For many of the issues you raise, we have age of consent laws, things like that.

I don't think anti-polygyny laws 'work any better' than anti-sodomy laws. And those laws are used primarily against homosexuals, but also can be used against heterosexual people in a pinch, just like for the poly crowd, it is most often used against polygamy, not polyandry. It still exists.

All the issues you raised about shadow communities exists regardless. I want to draw that culture out into daylight, not force it underground. Daylight is a disinfectant. Same reason we let Nazi's be goddamn motherfucking parading assholes in the US, and not force them underground, like they do in Germany.

I don't like coercing these behaviors more than I don't like the behavior. Right wingers make the same arguments for drugs, and it doesn't work. Decriminalization a la Portugal seems to work better. Pull it out into daylight. It sucks, it's kind of a leap of faith, and feels dirty, like in some way endorsing it, but I think it's the better path. Force it underground, and there WILL be people out there suffering, AS SLAVES like you describe, totally abandoned, totally unknown to the general public, with nowhere to turn, and no way out. I'm sure it happens a hell of a lot more than the police once in a while catch them at it.


And then there's the people for whom this sort of arrangement can be a perfectly consenting, loving thing. Not my place to prevent them. It's not for me, and I don't really understand it, but I have seen it, it does exist. Not for me to judge, so long as it's consenting, free will stuff.

[get the red out]

10. "bringing into the light"

You can't talk about bringing these cultures into the light while legalizing bringing up girls to be slaves. That is unconscionable. Laws exist beyond enforcement value (and these laws could be enforced better if the religious people out there were willing do to so); laws exist to say "NO, our society does not condone this abuse". We supposedly have human rights in this country, we need to fucking stand for that. To legalize young girls being brought up to be brood mares and sex slaves without access to knowledge of their rights as citizens would be to say as a nation, that we just don't give one flying fuck about women's rights, human rights, equality, justice, true religious freedom, and actual human beings. And everytime I see people who support legalizing these polygamous communities I honestly think that as a nation, we just might not stand for much at all. But that does not make me support legalization.

You cannot be against this while endorsing it. To legalize it would make the status-quo even easier. If law enforcement were not biased in favor of these communities in their locations then there would be better enforcement.

The analogy to drug use FAILS because drug users are not commonly brought up to abuse drugs from birth, are not told they cannot do anything else in their lives, are not separated from non-drug users in enclosed communities, and will not be brought back to their masters by police if they decide to get treatment for drug abuse. I do not support the "war on drugs", it is a completely different circumstance.

Interesting that someone calling himself AtheistCrusader would be so supportive of Religious enslavement, but then I guess if we're mostly talking just female slaves, many people in this country are, or at least benign to it. I guess the theoretical few is far more important than the real multitudes in human rights for many people.

[AtheistCrusader]

13. As I said, allowing it is not 'endorsing it'.

We have laws around consent and duress for entering into a contract, like marriage. Full stop. If a minor enters into this, or an adult is forced into it, these things are actionable. They are NOT effectively actionable if it happens in a dark hole somewhere in an enclosed community with no outside contact, sealed off, etc, because law enforcement isn't going to discover it.

"You cannot be against this while endorsing it."

Nonsense. I am not endorsing it. I'll allow it, between consenting adults, but I do not endorse it. No more than I endorse neo-nazi's doing their horseshit on parade, preaching their particular brand of hate and filth. I'll allow it, because the first amendment tells me that it is better to allow disagreeable speech than to try and censor and control. That doesn't mean I endorse it. I fucking hate it, actually.

So please don't tell me I 'support religious enslavement', nothing can be further from the truth. I work pretty hard to help show their whole religion is a sham and a hoax from the word 'go', actually. THAT is a better solution than outlawing consenting behavior between adults when that doesn't even fix the actual problem.

[Katashi_itto]

15. +100!

[get the red out]

18. Consenting behavior

The majority of this behavior is not consenting. So we are back to square one.

I take solace in the fact that your opinion is not the majority in this country and not likely to be in my lifetime.

[AtheistCrusader]

19. If it's not consenting, then it is actionable under law regardless of whether polygamy is legal

or not, yes?

Since the behavior (polygamy) isn't the core problem, does banning it help or hinder the cause of finding and prosecuting non-consensual acts like forcing underage girls into marriage?

[get the red out]

20. Yea, that will be "enforced"

That's a DREAM to enforce that when people live in closed communities and are brainwashed and never given an opportunity to even know they have rights. It completely negates the idea of "consent". Exactly the same as the statute of limitations does. I don't care if a girl is 16 or 18, if she doesn't know that she has the right to say no, or there is no way to escape physical or mental punishment for saying no, and the police will just take her home; it can't be enforced! So we are back to slavery with us wonderful "progressives" pretending everyone has consented.

Once again, we as a country should not support legalizing this because there is no way to ensure consent, at least some part of this travesty in the name of religion is illegal now.

This is supporting the theoretical few at the very great expense of the real, living many.

I am so glad that most people do not think as you do.

[AtheistCrusader]

22. Most people worldwide, or just in the US?

"A new study for the federal Justice Department says Canada should get rid of its law banning polygamy and change other legislation to help women and children living in such multiple-spouse relationships.

"Criminalization does not address the harms associated with valid foreign polygamous marriages and plural unions, in particular the harms to women," says the report, obtained by The Canadian Press under the Access to Information Act.

The research paper is part of a controversial $150,000 polygamy project, launched a year ago and paid for by the Justice Department and Status of Women Canada. "

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=e20244cb-63b2-47f9-893e-390453fa5067


This issue PRECISELY parallels the 'drug decriminalization' issue I specified earlier, yet you dismissed with no apparent justification. You don't think people are born into drug abuse? Of course they are. People who use drugs, and manufacture drugs, and sell drugs, also have children. Those children can and do grow up within the criminal element that grows out of prohibition.

[get the red out]

25. Hell

When does the son or daughter of a drug dependent person get told that they will burn in Hell for not following in the footsteps of their parent? They are not kidnapped by law enforcement and returned to their misery if they seek to get out. These things are what happens in polygamous communities.

Canada is dressing up caving to the polygamist cultists with fancy words of helping women and children, this will just pump money to the women and in reality, to their owners, thus adding resources funded by the government to keep the status quo.

I am sure somebody is getting paid somewhere, campaign contributions and such, that's how politics works. You can dress anything up with nice sounding language.

[AtheistCrusader]

27. I would think that being told you'll 'burn in hell' is less damaging than enabling physical dependen

cy on an addictive substance, but then again, religious dogma has no hold over me at all, so I'm equally unprepared to compare the two. I would EXPECT physical addition is worse, but I don't know for certain, I have never experienced either.

I see potential risk in Canada's study there, as well, however, I believe they are correct in recognizing that there is a problem with outright prohibition, and it requires a different approach.

[get the red out]

34. What I was trying to say

Is that the addict is permitted to see help. People in polygamous communities rarely are.

As a recovering alcoholic I can honestly say that I would rather have my lot than never know or be given the chance to have a life outside of sex/slave and brood mare. Actually, considering I live in Kentucky, the brood mares are treated better when they are actual horses.

[AtheistCrusader]

35. Not in the US.

Part of the problem with the drug war in the US, and part of the amazingly effective results of decriminalization in Portugal is, our current prohibition laws discourage people from seeking treatment. That addict that seeks help in the US can end up in jail very easily. In Portugal, with the USE decriminalized, the rate of people seeking treatment on their own sharply rose after 2001. Seeking treatment in that country isn't dangerous to the liberty of the addict.

In the US, it most certainly is.

[get the red out]

36. In jail you know your sentence at least

I oppose drug criminalization I just see it as very different from being born in a polygamous community and never having rights as a US citizen, FWIW.

[AtheistCrusader]

41. I agree, insofar as the particulars vary.

Both are emotional conditioning, one potentially carries physical addiction, the other forcible physical restraint.

I see the parallel only in that the act of prohibiting a specific behavior by the individual is counter-productive to ending the behavior. Prohibiting drugs actually increases the usage rates, as we see in Portugal. I feel prohibiting polygamy actually increases the rate of abuse for consent and coercion.

At the moment I can only point to Portugal/drugs and the Canadian/polygamy study to support my position, and I wish I had more convincing data, and more of it, but so far, that's the best I have.

I want to pursue the course that produces the least detrimental side effects, and produces the most effective solution. If I am wrong, I am wrong, so be it. But I want that studied and demonstrated before I drop it. So far, to me, the correlations look fairly strong and self-evident.

[misswizard1]

24. Free will

An atheist does not believe in a Higher Power of any sort, as I was told by a friend of mine who is atheist, right?

God gave us brains to use, most people use the ones they sit on. What consenting adults do in the privacy of their homes is none of my business. Activities that harm others need to come under scrutiny, which is why these sorts of people hide out in rural areas.

What people also confuse is religion vs spirituality. Religion is for people afraid to go to Hell, no wonder so many support it to co-sign their bullshit. Spirituality is for people who have already been to Hell and many times religion is involved their as well.

I believe in a Higher Purpose, Power whatever. And since I do, I must also believe in a Lower Power. Most people prefer the latter so they can justify what they do to other beings, two-legged or four-legged, under the guise of 'religion'.

Any other polygamous/polyandrous group they used to call a 'commune' back in the '60s and I will probably take flak for say that. And I'm sure lots of domination and control occurred there as well. You can't really have one without the other in any community involving humans.

[Katashi_itto]

16. Someone has anger issues.

[get the red out]

17. Human Rights issues

I guess that's a problem.

Passionate views are ok only so long as YOU agree with them. Nice argument. Anything else is a mental problem hugh? Self-absorbed much?

[AtheistCrusader]

21. In fairness, you got pretty angry above.

You accused me of supporting 'religious enslavement' for starters, when I did no such thing. And "endorsing" it when I do not. These are blatant mischaracterizations, and were unwelcome.

If you think I am pulling this 'don't ban it' idea out of my ass, with no support at all, please see this issue as evaluated in out neighbors to the north.

http://www.wluml.org/node/2669
"A new study for the federal Justice Department says Canada should get rid of its law banning polygamy and change other legislation to help women and children living in such multiple-spouse relationships.

"Criminalization does not address the harms associated with valid foreign polygamous marriages and plural unions, in particular the harms to women," says the report, obtained by The Canadian Press under the Access to Information Act.

The research paper is part of a controversial $150,000 polygamy project, launched a year ago and paid for by the Justice Department and Status of Women Canada. "

[get the red out]

23. Of course I am passionate

This is an issue that just breaks my heart. And I will call them slaves and slave owners because that is exactly the situation.

I cannot help if Canadians are mistaken in believing throwing money at these women's slave owners (via the women) is going to help them. It will not, it will simply give the system they are property of more resources. The status of women in Canada is likely to go way down now. Sad, I didn't see them as such a hateful country.

You certainly may believe as you wish, but I believe you are wrong and, in effect, are indirectly supporting this religious enslavement with your views of what should be done. Yes, I am angry, I am angry women and girls have to live as slaves, to not be angry about that would make me less of the human being I want to be.

If I have to become a Republican at some point to fight polygamy in the US I will do so. I would abandon the Democratic party in a moment if they abandoned women's rights in the way that Canada is contemplating. I believe many women would, but they probably would waste time arguing with men who cannot get why a woman would be angry over this, as I have been doing.

[AtheistCrusader]

26. I am not indirectly supporting it.

I wish to end it. In my view, banning it actually has the real world effect of furthering it, and I find that deplorable. I wouldn't go so far as to say 'you are indirectly supporting it', because I know you are not trying to do so.

Some actions have unintended consequences. That isn't indirect support, it's a unexpected or undesired result.

I also keep in mind that there are entirely consenting adults of all combinations of gender ratios that might willingly engage in this sort of arrangement, and I do not wish to infringe on them either. I do not wish to enforce by law a 1:1 relationship, as some consenting adults are interested in no such thing. In addition to, and quite separate from the problems you and I both clearly see, within certain religious cultures here in the US and worldwide.

I view enforcing and setting a 1:1 relationship as equally religiously inspired and dogmatic, as a religion that enforces and encourages many-to-one relationships, as the example polygamy in Mormonism. (No longer officially practiced, but clearly the culture lingers)

Banning it didn't end it. Hasn't for a long time. What are you willing to try going forward, to actually end the ABUSE that occurs in that remnant underground culture?

[get the red out]

30. I will go for something

We need new laws, not against polygamy per se, but against children being brought up in closed communities with no idea that they have rights guaranteed by this country. I feel it should be considered a human rights abuse of the highest proportion for these "religious" communities of all kinds to be able to do this to their children, literally deny them rights as citizens. Something has to be done about this.

I really don't give a rat's ass what consenting adults do, but until we do something to prevent citizens of our country being raised ignorant of their own autonomy, human rights, citizenship, and given police protection rather than persecution in seeking a different life from their parents; we are as a country turning a blind eye to an abuse on our own soil as disgusting as those we point and sneer at all over the world.

[AtheistCrusader]

33. That could lead into another discussion.

There was some talk earlier about banning homeschooling, or rather, requiring public school education to some degree. An opportunity to do some of the things you just talked about.

I haven't formed a set opinion on that subject, but it has been kicked around on this site, and this issue insular, closed, abusive community issue would factor into that, perhaps.

[get the red out]

38. We need to value rights in this coutry

We have a habit of allowing parent's religious rights, and schooling rights go so far as to deny human rights for their children. We fail as a so-called "free" country in doing this.

[Katashi_itto]

48. Ok, "...Self-absorbed much?" more than just anger issues.

Project much?

Seriously you bring this thread to mind

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1018315910

[misswizard1]

28. Lame

Why is it women are not allowed to be angry about something? Some people on this thread appear to be quite threatened by that. Only YOU are allowed to be angry? We are not talking about the end of the Twinkie era, we are talking about a women's issue that has been around for eons, women raised and treated worse than second class citizens.

So when someone disagrees with something, they have 'anger issues'? Laughable. You must have flunked debate. Women whose menfolk have ::gasp:: allowed their womenfolk to think and act independently to be taught that they have rights? Shocking!!

[AtheistCrusader]

32. While that poster wasn't terribly diplomatic about pointing it out

I was clearly attacked upthread. That is not just being 'angry', and certainly not 'disagreement'. Calling out someone attacking someone personally, mischaracterizing their position, etc, is not a 'women are not allowed to be angry' thing.

[misswizard1]

37. "I was clearly attacked upthread"

Based on following said thread, you can dish it out but can't take being disagreed with. That's what was meant by 'the attack'.

[AtheistCrusader]

39. By all means, cite where I 'dished it out'.

I'll wait.

[misswizard1]

42. "In fairness, you got pretty angry above."

I'm sorry if you feel that way regarding my 'attack'. "You must be angry" or variants of same are the first views that get thrown down when a disagreement starts. Men disagree, women get angry. Language games. Simple as that from certain points of view. But that's another topic for another thread.

[AtheistCrusader]

44. Bullshit-tastic.

The post I referred to was an attack, did mischaracterize my position, and that poster has acknowledged it as getting 'passionate' about the issue.

"I believe many women would, but they probably would waste time arguing with men who cannot get why a woman would be angry over this, as I have been doing."

Don't pin that shit on me, those posts are entirely self-evident, in the poster's own words.

And the thread has since calmed down considerably, even though the poster in question and I have not exactly come to an agreement.
I don't tend to click on people's profiles much, I did not even know that poster's physical gender or gender identity until that post. I don't even make any assumptions about your profile name. Assumptions are dangerous things.

[misswizard1]

45. Yes, assumptions are dangerous, I may have incorrectly assumed the anger attack came from you but...

Bullshit-tastic. Lots of it on any thread. Yes, assumptions are dangerous. I may have incorrectly assumed the anger attack came from you, but it is good that the thread has calmed down. I also believe in the concept of agreeing to disagree. Would be awfully dull otherwise.

[Katashi_itto]

49. Strawman argument.

[marble falls]

3. Not enough depth in the gene pool. The incidence of birth defect is very high in Utah.

[misswizard1]

5. hiding

Whatever works for most people, but I sincerely doubt that many of these females are anything but brainwashed, especially girls born into 'the system'. Most of the men appear to be sociopathic, predatory emotionally stunted males who are afraid of women and require the 'status' of having a harem of compliant, submissive females. The women, rather girls, which are often under legal age, are basically housekeepers, sex providers and seem to have very little chance for personal growth, given that most of the communities appear to be in rural areas.

If that's progress, you can keep it. Most of the women want their daughters to continue in the same tradition because if they had to suffer, so do their female offspring. A cycle of ignorance and abuse. Many of the 'groups' even insist the females wear clothing straight out of a 'Little House on the Prairie" episode. Ironic, since those girls were allowed to think for themselves and were taught how to be independent and self-sufficient without becoming subservient.

[Cleita]

12. I was surprised when visiting Salt Lake City, that a high end department store in the mall,

which also carried name designers like Versace and Michael Kors, prominently displayed those prairie style dresses in their windows and other displays. I don't believe it's just the polygamist families that like their women to wear such outfits.

[geek tragedy]

9. The entire history of polygamy as actually practiced. nt

[Cleita]

11. In theory, no. I don't think there is one against polyandry either.

It's when there are abusive practices against one gender or abuse of children by forcing them to marry at a young age, then of course liberals are against it. But then you could be against traditional marriage between one man and one woman for the same reasons.

[AtheistCrusader]

14. Precisely.

Forcing a non-consenting person, or a minor into a marriage is not the exclusive domain of polygyny.

[mostlyalurker]

29. I don't think there is any argument against it, just a need for serious regulation.

I believe if you restrict legal poly-amorous relationships to participants all being over 21, all members and prospective members sign agreement contracts, inheritance is strictly evenly divided between all partners and when one member wishes a divorce it is granted automatically without need for consent form any other partner. Child custody and child support would be difficult but it is in mono-amorous relationships as well.

[jberryhill]

31. There is nothing illegal about voluntary living arrangements

Any combination and number of people can live together in whatever manner they would like. There's nothing stopping that.

However, when it comes to tax status and child support obligations, which is typically where the rubber meets the road, we administratively draw the line at two.

[IADEMO2004]

40. Do women ever get to have half a dozen husbands?

Seems a bit lop sided to me.

[AtheistCrusader]

43. Yes. It is rare, and that rarity is an example of our mostly patriarchal society

but the situation you describe is called polyandry, and it does exist.

[hue]

46. Why does polygamy refer-in concept-only to 1 man w/multiple women? How about 1 woman w/multiple men?

[cprise]

51. That is a heterosexist way of putting it

Think about it... Why even phrase your question that way?

The real question that needs to be answered is: Should any one spouse get to be the "spoke in the wheel"... to have more rights and control than the other people he/she is married to? Should people be allowed to subordinate themselves to such a person?

(If the answer is "No", then we are talking about a "polygamy" where anybody can marry any number of other people. That, to me, seems meaningless.)

There are plenty of conditions that marriage (or any form of contract) is not allowed to enforce. Our legal system has these limits because such conditions are often pitched to the other "consenting adult" under circumstances that are unfavorable for protecting one's own and the communities' long term interests. Economic duress, peer pressure, time pressure, and lack of education can be among those circumstances which cause society to view certain types of contractual agreements as foolish and not to be enforced (and, I might add, to the great relief of countless would-be suckers). Agreeing to unequal status in an intimate relationship is one such foolish act.

[PNW_Dem]

47. The Argument Against is Simple – Overpopulation

It’s interesting that some of the core Progressive principles are conservative (in the true meaning of the word). I’m referring to things like fiscal responsibility, protecting and conserving the environment, and encouraging a sustainable population (and population growth).

Overpopulation is the progressive argument against polygamy. Replacement level fertility (the level of fertility at which a population exactly replaces itself from one generation to the next) is an average of 2.1 children per woman. Polygamist households greatly exceed this rate. In other words, the polygamist lifestyle choice is no model for sustainability and environmentalism.

[cprise]

50. There are several good progressive arguments against it:

The first one that comes to mind is that society has to choose between conservative and libertarian versions of polygamy. With the former only one person in a grouping is allowed to marry multiple times at once, so it involves stripping certain people of rights that their spouse continues to have and so there is no equality as someone will be the focal point and 'doer' or 'owner' of the group. The latter libertarian version allows any consenting adult to marry X number of other adults, creating the conditions for truly bizarre multiply-reinforced 2nd- and even 1st-order relationships encompassing whole communities; exclusivity becomes essentially meaningless for this version of marriage.

Neither one of these offers a vision of "progress".

Another reason is that polygamists can already get married and enjoy the benefits of marriage with someone they love--in pairs. They want more of what they already have, and want to drastically change the exclusivity of the institution of marriage to get it. This is why naysayers comparing gay marriage to polygamy are wrong, because would-be polygamists aren't being denied participation to the institution (nor does gay marriage create social pressure to treat spouses unequally or as property-- see below).

Yet another reason is that the threat of separation, divorce or other upheaval between two people in a polygamous group may be too much to bear in a liberal society that protects individual rights. Upsetting the peace, stability and fortunes of the rest of the group could result in a cascade or mutiny effect that shatters the group identity and economic status.

There is also the problem of how patriarchal polygamists divide their time and resources for each other and for parenting... And the question of what to do with so many 'surplus' adult males.

It probably goes without saying the added complexities hinted at above could also tie the court system in knots.

The way out of those resulting legal snafus is, of course, to strip spouses of their human rights so they can't get divorced or have to endure draconian conditions in the process. But you have to find some way to classify who will remain entitled and who will be disenfranchised. In most cases that has been determined by sex, but I can see it being determined by wealth and social status.

Ah yes... Wealth. I wouldn't be surprised if the USA flirts with true, legally sanctioned polygamy if the corporate class seize upon it as a way to further reinforce their fortunes and control over society.

[Gorp]

52. Yeah - more than one wife would kill me.

[freedom fighter jh]

54. Marriage is a partnership that gains some of its value from

Last edited Wed Feb 27, 2013, 05:36 PM - Edit history (1)

being an exclusive partnership. When we get married, my efforts will benefit you and me and our kids, and I know yours will do the same. If they go elsewhere I feel cheated. That's why adultery is considered cheating.

If a woman marries one man and then marries another man, the first husband may feel that the deal he thought they had has been changed on him. (And of course it goes the other way as well -- if a man takes a second wife.)

Seems to me polygamy will be just fine as long as everyone in every marriage that's involved agrees to it when they get married. For example, when two unmarried people get married, they either commit not to marry anyone else or else agree that multi-marriage is OK. So there could still be monogamous marriages. My guess is that most people getting married would not do so without a promise of monogamy.

Edited for spelling and clarity.

[katchalater]

55. 99% of the time polygamy is under patriarchal religions

It is interesting that you have the picture of Tom Green who married children. Two of his wive's were step daughters and he was also married to their mothers whom he dumped once he married the daughters. One he became betrothed to when she was 12 admitted in court and impregnated at 13 another begged for help because she was being molested by her step father but she married him at 14. In all Tom had 10 wives but he only kept the very young ones. Child brides, trafficking, and coercion are part of polygamy. The Mormon teachings say if she not abide this principle she shall be damned. Both Mormon, Muslim and some Christian cults use religion to coerce women into an unequal relationship, sometimes that coercion becomes physical with beatings even death in certain cultures. Human rights of girls and women all over the world are abused in the name of polygamy. In fact, polygamy was part of the reason two women were given asylum in America. Given the one per cent that enter it just because they both have a hunkering for the same guy is not a reason to basically legalize the 99% that is coerced by threat of losing salvation, mental abuse or physical abuse. Unlike gay marriage polygamy is an unequal relationship at its core.

Another issue with polygamy is that it requires an unnatural ratio of men to women. If one man takes 50 wives that leaves 50 men with no wives and family. In America the young males in these cultures are used for child labor and leave due to neglect, abandonment and being thrown out with no opportunity to be educated or date and marry. In some other cultures they are ripe pickings for Al Queda. Throughout the world polygamy leaves a trail of human rights abuses.

Some people will say that the same abuses that happen in polygamy happen in monogamy. But when in monogamy does the religious leader, father, mother and a man coerce women and often children into having sex with a man who has many sexual partners. That happens only in polygamy. It would be as if the priest, mother and father all told the altar boy to have sex with the priest in order to go to Heaven. How much good comes from polygamy and how much harm?

[In_The_Wind]

57. Hello ~ holywomenonearthnow5

[img][/img]