Thread: Purgatory: Decriminalizing polygamy? Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000617
Posted by Laura (# 10) on
:
Well, polygyny, really, but anyway, an article appeared in today's Washington Post about the push by some 40,000 polygamists to have multiple marriage decriminalized (it is a felony in many states, though not prosecuted much in Utah).
Polygamists Fight To Be Seen As Part of Mainstream Society
I don't like it, but I can't really see how we can continue to criminalize an arguably free-will relationship between adults. (in the absence of forced marriage of children as with the FLDS communities). Anyone?
[ 08. May 2007, 01:47: Message edited by: Professor Kirke ]
Posted by PeaceFeet (# 11001) on
:
It certainly poses interesting questions about freedom if it came into the mainstream: what if a man marries a number of wives, and then one of them wants to marry another man? Would she be allowed to, or would her freedom be denied?
Could four men marry each of four women? Would they be inlaws of each other?
Could you have matriarchal(?) polygamy in Western society?
Sounds like a lawyer's headache to me.
Posted by Scot (# 2095) on
:
If you support the uncoupling of marriage as we know it into a civil contract and a religious union, then nontraditional arrangements, such as polygamy/gyny/amoury, become more or less nonissues. There's no reason to forbid them as a civil matter and there's no need for any particular religious group to affirm them. This seems reasonable and desirable to me.
Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on
:
This is the nightmare the homophobes warned about, isn't it?
Posted by JArthurCrank (# 9175) on
:
I'm more sympathetic to polygamy insofar as I am towards same-sex marriage insofar as polygamy, unlike same-sex marriage, is ordered to the propagation of children. I am in favor of decriminalizing bigamy on the same basis that adultury, sodomy, fornication, cohabitation ought to be decriminalize I am, however, not inclined to legalize it. Legalization will gradually result in the top-tier wealthy men hoarding women that would otherwise be married to middle- and lower-class men. The result will be larger numbers of single men running loose, with more rapes, more violence, causing more mayhem than we had previously. There will be a larger demand for prostitutes, which will mean even more trafficking of women than previously. We will also see an uptick in pederasty, with pretty adolescent boys serving as a substitute for unavailable women. This, I think, is in contrast to same-sex marriage (which from the traditional standpoint is not a marriage at all, but (at best) a caricature). The social effects of SSM itself - and not considering the slippery slope effects as well as the overal effect on the social understanding of marriage by formally abandoning the progeny rationale for marriage - are less drastic than polygamy because the demand for SSM is empirically quite small, won't take many men out of the marriage/procreation pool that were realistically in it to begin with, etc.
I also foresee an alliance between the religious right and leftist feminists in fighting the legalization of polygamy, as happened in the pornography wars of the 1980s and early 90s. Polygamy almost always results in depriving women of any sense of independence or a life outside of the marriage/family unit itself - something that the sharper feminists will recognize.
[ 21. November 2006, 15:21: Message edited by: JArthurCrank ]
Posted by Choirboy (# 9659) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
If you support the uncoupling of marriage as we know it into a civil contract and a religious union, then nontraditional arrangements, such as polygamy/gyny/amoury, become more or less nonissues. There's no reason to forbid them as a civil matter and there's no need for any particular religious group to affirm them.
I don't think that's entirely true. I agree that religions can then recognize whatever they want, of course. But I think Peacefeet's post illustrates the possibilities of legal nightmares over inheiritance, insurance, hospital visitation rights, etc. That is, all of the civil issues involved in marriage become horribly complex.
These issues might be able to be resolved, but would need a lot of careful legislative thought beyond simply 'legalizing polygamy'.
I wonder, however, what the situation would be if a polygamous family moved from a nation where polygamy is legal to one where it is not, e.g. Nigeria or Saudi Arabia to the U.S. Does the U.S. recognize a man's (in this case) multiple wives? How does the health insurance work?
Posted by Liturgy Queen (# 11596) on
:
Choirboy, I don't believe anyone's suggesting legalising polygamy. The inheritance nightmares would remain.
The reason I heard in favour of decriminalising polygamy is that would allow women in such relationships who were being abused to seek legal redress without fear of prosecution for being in the relationship in the first place.
Decriminalisation would remove that concern, but it would not mean that such relationships were legally recognised, and I suspect that the legal messiness in terms of property and so on would continue to be an issue.
Posted by PeaceFeet (# 11001) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by JArthurCrank:
The result will be larger numbers of single men running loose...
(Not that I agree with it but) nearly all the churches I have ever attended have had loads more single women in than men because of the lack of eligible guys. Perhaps polygamy might provide a controversial solution to this? ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by Choirboy (# 9659) on
:
Sorry - I hadn't caught the distinction.
[ETA crossposted with PeaceFeet]
[ 21. November 2006, 15:40: Message edited by: Choirboy ]
Posted by JArthurCrank (# 9175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by PeaceFeet:
quote:
Originally posted by JArthurCrank:
The result will be larger numbers of single men running loose...
(Not that I agree with it but) nearly all the churches I have ever attended have had loads more single women in than men because of the lack of eligible guys. Perhaps polygamy might provide a controversial solution to this?
Only if they are rich and have bags over their heads. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by Choirboy (# 9659) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by PeaceFeet:
quote:
Originally posted by JArthurCrank:
Perhaps polygamy might provide a controversial solution to this?
Lord knows, one wife is enough.I'm sure many women would agree with the converse [or perhaps believe 'at most one husband' is enough].
[code]
[ 21. November 2006, 15:47: Message edited by: Choirboy ]
Posted by Choirboy (# 9659) on
:
Drat. Messed up the code again, and the clock has expired.
Sorry for the misattributions.
Posted by JArthurCrank (# 9175) on
:
Not if you're Mae West.
Posted by Late Paul (# 37) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by JArthurCrank:
The result will be larger numbers of single men running loose, with more rapes,
Bollocks.
If there are men who are prepared to commit rape because they aren't getting enough sex then they'd be equally likely to rape their wives - probably more so because there's more opportunity and arguably it'd be easier to get away with.
You might get more reported rapes...
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on
:
Who was it who said that he believes in disappointing one woman at a time? That certainly seems to me to be the way that God intended...
--Tom Clune
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
The main beneficiaries will be those men who hold power in FLDS dominated areas and, possibly, the more reactionary vintage of Arab sheikh's and those who will lose out will be women and younger, less powerful men.
So you can all guess where I stand on the issue.
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
Again, South Africa leads the way. Polygamy is already legal for those from cultural backgrounds with a tradition of it.
Posted by mountainsnowtiger (# 11152) on
:
I wondered about this when the tv show 'Big Love' (about a polygamous family) was shown in the UK.
Most churches believe that, if push comes to shove, God's laws are more important than laws made by earthly authorities (ideally you follow both, but if the two conflict then you follow God). Therefore, why can't Mormons in the US have religious marriages without any civil arrangement attached? No-one gets prosecuted for being promiscuous, or cohabiting without being married, so the Mormons could be married in their God's eyes, but not in the eyes of the state authorities - surely there would be no crime? Of course, that doesn't solve the issue of all the civil and legislative stuff connected to 'normal' marriages - but that's not solved by decriminalisation either is it? ( - surely that stuff would only become a headache with legalisation).
Presumably LDS on this thread = Latter Day Saints. Could someone enlighten me as to what the 'F' stands for?
Posted by Scot (# 2095) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Choirboy:
But I think Peacefeet's post illustrates the possibilities of legal nightmares over inheiritance, insurance, hospital visitation rights, etc. That is, all of the civil issues involved in marriage become horribly complex.
All of those issues can be addressed through private contracts. Appropriate limitations for such contracts can, as necessary, be imposed by legislation. There is nothing about this that is particularly complex from a contractual standpoint.
Posted by Laura (# 10) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
All of those issues can be addressed through private contracts. Appropriate limitations for such contracts can, as necessary, be imposed by legislation. There is nothing about this that is particularly complex from a contractual standpoint.
This is absolutely right. Inheritance isn't a nightmare -- you just have to set up your prenuptial agreements and wills so that your desires are clear. I can think of several different ways to do it.
I suspect that decriminalization will simply allow people who are already going to do these arrangements to do so without having to live secret lives.
Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mountainsnowtiger:
Presumably LDS on this thread = Latter Day Saints. Could someone enlighten me as to what the 'F' stands for?
Presumably, Fundamentalist. The ones who still practice polygamy. (Google is your friend).
Posted by pimple (# 10635) on
:
Small tangent. I've known two white missionaries to Africa, at a time when polygamy was rife. (Two different African states). In one, the women had enormous influence - the Mothers' Union wore uniforms and were regarded almost as pastors (which, effectively they were). They were slowly persuading their men to accept monogamy.
In the other place, nothing like that had even started. The evangelists were careful not to go too fast against the prevailing culture. This produced an interesting dilemma when children were baptised, and a form was sent out to establish how many relatives would attend.
In the slot labelled "Mother" one or two children had entered more than one name. Interviewed by the pastor, the conversation went something like this:
Pastor: "But Kati, which of these is your REAL mother?"
Kati (totally mystified): "All of them, of course. Why?"
Posted by mountainsnowtiger (# 11152) on
:
quote:
I suspect that decriminalization will simply allow people who are already going to do these arrangements to do so without having to live secret lives.
(I don't know whether I expressed myself clearly enough in my previous post.)
Why can't they already do so, by just engaging in their own version of a religious marriage ceremony, without trying to be legally or civily married? At which point, in the eyes of their state authorities, surely they are just people who are co-habiting with multiple partners and can't be prosecuted anyway? Am I being obtuse? Where is the flaw in my suggestion as to how LDS people can practise polygamy without engaging in any crime?
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Posted by Iole Nui (# 3373) on
:
Is polygamy actually illegal here, in itself? How is it differentiated from bigamy (or is it prosecuted as bigamy)?
Like MountainSnowTiger I can't see anything stopping a person from cohabiting with more than one partner, instead of or in addition to their wife\husband. The only illegal part would be if they tried to legally register a second or subsequent marriage. Any personal contract made between them would be valid, surely?
In fact, doesn't the Duke of somewhere, the one with the beard and the lions, openly do that? I've seen him talking on TV about his 'wifelets'.
So if anybody who wants to can do it that way, surely the people who lose out at the moment are the 'wifelets' and any children they have, since they don't benefit from the financial protections of marriage if the relationship ends, and won't be treated as spouses for inheritance purposes.
Posted by trebuchet (# 11970) on
:
I didn't know polygamy was illegal. I always thought the first (senior?) marriage was recognized by the law and the rest of them weren't, but I didn't realize it was actually against the law. How is this prosecuted? Where?
I'm against it being illegal; what a waste of legal resources. I'd be fine with it being legal, even (provided, of course, everybody is of age). I am amused at the nightmare projection of rich men hoarding women and rapists running rampant, which seems pretty silly to me.
The legal difficulties do seem pretty major, but as my husband is studying to be a lawyer, perhaps that's just another reason to be in favour!
Posted by Laura (# 10) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by trebuchet:
The legal difficulties do seem pretty major, but as my husband is studying to be a lawyer, perhaps that's just another reason to be in favour!
A colleague describes any law that is difficult to enforce as a "___ Lawyers' Relief Act", where the blank is whatever practice area implicated by the law. So new tax legislation is the Tax Lawyers' Relief Act. Polygamy legislation would be the Family Lawyers' Relief Act.
Posted by nurks (# 12034) on
:
And then the shrill, whining voice began, "O bless his little heart, his dear little Majesty needn't mind about the White Lady - that's what we call her - being dead. The Worshipful Master Doctor is only making game of a poor old woman like me when he says that. Sweet Master Doctor, learned Master Doctor, whoever heard of a witch that really died? You can always get them back."
"Call her up," said the grey voice. "We are all ready. Draw the circle. Prepare the blue fire."
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
C.S. Lewis, one of the Aslan books but I'm not sure I see the relevance. Perhaps I'm beign dull?
Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on
:
It's from Prince Caspian, Gwai. Just before the fight inside Aslan's How. But I'm not sure I see the point, either.
T.
Posted by Raspberry Rabbit (# 3080) on
:
Mousethief asked
quote:
This is the nightmare the homophobes warned about, isn't it?
Yep. Although I remember hearing convincing arguments in response as to why this nightmare was nonsense.
RR
Posted by Iole Nui (# 3373) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by JArthurCrank:
Legalization will gradually result in the top-tier wealthy men hoarding women that would otherwise be married to middle- and lower-class men. The result will be larger numbers of single men running loose[...]
I don't see why. The number of women who would consent to be 'hoarded' by rich men would be similar to the number who consent to enter into non-marriage polyamourous relationships now - vanishingly small. We aren't a polygamous\polyamorous society, except for a few fringe elements, and wouldn't become so just because multiple marriage became legally possible. That would take a seismic shift in our cultural mores, and probably also in the status and self-determination of women.
Unless we think that polyamory is so enticing that, unless prevented by law, we just wouldn't be able to resist?
Although I agree that a polygamous society is likely to become unstable over time, unless the polygamy is addressing a serious gender imbalance.
(BTW on reflection I think it is the Marquis of Bath who has the wifelets. I think he's the one who's dad was a Nazi and walked a panther on a lead.)
Posted by chive (# 208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by JArthurCrank:
Legalization will gradually result in the top-tier wealthy men hoarding women that would otherwise be married to middle- and lower-class men. The result will be larger numbers of single men running loose, with more rapes, more violence, causing more mayhem than we had previously. There will be a larger demand for prostitutes, which will mean even more trafficking of women than previously. We will also see an uptick in pederasty, with pretty adolescent boys serving as a substitute for unavailable women.
That seems to be a rather negative view of men - if they don't have rings on their fingers they'll degenerate swiftly into rape and pillage.
Does being single remove one's morals and self control? Is this something that only happens to men or should I, being single, maybe warn the neighbours to keep the doors locked at night?
Posted by nurks (# 12034) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
C.S. Lewis, one of the Aslan books but I'm not sure I see the relevance. Perhaps I'm beign dull?
Polygamy was an evil long dead and buried. But with all evils, you can always call them back.
Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by nurks:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
C.S. Lewis, one of the Aslan books but I'm not sure I see the relevance. Perhaps I'm beign dull?
Polygamy was an evil long dead and buried. But with all evils, you can always call them back.
How does this affect your view of the biblical account of the origin of the twelve tribes of Israel?
T.
Posted by nurks (# 12034) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
quote:
Originally posted by nurks:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
C.S. Lewis, one of the Aslan books but I'm not sure I see the relevance. Perhaps I'm beign dull?
Polygamy was an evil long dead and buried. But with all evils, you can always call them back.
How does this affect your view of the biblical account of the origin of the twelve tribes of Israel?
T.
Like divorce, it was allowed because of our hard hearts.
I'm not going to get embroiled in another debate on sexuality. ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
A point tho. Because I can't resist.
For every man who has 10 wives, 9 men have none. Polygamy is about power, not about love.
Posted by Scot (# 2095) on
:
Your concept of marriage appears to reduce women to chattel. In a society more enlightened than the one you envision, the ten women would have the power to accept or decline marriage, or perhaps to pursue several of them.
Posted by Beautiful_Dreamer (# 10880) on
:
To me it seems a bit unfair because I don't believe for one moment that a man who marries multiple wives would be okay with one of his wives marrying someone else. Well, maybe some people would, but this view of marriage takes the institution back to a time that I really do not want to go to-when women were seen as chattel and not equal partners. And I have not heard anything about polyandry (multiple husbands), only polygyny (multiple wives). Seems patently unfair to women to me, but what do I know?
Posted by nurks (# 12034) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beautiful_Dreamer:
Seems patently unfair to women to me
It is patently unfair. To keep control, the man will play each wife off against the other. And the wifes will bitch something chronic.
I propose a new arrangement: Polygamandy. A bloke can have 10 wives simultaneously, and each wife can also have 10 husbands simultaneously.
Or ever better: Omnipolygamandry. Everyone is married to everyone else automaticlly at birth. That way, we'll all be one big happy family.
Posted by Laura (# 10) on
:
Well, I'm not raising my daughter to be in some doofus's harem. But there's no way to stop adult people voluntarily entering into such relationships, unless you prosecute people for living with more than one woman. Even when Utah was occasionally enforcing the law on polygamy, this still didn't stamp it out.
Posted by Scot (# 2095) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by nurks:
To keep control, the man will play each wife off against the other. And the wifes will bitch something chronic.
Because men are smart and manipulative while women are stupid and gullible. Riiiiight. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Beautiful_Dreamer, I don't think anyone other than nurks was suggesting that this would be an asymmetrical arrangement. I haven't done a survey, but I would guess that a roughly similar percentage from each gender would be open to various types of non-traditional marriages.
Posted by nurks (# 12034) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
Because men are smart and manipulative while women are stupid and gullible.
A man who wanted five wives would have to be smart and manipulative, certainly. And a woman who married a man with four other wives would be both stupid and gullible. Yes indeed.
Unless she had no choice.
It's no accident that societies that use wife-number as a token of status and wealth also treat women as private property.
I have to smile, tho. Non-traditional marriage indeed. What a glorious euphamism for immoral unions.
[ 22. November 2006, 01:45: Message edited by: nurks ]
Posted by Scot (# 2095) on
:
Yes, much as "immoral unions" is a euphemism for "things I chose to judge other people for."
Can you substantiate our claim that no woman would willingly participate in a plural marriage? While you're at it, maybe you could explain your fixation on "wife-count". I don't see anything in the OP that would lead us to a world where men are hoarding women. I think you are just setting up a straw man
Posted by nurks (# 12034) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
Yes, much as "immoral unions" is a euphemism for "things I chose to judge other people for."
I don't choose. No more than I choose the sky's blue. I'm an ordinary, old fashioned Christian who believes in revelation. It's you lot who think to revise the rules at every whim of a lobby. Hey. Let's make the Pawn slide like a Bishop. I mean, why shouldn't it? All those Grand Masters who've gone before us. That cloud of witnesses. What would they know about chess?
Marriage: One man, one woman, to have and to hold, until death us part.
quote:
Can you substantiate our claim that no woman would willingly participate in a plural marriage? While you're at it, maybe you could explain your fixation on "wife-count". I don't see anything in the OP that would lead us to a world where men are hoarding women. I think you are just setting up a straw man
Of course you'll find women willing to do most things. Men too. Doesn't mean you let them. The greatest good for the greatest number, and that's a judgement call. One man for one woman sounds good to me. Call it sexual distributivism. If polygamy is made lawful, however, give two shakes of Itchy Dick, and you'd have women being treated as property. Not in those words of course. That would come later.
Posted by WatersOfBabylon (# 11893) on
:
From a completely anthropological perspective, polygamy would make sense for a society with a high woman to man ratio (for example, a society recently stricken by war). It makes sure all the women are cared for.
Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by WatersOfBabylon:
From a completely anthropological perspective, polygamy would make sense for a society with a high woman to man ratio (for example, a society recently stricken by war). It makes sure all the women are cared for.
Then again so would a situation in which they were able to earn a living wage and support themselves and any dependents they might have.
Posted by WatersOfBabylon (# 11893) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
quote:
Originally posted by WatersOfBabylon:
From a completely anthropological perspective, polygamy would make sense for a society with a high woman to man ratio (for example, a society recently stricken by war). It makes sure all the women are cared for.
Then again so would a situation in which they were able to earn a living wage and support themselves and any dependents they might have.
ouch.
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
I should be ashamed of meself...
Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on
:
Well in a pre-modern society where that's just not an option for most women, your way makes a great deal of sense.
Posted by Scot (# 2095) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by nurks:
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
Yes, much as "immoral unions" is a euphemism for "things I chose to judge other people for."
I don't choose. No more than I choose the sky's blue.
Yeah, you do. Even if you believe that you are living in a manner ordained by God, you still chose whether to pass judgment on others. Hence that pesky bit about judging not. You do yourself no favors by abdicating responsiblity for your actions.
quote:
Marriage: One man, one woman, to have and to hold, until death us part.
Thank you, Mr. Santorum.
quote:
quote:
Can you substantiate [y]our claim that no woman would willingly participate in a plural marriage? [snip]
Of course you'll find women willing to do most things. Men too. Doesn't mean you let them.
Yes, in a free country it goddamned well does mean just that. Are you proposing that what we need is a good old-fashioned theocracy? For the good of us all, of course.
So far you have failed to offer a single reason, based on something other than unsupported assertions, straw men, or your personal beliefs, why the decriminalization of plural marriage would be detrimental to society. Is that the best you've got?
[ 22. November 2006, 04:05: Message edited by: Scot ]
Posted by nurks (# 12034) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
Yeah, you do. Even if you believe that you are living in a manner ordained by God, you still chose whether to pass judgment on others.
Well, you're passing judgement. Right now. See how easy it is? If you take a position on any conceivable dispute, you immediately judge the opposition as wrong in some way. They probably won't like it, of course, and call you rude names. Like judgemental and bigotted and phobic. All the usual smoke and mirrors.
It'd be so nice if everyone could be always right, whatever they thought and did. But they can't. Not this side of heaven.
The craven need to let everyone do exactly what they want is nothing but a collective loss of nerve. The rule of a minority over the majority, all in the name of tolerance.
quote:
Thank you, Mr. Santorum.
Thank you Jesus.
quote:
Yes, in a free country it goddamned well does mean just that.
No. It means the majority rules, or have you forgotten? For the moment, at least, we can safely say the majority in your country don't want polygamous marriages. But yeah. A few years of massaging by the press would change that quick enough. So much for democracy.
quote:
So far you have failed to offer a single reason, based on something other than unsupported assertions, straw men, or your personal beliefs, why the decriminalization of plural marriage would be detrimental to society. Is that the best you've got?
I look at polygamous societies and say: No.
A man has 10 wives. He sends them out to work. Household income: $400000 a year. Nine men have no wives. Bad luck. The children born into the rich house need servants. Hey. Those 9 unmarried men will do. Pay them $5000 a year. They have no family. They have no great need for income. Project forward a few generations.
Let each man have one woman, for God's sake. Make a law of it. The dribbling letch who wants more, buy him an Inflatable. Then he can bounce about to his heart's content.
Posted by ananke (# 10059) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by nurks:
A man has 10 wives. He sends them out to work. Household income: $400000 a year. Nine men have no wives. Bad luck. The children born into the rich house need servants. Hey. Those 9 unmarried men will do. Pay them $5000 a year. They have no family. They have no great need for income. Project forward a few generations.
You do realise that genders are not balanced now right? And that not all that many people would choose polyamoury, the same as not everyone would choose homosexuality? It would simply offer those who already live in those relationships a legal standing.
As far as feminism and polyamoury goes - I'm all for women not be chattel. Part of that is not designating marriage as a financial contract (either as unpaid/unrecognised labour or slave labour) and part of it is not exploiting women. Polyamoury has the ability to do that, but also has the ability to NOT do that. Much like marriage.
As far as things go - this is something the husband and I have talked over. Not our cup of tea, even though emotionally and mentally it would suit us. It just hasn't come up as an option. To have legal sanction would offer a level of protection denied at the moment.
Posted by nurks (# 12034) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ananke:
not all that many people would choose polyamoury
New name. Old sin. Shagging the neighbour's wife.
Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on
:
Nurks, a few definitions for you:
Polygamy: A system in which (at least some) people may contract more than one marriage.
Polygyny: A system in which men are permitted more than one wife.
Polyandry: A system in which women are permitted more than one husband.
Polyamory: A lifestyle or orientation in which exclusivity is not an essential feature of a relationship.
Bigamy: The crime of contracting more than one marriage when this is not allowed in law.
Adultery: An encounter or relationship in which at least one party is married to someone other than the other party.
Please use these terms accurately.
And speaking of accuracy, please give me one place in the Bible where laymen (not priests) are commanded to have at most one wife. You seem to put great store by the words of Jesus, but I think I missed the bit where he ordered monogamy.
T.
Posted by Gort (# 6855) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by nurks:
... The craven need to let everyone do exactly what they want is nothing but a collective loss of nerve. The rule of a minority over the majority, all in the name of tolerance.
Interesting how fanatical reasoning always expresses itself with extremely conclusive statements. But then, you knew that. It should also be noted that collectively dismissing argument as "judgemental" in defense of one's position effectively dismisses serious consideration of your viewpoint.
There must always be wiggle room in a discussion, nurks. To make an exclusive claim to final truth with seemingly no other support than 'the bible told me so' is a rather weak position. You see, people are squishy things. They don't fit well into nice, clean, well-defined moral cages. They have a frustrating tendency to ooze out between the bars and slip away, leaving the jailkeeper fumbling with a fistful of keys and wondering where everyone went.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
Originally posted by Scot:
quote:
Beautiful_Dreamer, I don't think anyone other than nurks was suggesting that this would be an asymmetrical arrangement. I haven't done a survey, but I would guess that a roughly similar percentage from each gender would be open to various types of non-traditional marriages.
I think, all other things being equal, your guess is right and based on a similar statistical basis the numbers among the general population would be vanishingly small.
However the elephant in the room is the presence of organised religious groups where polygamous men are at the top of the hierarchy, women come second (they are, after all, desirable commodities which gives them some leverage) and non-polygamous men come bottom. So you have the scenario where teenagers are being run out of town in order to restrict the supply of desirable males, thus driving the ladies into the arms of the polygamous men at the top of the hierarchy. This isn't a hypothetical by the way. In parts of Utah it's a reality. Now I think the state should do absolutely nothing to legitimise this arrangement, nor should it make it possible for various unscrupulous types to replicate it elsewhere. After all, God only changed his mind about polygamy when the official LDS leaders were being prosecuted by the United States Government. He might change it back if the law changed. Can you imagine what the Unification Church would do if Rev'd Moon's attempt to finish the job that Jesus botched by marrying suitable candidates to one another were not restricted by the laws prohibiting plural marriage. God, it appears, is on quite familiar terms with any number of over-sexed, unscrupulous charlatans. One really ought not to encourage them.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
One of my oldest friends is currently living with two girlfriends. The relationship has lasted two years so far, all parties concerned seem happy with it and none of them appear to be exploiting or being exploited by any of the others.
I have a fairly conservative view of sexual morality, and I don't accept that just because an unconventional arrangement is currently stable and satisfying it is ‘as good as' marriage. I think that sexual intimacy ought to be (that is, was intended by God for) an exclusive, livelong pairing, and polygamy was allowed as a concession only in ages long past. I do not think that a Christian should be involved in such a marriage now. I also think that human failings and jealousies make any arrangement with multiple partners dangerous, and I strongly suspect that my friend and his two partners are going to end up very badly hurt by their relationship choice.
There is, of course, nothing illegal about my friend's domestic arrangements. He is allowed to live with two girls and they are allowed to treat each other as if they were a ‘married' unit. They are free to make wills leaving property to each other, and to enter into contracts about the division of property if they split up (whether such agreements can be enforced is another matter, but that applies to any other relationship). But they can't marry. They can't have a legal recognition that they are in fact and in practice a single family. They can't have the same legal potections that I have as regards children, divorce and inheritance that my wife and I have.
In effect, the current state of the law is to permit them to live as one household, but to deny them the protections which society accepts as right and appropriate for other (equally lawful) households. And that strikes me as self-evidently wrong. A theocracy - with an avowed objective of enforcing a strict moral code - could consistently make multiple sexual partnerships illegal in fact. A truly liberal democracy - which permits alternatives to such a strict code to exist - could consistently extend the same rights to all consensual groupings. But two permit different arrangements to exist and then to discriminate against them in the legal sphere combines elements of two inconsistent systems: the liberalism that says who-sleeps-with-whom is none of our business, and the authoritarianism that says that people should conform to a proper standard of sexual behaviour.
I prefer liberalism. The purpose of the law (as currently conceived in western society generally) is not to impose on the majority of people the observances and ethics of a religion which for the most part they do not believe. I think my friend's choices are morally sub-optimal and also foolish. But I can think of no end of ordinary male-female marriages about which I could say the same, and I have no desire to see the state intervene to ‘save' people from the (IMO, much greater) foolishness of marrying an unsuitable partner. If we are to have a free society, people have the option of making dumb choices. And sometimes these will have deeply tragic consequences. But none of the alternatives are better.
I'm in favour of allowing people to make informed choices about who they marry, and that includes polygamists.
Posted by U (# 5930) on
:
quote:
I don't like it, but I can't really see how we can continue to criminalize an arguably free-will relationship between adults. (in the absence of forced marriage of children as with the FLDS communities). Anyone?
I agree. With social understanding the way it is there is no way to say no to polygamy.
The other side of that coin is that I don't know of a mainstream teaching/school of thought that solely addresses the question of sex in the same way most religions address love. Science is the closest sex has come to having its own explanation.
And to my mind sex is just as important if not more so than love because though only certain kinds of love lead to sex, most forms of sex lead to childbirth and almost everyone alive today is so because a one man and a one woman had sex. I think that is the closest I can come to having a simple argument against polygamy. One man + one woman = children.
Though no harm may come to a child in other forms of relationship, the most loving and stable and balanced is one male + one female. So it is not about what's wrong with the others, its about whats right with monogamy. A monogamy that is working is to my mind more powerful, beautiful, nurturing, healthy and true in every regard than any other relationship, not that the others are bad, but that monogamy is better.
I think there is greater potential in the others for things to go wrong than there is in a male-female monogamy because fundamentally, however short the experience, a monogamy is how almost everyone is alive today and most truly explains where a person's roots(pun not intended but haha)and all people's before them can be found. I think it is the most socially plugged in for a healthy psychological development a child can be.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
A theocracy - with an avowed objective of enforcing a strict moral code - could consistently make multiple sexual partnerships illegal in fact. A truly liberal democracy - which permits alternatives to such a strict code to exist - could consistently extend the same rights to all consensual groupings. But two permit different arrangements to exist and then to discriminate against them in the legal sphere combines elements of two inconsistent systems: the liberalism that says who-sleeps-with-whom is none of our business, and the authoritarianism that says that people should conform to a proper standard of sexual behaviour.
Why assume that liberalism and theocracy are the only two arrangements in town. Liberalism says that society is comprised of equal negotiating partners who may freely enter into any contract they choose and the state should stay out of their affairs. Theocracy says that governments should fulfil the will of God in minute detail. I subscribe to neither position. I think oppression is not the exclusive preserve of governments and that sometimes governments can act wisely to preserve the freedom of individuals over against the community or minority communities against a majority community. I further hold that certain institutions are inherently oppressive. Even if someone wishes to sell himself into chattel slavery, for example he should not be allowed to do so, free contracting individuals notwithstanding.
Now I hold that polygamy is such an institution. Wherever polygamy holds the position of women is diminished. Compare Saudi Arabia to Egypt, Ancient Persia to contemporary Britain, Utah to New York. Actually existing polygamy and historically existing polygamy invariably involve reducing women to chattels. The argument appears to be that if polygamy is legalised it will lead to a splendid new liberal polygamy in which women will be able to decide whether they want 1 husband or 1/4 of a husband. It overlooks the fact that the major beneficiaries will be various unsavoury religious fundamentalists. Told by her parents to marry an elderly man with two wives, at present, a young Muslim woman can invoke the laws of England. Change that and she's saddled with the brute.
Therefore there are good secular grounds for regarding its introduction with disfavour.
Posted by CrookedCucumber (# 10792) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Wherever polygamy holds the position of women is diminished. Compare Saudi Arabia to Egypt, Ancient Persia to contemporary Britain, Utah to New York. Actually existing polygamy and historically existing polygamy invariably involve reducing women to chattels.
I find your argument persuasive. However, your examples don't show that poly-whatever marriages are causative of the low status of women. I would have thought, if anything, that the converse were the case. So they don't prove that the introduction into a society of poly-whatsit where it was once supressed would lead to a diminishing of the status of women.
Nevertheless, I think if society as a whole believes that some activity is opressive, demeaning, or degrading to people who do it, even freely, society is entitled to express disapproval. Making that activity illegal is one way to express that disapproval, even if it cannot easily be prosecuted.
Whether illegality is the best way to express disapproval, I guess, is questionable.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
Originally posted by Crooked Cucumber:
quote:
I find your argument persuasive. However, your examples don't show that poly-whatever marriages are causative of the low status of women. I would have thought, if anything, that the converse were the case. So they don't prove that the introduction into a society of poly-whatsit where it was once supressed would lead to a diminishing of the status of women.
Well, I think we could agree that there is a strong correlation. Given that such a strong correlation exists I think a certain amount of caution is in order.
Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
I find your argument persuasive. However, your examples don't show that poly-whatever marriages are causative of the low status of women. I would have thought, if anything, that the converse were the case. So they don't prove that the introduction into a society of poly-whatsit where it was once supressed would lead to a diminishing of the status of women.
So in a society in which women are both legally and factually treated as equals to men, it might not be dangerous. Sadly, no such society has ever existed.
Posted by Laura (# 10) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by Crooked Cucumber:
quote:
I find your argument persuasive. However, your examples don't show that poly-whatever marriages are causative of the low status of women. I would have thought, if anything, that the converse were the case. So they don't prove that the introduction into a society of poly-whatsit where it was once supressed would lead to a diminishing of the status of women.
Well, I think we could agree that there is a strong correlation. Given that such a strong correlation exists I think a certain amount of caution is in order.
This is the strongest argument against polygyny (which is what we're talking about, really), and the one that distinguishes it from gay unions. In the United States, you'd say that this is an argument from public policy. Rights talk says free people can associate in any way they like; then public policy can say: we won't decriminalize, say, prostitution, because the system is inherently abusive, even if in a given situation in might not be.
Posted by My Duck (# 11924) on
:
Hmmmmmmmm can anyone tell me, apart from the stamp of legitimacy, how does polygamy differ to adultery?
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by My Duck:
Hmmmmmmmm can anyone tell me, apart from the stamp of legitimacy, how does polygamy differ to adultery?
It lacks the elements of lying to one's partner, breaking a solemn vow, betraying a trust, and violating one of the Ten Commandments.
Posted by CrookedCucumber (# 10792) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by My Duck:
Hmmmmmmmm can anyone tell me, apart from the stamp of legitimacy, how does polygamy differ to adultery?
Because polygamy is openly expressed and (apparently) consensual. Adultery is secretive and involves one partner deceiving the other.
I'm not suggesting that I favour polygamy, but it's way different from adultery.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
I think that from a sacramental point of view polygamy is adultery. Mind you, I don't think we should go round locking people up because they are not sacramentally correct from a (Anglo) Catholic point of view. But the tradition is pretty unequivocal on the matter.
Posted by Scot (# 2095) on
:
Callan, you (unlike certain others) make some good points but, like CC, I think you've got the causality going the wrong way. Nevertheless, I agree with you that the strong correlation makes caution prudent. I would exercise that caution in the form of strengthening protections against the abuses that you described.
The examples you have provided (teenagers in Utah, the young Muslim woman) should be protected from forced marriage, whether monagamous or plural. The issues here are nonconsensuality and associated abuse, not polygamy. A reasonable amount of regulation could provide protections at least as effective as the current bigamy laws without unduly restricting the freedom of those who would freely choose a plural marriage.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Why assume that liberalism and theocracy are the only two arrangements in town?
Because if you accept (which you may not) the proposition that very poor marital choices is one way in which we rightly let people fuck up their own lives without state intervention, and the ‘harm' element of polygamy can therefore be discounted as a reason to legislate ... then they pretty much are.
On that basis, either polygamy is allowed (and the reason for that resolves basically to allowing people to live as they choose) or it isn't (and the reason for that resolves basically to the belief that it's just plain wrong).
quote:
I further hold that certain institutions are inherently oppressive [...] Now I hold that polygamy is such an institution.
I don't think it is inherently oppressive.
I think it is potentially oppressive. So is monogamy. So is promiscuity. So is allowing legal divorce. So is forbidding legal divorce.
It seems obviously true to me that two men and a woman, for example, could choose to set up home together on a free, voluntary and loving basis without anyone necessarily being oppressed. Of course it could later turn into a living nightmare. And, as they will be dealing with three ‘pairings' rather than one, and the sins of three fallible people rather than two, it's probably much more likely to go badly wrong than a monogamous relationship. But it is not inherently doomed to cause misery.
quote:
The argument appears to be that if polygamy is legalised it will lead to a splendid new liberal polygamy in which women will be able to decide whether they want 1 husband or 1/4 of a husband.
We already have liberal polygamy. I had dinner with six polyamourists last night (the aforementioned MFF household and a MMF subset of a large, non-cohabiting network of open relationships). While I consider this to be a thoroughly bad thing for the people involved, and not in the least ‘splendid', not one of them was being oppressed or exploited by their relationship choices.
The issue is not whether people ought to live this way (I think we'd agree that they ought not to) or whether they do in fact live this way (they do) but whether, given that these relationships are already permitted to exist and do exist, the law should in fairness extend them the same protections which society has decided are appropriate to other formalised cohabitations - whether wise or foolish, moral or immoral.
quote:
Told by her parents to marry an elderly man with two wives, at present, a young Muslim woman can invoke the laws of England. Change that and she's saddled with the brute.
Forced marriage is already illegal. To the extent that some parents ignore that and force their children to marry (which of course they do), they can make bad arrangements for their offspring with any number of single, widowed and divorced brutes. That is not a reason to criminalise monogamy. The thing that ought to be unlawful about it, already is.
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on
:
The state should get out of the marriage business altogether. Let marriage be a religious thing, and keep the governments out of the bedrooms of the citizens.
Drop any property, income, taxation, child-rearing, etc. priviledges, rights and obligations which have traditionally been marriage-based and let the free-for-all begin.
Live with whomever you will, have sex with whomever you will, let whoever raise the children, or let them be aborted/euthanized on demand if neither "parent" wants to be bothered with them.
This is the eventual outcome of such legalization. It is not fear-mongering, it is just a logical conclusion.
Hopefully our Lord will return before such nonsense happens.
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on
:
The Canadian government studied whether to decriminalize polygyny. You can read the whole report here:
Polygamy in Canada: Legal and Social implications
And the crux of the paper is this:
*Polygamous relationships appear significantly more likely than monogamous relationships to be characterized by physical and emotional abuse of women.
*Many women in polygamous unions experience a diminished sense of self-worth and suffer from competition with the other wives. Children are significantly more likely to have a distant relationship with their father.
*Polygamy also places an economic burden on modern states like Canada, as the very large families that often result almost inevitably look to the government for support.
*...recognizing polygamous marriages would have significant potential ramifications in terms of additional costs to the state, as well as potential costs to employers for pension and insurance plans that provide benefits to the multiple "spouses" of employees.
*It seems inevitable that, if a modern community not decimated by war is going to widely practise polygamy, significant numbers of males must be forced from the community.
And I would imagine that there would be similar problems with Polyandry (one women, several men).
Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
The state should get out of the marriage business altogether. Let marriage be a religious thing, and keep the governments out of the bedrooms of the citizens.
Drop any property, income, taxation, child-rearing, etc. priviledges, rights and obligations which have traditionally been marriage-based and let the free-for-all begin.
Live with whomever you will, have sex with whomever you will, let whoever raise the children, or let them be aborted/euthanized on demand if neither "parent" wants to be bothered with them.
This is the eventual outcome of such legalization. It is not fear-mongering, it is just a logical conclusion.
Hopefully our Lord will return before such nonsense happens.
The sky is falling! the sky is falling!
Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
The state should get out of the marriage business altogether. Let marriage be a religious thing, and keep the governments out of the bedrooms of the citizens.
Drop any property, income, taxation, child-rearing, etc. priviledges, rights and obligations which have traditionally been marriage-based and let the free-for-all begin.
Live with whomever you will, have sex with whomever you will, let whoever raise the children,
With you so far. This looks like a liberal society to me, albeit described in terms designed to make the reader think badly of it.
quote:
or let them be aborted/euthanized on demand if neither "parent" wants to be bothered with them.
Whoa! Where the hell did that come from? In what kind of liberal society would anyone be killed off simply because some other person neglects to help them? I cannot possibly see how this barbaric suggestion relates to the rest of the topic.
T.
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
... I cannot possibly see how this barbaric suggestion relates to the rest of the topic.
Simple. If there is no marriage recognized by the state, how can it enforce parental responsibility?
Of course, I am being somewhat OTT to get a reaction, but then again, like was said before, when same-sex marriage was legalized here, everyone said poly... would not be next up.
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on
:
They are apples and oranges. I doubt anyone would deny that polygamy is a completely conscious and voluntary social arrangement people choose to make.
While I am sure some would argue that sexual orientation may not be innate, few would say that it is a conscious and voluntary social arrangement for the vast majority of people (other than bisexuals, perhaps.)
Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
... I cannot possibly see how this barbaric suggestion relates to the rest of the topic.
Simple. If there is no marriage recognized by the state, how can it enforce parental responsibility?
That may well be an undesirable result. In fact, though, despite your weird use of inverted commas, unmarried parents are still parents in the eyes of the law. Funnily enough, in a society where the law only respects monogamous marriages, unmarried people still produce children, and can still be compelled to care for them.
You specified euthanising unwanted children. This, as I say, bears no resemblance either to the otherwise conservative views of most religious polygamists, or to the liberal, rights-focussed views of most polyamorists. I still can't figure out where you got it from.
And if the state were to allow group marriage (rather than patriarchal polygyny), wouldn't this mean than some children were better supported, by larger households, than at present?
T.
Posted by PhilA (# 8792) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
... I cannot possibly see how this barbaric suggestion relates to the rest of the topic.
Simple. If there is no marriage recognized by the state, how can it enforce parental responsibility?
If the state decreed that one must be married in order to have children, then you may have a point, but as anyone can have a kid with anyone they wish - and are able - to do so, and still have legal parental responsibility for the child, then this is surely a moot point.
Posted by Iole Nui (# 3373) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
Live with whomever you will, have sex with whomever you will, let whoever raise the children, or let them be aborted/euthanized on demand if neither "parent" wants to be bothered with them.
This is the eventual outcome of such legalization. It is not fear-mongering, it is just a logical conclusion.
I don't know how things work where you live, but where I live I can already live with whoever I will, have sex with whoever I will, and the state by and large only interferes in the rearing of children if there is evidence of risk. All of which is the way I like it, thanks.
So not so much a logical conclusion as the way things are.
Abortion on demand and childhood euthanasia have not so far followed.
Posted by the_raptor (# 10533) on
:
Do the people who are railing against the evils of polygamy, even know anyone that chooses that life style? Not all of them are Fundie LDS members living in compounds in the desert. Nor are they one man to many wives scenarios. The ones I know even have same-gender relationships involved in the mix (*shock* *horror*).
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
quote:
Originally posted by WatersOfBabylon:
From a completely anthropological perspective, polygamy would make sense for a society with a high woman to man ratio (for example, a society recently stricken by war). It makes sure all the women are cared for.
Then again so would a situation in which they were able to earn a living wage and support themselves and any dependents they might have.
Are you suggesting that people with a decent income don't want to live in a family? Or only women?
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chive:]That seems to be a rather negative view of men - if they don't have rings on their fingers they'll degenerate swiftly into rape and pillage.
Does being single remove one's morals and self control? Is
To be honest its a partly fair view. Single men really are more likely to commit crimes. Even controlling for age (which is a much more important factor) They are also more likely to be in poor health, to be unemployed, to smoke, to drink too much, to kill themselves, to get cancer, to have heart attacks...
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by PeaceFeet:
Not that I agree with it but) nearly all the churches I have ever attended have had loads more single women in than men because of the lack of eligible guys.
The first part is certainly true. But isn't it just because churches have more women in them than men anyway? There are more single women than single men in church, but there are also mroe married women than married men in church and more divorced women than divorced men, and more widowed women than widowed men. There are just more women than men in church full stop.
The second part "because of the lack of eligible guys" seems dodgy reasoning to me. Is there any evidence that Christian women are more likely to remain single than non-Christian women?
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by PeaceFeet:
(Not that I agree with it but) nearly all the churches I have ever attended have had loads more single women in than men because of the lack of eligible guys. Perhaps polygamy might provide a controversial solution to this?
All the Reformed-type (Sola Scriptura at the forefront) churches, including my own, I have attended in the last 5 years have MORE single guys than gals. Just wanted to correct this assumption. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
quote:
Originally posted by WatersOfBabylon:
From a completely anthropological perspective, polygamy would make sense for a society with a high woman to man ratio (for example, a society recently stricken by war). It makes sure all the women are cared for.
Then again so would a situation in which they were able to earn a living wage and support themselves and any dependents they might have.
Are you suggesting that people with a decent income don't want to live in a family? Or only women?
Huh? No matter how I stand on my head I can't get that out of what I wrote. I was suggesting that if the problem is women not being "cared for" due to an underabundance of men to marry them and care for them, then one solution would be to enable them to care for themselves by making living-wage jobs available to them, so they don't need to get married to be cared for.
Grind your axe on somebody else.
Posted by PhilA (# 8792) on
:
Having read this thread and thinking about it for a while, I honestly can't think of why a poly-whatever relationship - as long as it is consensual from all parties involved - is necessarily a bad thing in and of itself.
It seems to me that people have very funny views about marriage; too little of it is a bad thing and too much of it is a bad thing. I'm not even convinced that one woman + one man for life should be the ideal in our western culture any more.
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by PhilA:
Having read this thread and thinking about it for a while, I honestly can't think of why a poly-whatever relationship - as long as it is consensual from all parties involved - is necessarily a bad thing in and of itself.
It seems to me that people have very funny views about marriage; too little of it is a bad thing and too much of it is a bad thing. I'm not even convinced that one woman + one man for life should be the ideal in our western culture any more.
The more I read articles on polygomy marriages, the more I am convinced that they do not have happy marriages. That they exist in a bubble, time-warped zone of their own making. Telling themselves that they are not jealous. The women are not jealous. The kids are not jealous. The husband is truly happy trying to be supportive for more than one wife.
And that is when there is not under-age girls involved, nor boys being dumped off on the edge of town/kicked out to make room for older controlling men who don't ever want competition.
The human nature is a hard thing to squelch, in my opinion, and this arrangement is not an ideal one.
If polygomists could keep their hands off of marrying under 18 brides, could stop forcing marriages, could stop mistreating the sons born to the women in these areas, I might be inclined not to care as much to keep it illegal. But sadly, reading up the news on this issue, I see that there is plenty of corruption and sadness going on.
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
Whoa! Where the hell did that come from? In what kind of liberal society would anyone be killed off simply because some other person neglects to help them? I cannot possibly see how this barbaric suggestion relates to the rest of the topic.
I don't either. But some of the posts on this thread would suggest that not everyone would consider the suggestion barbaric.
Posted by Scot (# 2095) on
:
Duchess, I suggest that you read up on polygamy/polyamory outside of a religious fundamentalist setting. I'd dig up some links, but the search would result in an unwanted conversation with the IT department!
[ 22. November 2006, 17:51: Message edited by: Scot ]
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
Originally posted by Scot:
quote:
The examples you have provided (teenagers in Utah, the young Muslim woman) should be protected from forced marriage, whether monagamous or plural. The issues here are nonconsensuality and associated abuse, not polygamy. A reasonable amount of regulation could provide protections at least as effective as the current bigamy laws without unduly restricting the freedom of those who would freely choose a plural marriage.
I think the problem is that where Polygamy is legal it might be very difficult to prevent forced marriages. How do you prosecute someone for saying 'Marry him, or be ostracised by the community'? There are more subtle forms of coercion than putting guns to people's heads.
Given that polygamy is generally contested I think the prohibition gives weight to the anti-polygamy camp. Imams in the UK or LDS in the US can cite the law, along with theological arguments, as reasons why they, and not the other lot, should be listened to. Take that away and you effectively de-legitimise the anti-polygamy/ forced marriage factions within those religions. I think this could have all sorts of undesirable consequences.
Posted by Scot (# 2095) on
:
Callan, what about the victims of forced monogamous marriage? Using bigamy laws to prevent forced marriages ignores them while unjustly penalizing those who choose polygamy. This is a classic example of treating the symptom and not the problem.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
I was suggesting that if the problem is women not being "cared for" due to an underabundance of men to marry them and care for them, then one solution would be to enable them to care for themselves by making living-wage jobs available to them, so they don't need to get married to be cared for.
I know that's wht you said. And you just repeated it. So the question still stands - do you really think the only kind of caring-for that counts is money?
OK, I'm sure you don't think that really. (& if yo did youu'd probably not say so in public) But its what you actually wrote. As if there was no reason any woman would enter a polygynous marriage other than for material benefit.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
How do you prosecute someone for saying 'Marry him, or be ostracised by the community'?
Like Scot, I don't see what the natural connection between this and polygamy is.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by duchess:
If polygomists could keep their hands off of marrying under 18 brides, could stop forcing marriages, could stop mistreating the sons born to the women in these areas
But all those things are illegal anyway, to everyone, not just polygamists. And they are illegal in India (and no doubt other countries) where polygamy is not illegal.
Maybe there is an argument for saying their should be more government intervention in support of those alledgedly abused mothers and sons in Arizona or New Mexico or wherever, but that's different from the argument about polygamy being legal.
Mormon men are said to be marrying 15 year-old girls and exiling 15-year-old boys. In this country that would attract the attention of the police, and probably get them put in jail however many wives were involved.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
Originally posted by Scot:
quote:
Callan, what about the victims of forced monogamous marriage? Using bigamy laws to prevent forced marriages ignores them while unjustly penalizing those who choose polygamy. This is a classic example of treating the symptom and not the problem.
My position is that forced marriages are a) A Bad Thing and b) very hard to prosecute. So I am sceptical about a reform to the law which has a distinct possibility of increasing the number of forced marriages and which, as the Canadian study indicates, has other undesirable consequences. At the end of the day I don't think that the people who 'freely' choose polygamy and who suffer under the status quo are sufficiently numerous to warrant a change in the law given the evils that will almost certainly arise from it.
Posted by Late Paul (# 37) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by chive:]That seems to be a rather negative view of men - if they don't have rings on their fingers they'll degenerate swiftly into rape and pillage.
Does being single remove one's morals and self control? Is
To be honest its a partly fair view. Single men really are more likely to commit crimes.
Yeah but why is that? Is it because singleness causes men to turn to crime, or is it just possible that the kinds of men disposed to be criminal, rapists even, don't make especially appealing prospective mates?
The real question is whether the correlation would hold if there were a much higher level of singleness among men. Even then it's moot because, as has been said, merely making polygamy legal won't instantly mean that lots of people take it up.
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by duchess:
If polygomists could keep their hands off of marrying under 18 brides, could stop forcing marriages, could stop mistreating the sons born to the women in these areas
But all those things are illegal anyway, to everyone, not just polygamists. And they are illegal in India (and no doubt other countries) where polygamy is not illegal.
Maybe there is an argument for saying their should be more government intervention in support of those alledgedly abused mothers and sons in Arizona or New Mexico or wherever, but that's different from the argument about polygamy being legal.
Mormon men are said to be marrying 15 year-old girls and exiling 15-year-old boys. In this country that would attract the attention of the police, and probably get them put in jail however many wives were involved.
It isn't so simple to put them into jail. A lot of work has to be done to prove these things are happening in court. These people are sly. Look up the trial of Warren Jeffs in Utah. The Defense Attorney Tara L. Isaacson produced love letters to prove a 14 year old child bride was happy about being married off to her 19 year old cousin
I don't want to look up articles and link when I am at work, but as Scot suspected, yes, I am speaking from the Group caste off from the Mormons, FLDS, Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints,
A group did go up into Canada...and some into Mexico to escape all the "persecution" they are facing in the United States.
Scot, I have read up on people who jumped at the chance to be a sister-wife, read up on first wives pushing their husbands to aquire a second, sister-wife etc even in the FLDS type sects. I am convinced that these people are in self-denial of some sort...or just have a very low self-image that they are not aware of. Can I prove that? No, not really. It is just something I suspect, based on my fundamental belief that all human beings are wired the same, we just express ourselves differently, when it comes to love/romance.
I could read up on more-than-one-wife Africans and Middle Eastern women more...you are aware of the "short-quickie" marriage Muslims have when a man just wants to test-drive a gal? I can not remember the word for it right now. I can google it later if need be after I am at home. I have read about this being done for a childhood friend in one of the Princess Sultana books, who was 11 years old, by her dad.
To be fair, her husband only had one wife. She said he did take up with women outside of marriage. I don't know if multiple wives would have helped him not to do that.
[edited wrap around text]
[ 22. November 2006, 19:40: Message edited by: duchess ]
Posted by the_raptor (# 10533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by Scot:
quote:
Callan, what about the victims of forced monogamous marriage? Using bigamy laws to prevent forced marriages ignores them while unjustly penalizing those who choose polygamy. This is a classic example of treating the symptom and not the problem.
My position is that forced marriages are a) A Bad Thing and b) very hard to prosecute. So I am sceptical about a reform to the law which has a distinct possibility of increasing the number of forced marriages and which, as the Canadian study indicates, has other undesirable consequences. At the end of the day I don't think that the people who 'freely' choose polygamy and who suffer under the status quo are sufficiently numerous to warrant a change in the law given the evils that will almost certainly arise from it.
Why would a change in polygamy law increase forced marriages? Right now I can "live in sin" with as many male or female partners as I like. If I wanted to be an non-legally recognized polygamist I could (if you are smart about it).
Using laws against bigamy to stop forced marriages is like keeping laws against homosexuality to stop drug use.
If you are against polygamy then at least have the balls to admit it is because of moral reservations. And don't throw up a smoke screen about stamping out some secondary crime.
Posted by the_raptor (# 10533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by duchess:
you are aware of the "short-quickie" marriage Muslims have when a man just wants to test-drive a gal?
Which is used in some muslim countries to give people something like the sexual freedoms enjoyed by westerners, while still being mostly socially acceptable (eg couples "married" just for sex). Muslims are not a socially or politically cohesive bloc.
Posted by Bartolomeo (# 8352) on
:
While there are individual counterexamples, the overwhelming majority of polygamous marriages are damaging, abusive ones. The diaries of 19th and early 20th century LDS women tell tales of lonliness and neglect. The men involved would choose favorites with whom they would spend the bulk of their time and wealth, leaving their other wives essentially as widows with no prospect of remarriage or escape.
Other cultures where polygamy has been accepted have seen family structures where the younger wives would essentially be servants of the oldest one.
I note that the most successful counterexamples, that is, examples of highly functional marriage-like arrangements involving more than two people, are limited in size to three individuals and appear to involve a good deal of affection and intimacy across all three pairs of people. I think that the interpersonal skill required to maintain such a relationship is exceptional. I doubt if many such relationships last a lifetime.
I believe that polygamy should be viewed chiefly as a mechanism for extending exploitation and control already present in a subculture where power disparity is already present.
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the_raptor:
Using laws against bigamy to stop forced marriages is like keeping laws against homosexuality to stop drug use.
If you are against polygamy then at least have the balls to admit it is because of moral reservations. And don't throw up a smoke screen about stamping out some secondary crime.
I think we all have been trying to make the case that child brides, abandoned boy and forced marriages have taken place in communities which support polygamy for religious reasons. These sects tend to move where there is less legal persecution.
I am against it for moral reasons to, but my arguments have many been around the secondary crimes.
So I request you rethink what you posted here about having balls (not sure if this was only directed to Callan or to all of us who post against it on this thread).
[edited name]
[ 22. November 2006, 20:34: Message edited by: duchess ]
Posted by nurks (# 12034) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
Nurks, a few definitions for you:
Please use these terms accurately.
And speaking of accuracy, please give me one place in the Bible where laymen (not priests) are commanded to have at most one wife. You seem to put great store by the words of Jesus, but I think I missed the bit where he ordered monogamy.
T.
What's in a name? Hey here's a neat idea. Marry everyone to everyone, and thereby abolish sexual sin at the stroke of a pen. If every woman in the world is my wife, I can never be unfaithful.
Re. Jesus:
4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
7"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"
8Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."
10The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry."
The assumption of one wife is plain in this passage, especially in verse 8 and 9. Jesus said Moses let them divorce wives (plural) whereas Jesus speaks of divorcing wife (singular).
Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by nurks:
What's in a name? Hey here's a neat idea. Marry everyone to everyone, and thereby abolish sexual sin at the stroke of a pen. If every woman in the world is my wife, I can never be unfaithful.
Only if you think fidelity is about a marriage contract, rather than the trust that love entails.
T.
Posted by the_raptor (# 10533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bartolomeo:
While there are individual counterexamples, the overwhelming majority of polygamous marriages are damaging, abusive ones. The diaries of 19th and early 20th century LDS women tell tales of lonliness and neglect.
So do those of women in monogamous relationships. People being happy or fulfilled in marriage has not been a universal "right" until recently. It was a societal expectation.
quote:
Originally posted by Bartolomeo:
The men involved would choose favorites with whom they would spend the bulk of their time and wealth, leaving their other wives essentially as widows with no prospect of remarriage or escape.
Insert "favourite wife" with mistress, work, hobby, drugs etc.
quote:
Originally posted by Bartolomeo:
Other cultures where polygamy has been accepted have seen family structures where the younger wives would essentially be servants of the oldest one.
The young being essentially servants of older family members? *shock* That never happens in monogamous societies. It was certainly never the standard until the early 20th century.
quote:
Originally posted by Bartolomeo:
I believe that polygamy should be viewed chiefly as a mechanism for extending exploitation and control already present in a subculture where power disparity is already present.
Extreme feminists level exactly that charge against monogamous marriage. And traditional that charge is born out by the evidence.
In the case of the FLDS, the polygamy is used to control the men as much as the women (naughty men get their wives and children "reassigned" to another man).
quote:
Originally posted by duchess:
[QUOTE]I think we all have been trying to make the case that child brides, abandoned boy and forced marriages have taken place in communities which support polygamy for religious reasons. These sects tend to move where there is less legal persecution.
Again does the US not have laws against statutory rape (that's the one where the law says the female is incapable of giving consent) and parental abandonment?
Can't do much legally about forced marriage (monogamous or polygamous), all you can do is run services to help those who wish to escape from them. Which is a lot easier when people aren't afraid to come forward because of fear of arrest for polygamy. And the community doesn't completely cut itself off from society due to persecution.
[ 22. November 2006, 21:37: Message edited by: the_raptor ]
Posted by nurks (# 12034) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
quote:
Originally posted by nurks:
What's in a name? Hey here's a neat idea. Marry everyone to everyone, and thereby abolish sexual sin at the stroke of a pen. If every woman in the world is my wife, I can never be unfaithful.
Only if you think fidelity is about a marriage contract, rather than the trust that love entails.
T.
Hey, I trust you wife. She's a mighty fine lady, I'm sure. Why can't I sleep with her?
Posted by the_raptor (# 10533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by nurks:
8Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."
This talks about divorce not polygamy. It doesn't show that you can't remained married and take another wife, which was accepted among the early Jews if the bible is to be believed. And if most Christians actually followed that piece of scripture then divorce amongst them would be very low (not to mention we would be arguing about divorce laws not polygamy).
P.S. If you really want to proof text, then I can argue that the bible requires polygamy in the case of marrying a dead brothers wife.
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the_raptor:
... And if most Christians actually followed that piece of scripture then divorce amongst them would be very low (not to mention we would be arguing about divorce laws not polygamy).
P.S. If you really want to proof text, then I can argue that the bible requires polygamy in the case of marrying a dead brothers wife.
While the OT shows God not condemning overtly polygamy, even having a command for a man to marry his brother's widow, it does show jealousy and sadness in most of the situations shown (Leah & Rachael in their contests to have babies, Leah giving names that reflect this is one). It also shows only one wife per elder in Titus, so I imagine one could say "well, this is only for elders". But I wouldn't.
Gen. shows one wife and one man starting out, not a harem.
I have to say this stuff at least once every couple of months in juvenille hall, the kids in there tend to gravitate towards the polygamy question every time those passages are spoken about. So far, this seems to go down well but I am always looking for more constructive ways to discuss this and always read these type of threads.
[aiming for clarity...added words..]
[ 22. November 2006, 21:53: Message edited by: duchess ]
Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by nurks:
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
quote:
Originally posted by nurks:
What's in a name? Hey here's a neat idea. Marry everyone to everyone, and thereby abolish sexual sin at the stroke of a pen. If every woman in the world is my wife, I can never be unfaithful.
Only if you think fidelity is about a marriage contract, rather than the trust that love entails.
Hey, I trust you wife. She's a mighty fine lady, I'm sure. Why can't I sleep with her?
Because (if I had a wife) I would trust her not to sleep with you.
T.
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the_raptor:
Again does the US not have laws against statutory rape (that's the one where the law says the female is incapable of giving consent) and parental abandonment?
Can't do much legally about forced marriage (monogamous or polygamous), all you can do is run services to help those who wish to escape from them. Which is a lot easier when people aren't afraid to come forward because of fear of arrest for polygamy. And the community doesn't completely cut itself off from society due to persecution.
The LDS Church revised its policy on polygamy due...it seems because of it being against US law...read here...
Inasmuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriages, which laws have been pronounced constitutional by the court of last resort, I hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws, and to use my influence with the members of the Church over which I preside to have them do likewise.
source from Mormon.org, clicked through from the LDS.org webpage
So I think it is very reasonable to say, a law against something sometimes persuades people not to do that very thing. And it gives police more help in regards to taking these matters to court.
These sects are breeding grounds for these things that I dare say, surely went on in when this practice was implemented in the beginning of the Mormon church. And a lot less people are able to go off into secluded areas with these vile practices (under-age brides, abandoned boys etc)
[ 22. November 2006, 22:02: Message edited by: duchess ]
Posted by nurks (# 12034) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the_raptor:
This talks about divorce not polygamy. It doesn't show that you can't remained married and take another wife, which was accepted among the early Jews if the bible is to be believed. And if most Christians actually followed that piece of scripture then divorce amongst them would be very low (not to mention we would be arguing about divorce laws not polygamy).
P.S. If you really want to proof text, then I can argue that the bible requires polygamy in the case of marrying a dead brothers wife.
Marrying the brother's wife etc was a law from polygamous times. It was nowhere affirmed by Jesus or anyone else in the NT. I add polygamy to Jesus'list of sayings: You have heard it said XYZ, but I say to you ABC.
In that passage I quoted, Jesus refers to creation: One man. One woman. One flesh. No longer one but two. He didn't say, No longer four, but five.
He also said Moses permitted a man to divorce wives (plural) but Jesus only spoke of wife (singular).
As for Christians and our divorce rates, well yes indeed. We're big on love, forgiveness and faithfulness, it seems.
Posted by the_raptor (# 10533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by duchess:
[QUOTE]While the OT shows God not condemning overtly polygamy, even having a command for a man to marry his brother's widow, it does show jealousy and sadness in most of the situations shown (Leah & Rachael in their contests to have babies, Leah giving names that reflect this is one).
I agree with you. I was just mocking nurks poor attempt at a proof text.
Posted by caty the southerner (# 11996) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the_raptor:
quote:
Originally posted by nurks:
8Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."
This talks about divorce not polygamy. It doesn't show that you can't remained married and take another wife, which was accepted among the early Jews if the bible is to be believed. And if most Christians actually followed that piece of scripture then divorce amongst them would be very low (not to mention we would be arguing about divorce laws not polygamy).
P.S. If you really want to proof text, then I can argue that the bible requires polygamy in the case of marrying a dead brothers wife.
Surely, to be accurate about the Bible text, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard" refers to 'you' plural? Jesus is not saying that Moses specifically permitted a man to divorce several wives? Is it not the case that this is speaking of men and wives generally, rather than commenting on the number of wives an individual may be divorcing?
And in the case of a man marrying his dead brother's wife, surely that doesn't require polygamy? The woman is widowed, and the text makes no comment on whether the surviving brother is already married or not.
Posted by caty the southerner (# 11996) on
:
Oops - cross posted with several there! Must learn to type faster!
Posted by the_raptor (# 10533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by nurks:
Marrying the brother's wife etc was a law from polygamous times. It was nowhere affirmed by Jesus or anyone else in the NT.
"love your neighbour"? ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
Prohibition against murder was from "polygamous times". Also condemnation of homosexuality was from "polygamous times", I don't recall Jesus mentioning it in the NT.
I also definitely don't remember Jesus saying "you can't do anything unless I expressly permit it". In fact you would be violating this theoretical commandment right now.
quote:
Originally posted by caty the southerner:
And in the case of a man marrying his dead brother's wife, surely that doesn't require polygamy? The woman is widowed, and the text makes no comment on whether the surviving brother is already married or not.
It requires polygamy in the sense that at least some of the brothers are going to be currently married.
Posted by nurks (# 12034) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
Because (if I had a wife) I would trust her not to sleep with you.
What you thought about it would hardly be a concern. It's not love and trust between you and me, but between me and your wife.
The point being: marriage is not just love and trust. It's about a man and a woman becoming One Flesh, two people sharing one holy spirit. An image of the Trinity.
Posted by nurks (# 12034) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by caty the southerner:
Surely, to be accurate about the Bible text, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard" refers to 'you' plural? Jesus is not saying that Moses specifically permitted a man to divorce several wives? Is it not the case that this is speaking of men and wives generally, rather than commenting on the number of wives an individual may be divorcing?
And in the case of a man marrying his dead brother's wife, surely that doesn't require polygamy? The woman is widowed, and the text makes no comment on whether the surviving brother is already married or not.
I agree with all of that. Suggestive tho, that change from 'wives' in verse 8 to 'wife' in verse 9.
Posted by nurks (# 12034) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the_raptor:
Prohibition against murder was from "polygamous times". Also condemnation of homosexuality was from "polygamous times", I don't recall Jesus mentioning it in the NT.
I also definitely don't remember Jesus saying "you can't do anything unless I expressly permit it". In fact you would be violating this theoretical commandment right now.
Jesus is perfectly clear. A man joins to a woman in faithful marriage. Two become one. Note those little numbers: Two and One. This is the order established in Creation. Those who choose not to marry should remain celibate for the sake of God. To lust in your heart for some other arrangement is to sin.
[ 22. November 2006, 22:55: Message edited by: nurks ]
Posted by the_raptor (# 10533) on
:
Nurks that must be the most inept straw man in the history of debate. How does allowing people to practice polygamy (multiple partners with the consent of all partners), equal adultery (multiple partners, with lack of consent)?
And what you are describing is already legally permissible in the west. Why is it morally okay to permit adultery but prohibit polygamy? At least polygamy doesn't involve a betrayal of trust, and Adultery is something that Jesus definitively speaks out against.
Posted by the_raptor (# 10533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by nurks:
Jesus is perfectly clear. A man joins to a woman in faithful marriage. Two become one. Note those little numbers: Two and One. This is the order established in Creation. Those who choose not to marry should remain celibate for the sake of God. To lust in your heart for some other arrangement is to sin.
But that wasn't your argument dear Nurks. You said Jesus never affirmed polygamy, which implied that he didn't prohibit it either. Now you are arguing that he did in fact prohibit it (while God allowed it earlier and in fact demanded it for certain situations). Was the law wrong in saying that a man should marry his brothers widow?
Posted by caty the southerner (# 11996) on
:
Personally, I can't see that the change from 'wives' in v8 to 'wife' in v9 is significant: Moses permitted the men of Israel in general to divorce their wives (more than one wife because more than one man - exact ratios unspecified); Jesus speaks of 'anyone' (singular) who divorces his wife (also singular). Jesus certainly endorses the pattern of one man and one woman in permanent, exclusive union, but (as argued in various earlier posts) the passage seems to comment on adultery and divorce rather than polygamy.
quote:
Originally posted by the_raptor:
It requires polygamy in the sense that at least some of the brothers are going to be currently married.
True. It certainly doesn't add '...unless they are already married'. I would say that interpretation of the text as we have it allows for the possibility of polygamy in very specific cirumstances among the OT people of Israel, rather than promotes the practice of it generally. I explained myself poorly in the earlier post.
Posted by nurks (# 12034) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the_raptor:
Nurks that must be the most inept straw man in the history of debate. How does allowing people to practice polygamy (multiple partners with the consent of all partners), equal adultery (multiple partners, with lack of consent)?
And what you are describing is already legally permissible in the west. Why is it morally okay to permit adultery but prohibit polygamy? At least polygamy doesn't involve a betrayal of trust, and Adultery is something that Jesus definitively speaks out against.
Polygamy is theft. It's stealing what ought to belong to another man: his future wife, family and happiness.
It's also akin to adultery, because marriage is the union of one man and one woman. You can call your other women "wife" all you like. You can sign all the papers in the world. She can be as hot and as willing as you could possible desire. It's still wrong.
As for the State permitting adultery, politics is the art of the possible.
Posted by nurks (# 12034) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the_raptor:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by nurks:
[qb]But that wasn't your argument dear Nurks. You said Jesus never affirmed polygamy, which implied that he didn't prohibit it either. Now you are arguing that he did in fact prohibit it (while God allowed it earlier and in fact demanded it for certain situations). Was the law wrong in saying that a man should marry his brothers widow?
Since we're nitpicking, if I prohibit ABC, I certainly don't affirm it.
Secondly, is it wrong to marry my brother's widow? Not at all, so long as I'm single.
As for the OT, progressive revelation is the word to use. We progress from polygamy to monogamy.
Posted by Scot (# 2095) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by caty the southerner:
Personally, I can't see that the change from 'wives' in v8 to 'wife' in v9 is significant
It isn't. It's just nurks careening between straw men, flimsy prooftexts, and absurd scenarios in an apparent effort to make it look like his desire to use the power of the state to enforce monogamy is justified on anything other than his own preferences.
And that is what this really comes down to. Opinions will vary about the morality and practicality of nonmonogamous marriages. In the end, we have to decide whether there is sufficient reason to use governmental force to prevent others from living in marital arrangments of their own choosing. It has to be demonstrated that the good done by such a prohibition would outweigh not only the harm done by it, but also the resulting loss of personal liberty. That's a high standard and one not met, in my opinion, by the arguments offered in this thread.
Posted by nurks (# 12034) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by caty the southerner:
the passage seems to comment on adultery and divorce rather than polygamy.
Agreed. The question of polygamy had been settled by Jesus' time. It was wrong, or at least so undesirable as to be prohibited. Rather, serial monogamy was flavour of the month, and the poor women copped the brunt of it.
Posted by Scot (# 2095) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by nurks:
Polygamy is theft. It's stealing what ought to belong to another man: his future wife, family and happiness.
Women as property? I didn't think you'd admit to that opinion.
Posted by nurks (# 12034) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
quote:
Originally posted by caty the southerner:
Personally, I can't see that the change from 'wives' in v8 to 'wife' in v9 is significant
It isn't. It's just nurks careening between straw men, flimsy prooftexts, and absurd scenarios in an apparent effort to make it look like his desire to use the power of the state to enforce monogamy is justified on anything other than his own preferences.
And that is what this really comes down to. Opinions will vary about the morality and practicality of nonmonogamous marriages. In the end, we have to decide whether there is sufficient reason to use governmental force to prevent others from living in marital arrangments of their own choosing. It has to be demonstrated that the good done by such a prohibition would outweigh not only the harm done by it, but also the resulting loss of personal liberty. That's a high standard and one not met, in my opinion, by the arguments offered in this thread.
The wife/wives thing was an observation that I found suggestive. On reflection, I basically agreed with caty on that, and said so.
That's an aside, however, and you know it. That's why you huffed and puffed the smokescreen. My main argument is not so flimsy and surprisingly enough, you don't address it: Jesus view of Creation. One man, one woman, one flesh.
Why, by the way, is supporting the Christian view of marriage "my own preference", as if I made it up yesterday between breakfast and lunch? You'll find some rather formidable and saintly folk both now and in ages past who share my position.
Lastly, using the power of the State.
A man ought to be faithful and not take bribes. The State should enforce this, like it or not. In many countries, alas, bribery is so entrenched, the State is neither willing nor able to stop it.
In the same way, a man ought to be faithful to one wife. It would be nice if the State enforced this, but since so many practice this particular faithlessness, the State is neither willing nor able to stop it.
This does not mean we open the floodgates even further.
Posted by nurks (# 12034) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
quote:
Originally posted by nurks:
Polygamy is theft. It's stealing what ought to belong to another man: his future wife, family and happiness.
Women as property? I didn't think you'd admit to that opinion.
Lewis mentions this. MY boot is not the same as MY wife, and MY wife is not the same as MY God. The sense of possession is utterly different in each case.
[ 23. November 2006, 00:02: Message edited by: nurks ]
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on
:
"Anyone who divorces his wife" does not in linguistics or in logiv imply how many wives he has. It deals with the the relationship between a man who divorces a wife and that wife: it leaves open that he may have otehrs as well.
John
Posted by Liturgy Queen (# 11596) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
There is, of course, nothing illegal about my friend's domestic arrangements.
In Canada, if you were to get quite technical, there would be.
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by duchess:
So I think it is very reasonable to say, a law against something sometimes persuades people not to do that very thing. And it gives police more help in regards to taking these matters to court.
A law against something sometimes persuades people not to do that thing. But it also means that anyone doing that thing can't involve the law when things go horribly wrong.
My father managed to royally screw over my mother in their divorce agreement because she regularly did something that it wasn't technically legal for her to do (driving - long story). When she threatened to take him to court to sort out the custody and child support issues, he said that he'd make sure she never drove again. So they settled outside the law, and the settlement was not to her benefit and not, I suspect, what would have happened if an impartial observer were able to make the call.
That's the kind of thing I suspect might be reduced if people in polygamous relationships weren't afraid of going to the law to settle disputes because admitting the nature of their relationships implicates them in a crime. Whether the benefits would outweigh the negative consequences, I'm not sure.
Posted by Scot (# 2095) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by nurks:
Why, by the way, is supporting the Christian view of marriage "my own preference", as if I made it up yesterday between breakfast and lunch?
It may come as a surprise, but there are those who do not share your view because, although they are Christian, they do not share your interpretation of the faith. There are others who do not share your view because they are not Christian at all. You prefer your view to theirs. Hence, it is your own preference.
quote:
Lastly, using the power of the State.
[snipped a lot of blather about bribery]
Huh? What the fuck does that have to do with the criminalization of polygamy?
quote:
Originally posted by nurks:
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
quote:
Originally posted by nurks:
Polygamy is theft. It's stealing what ought to belong to another man: his future wife, family and happiness.
Women as property? I didn't think you'd admit to that opinion.
Lewis mentions this. MY boot is not the same as MY wife, and MY wife is not the same as MY God. The sense of possession is utterly different in each case.
I have a hard time conceiving of a sense of possession wherein the concept of theft does not relate to a concept of property. I think that your understanding of marriage must be fundamentally different than mine, or that of anyone to whom I'd like to be married.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
The state was originally pushed into strongly privileging monogamous heterosexual relationships by the rise of the religion of Christianity. It has maintained most of these privileges after the fall of Christendom partly because of social inertia. But mostly it has maintained the privileges because monogamous heterosexual relationships appear to be the most stable and productive arrangement, in the same sense that democracy is the best form of government: not particularly great per se, but everything else turns out to be decidedly worse. Now the rising new religion of BAAL (Banausic, Avaricious, Atheist, Libertarian) is trying to push the state out of its comfortable arrangement, raising its voice in incessant prayer to its idols of "individualism" and "relativism".
Three things can happen now: 1) The prophets of BAAL win and the West further transforms into a mirror image of the Roman Empire just prior to its fall. 2) The powers that be realize that this isn't increasing their own power, wealth, or for that matter, access to sex, and kill it off. 3) Elijah returns, setting off a rather more radical chain of events...
The suspense is killing me... Well, not really. My bet is on 2) on this one.
Posted by the_raptor (# 10533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by nurks:
Polygamy is theft. It's stealing what ought to belong to another man: his future wife, family and happiness.
If someone takes my car without permission that is theft. If I agree to share my car with someone, it is not theft. If I draw up a legal contract to share possession of my car with another, it is not theft (Aren't car analogies great?).
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Now the rising new religion of BAAL (Banausic, Avaricious, Atheist, Libertarian) is trying to push the state out of its comfortable arrangement, raising its voice in incessant prayer to its idols of "individualism" and "relativism".
Oh yes IngoB tell those libertarians how it is. Never mind that the US of A was founded by those of an essentially libertarian bent. And that if it wasn't for libertarians in other countries then Catholics (exchange for other denominations) would still be persecuted around the world.
How dare these Mormons mock the holy trinity with their heresies. Off to jail with them. How dare these protestants mock the traditions of the Holy Church. Off to jail with them. How dare these Catholics swear fealty to a foreign power. Off to jail with them.
Religious intolerance and persecution is not a western custom we want to stop.
Ill tell you what. You can have the state enforce your views about what consenting adults I may fuck, when I can have the state enforce my views about how you may worship.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
the_raptor, you missed my main point. I don't think establishing a theocracy will at all be necessary to repell the prophets of BAAL on polygamy. There's a considerable difference between allowing "gay marriages" and polygamy. The former is not threatening to the prosperity of our glorious rulers in business and parliament, the latter may very well be. So I expect this to get squashed.
quote:
Originally posted by the_raptor:
Oh yes IngoB tell those libertarians how it is. Never mind that the US of A was founded by those of an essentially libertarian bent. And that if it wasn't for libertarians in other countries then Catholics (exchange for other denominations) would still be persecuted around the world.
You way wish to read "The Faith of the Founding" by Michael Novak for a rather different view of what shaped the US of A.
Be that as it may, I agree wholeheartedly that a Christian theocracy is not only impossible to realize as things are, but also not something to be wished for. What precisely it is that the Christian should aim for concerning government has not been fully worked out yet, IMHO. But to worry about these things is of course in itself a very Christian project. I don't see many other religions worrying much about the question to what extent the state should be in the grip of their religion. The prophets of BAAL are of course aiming for a total BAALocracy...
[ 23. November 2006, 07:45: Message edited by: IngoB ]
Posted by the_raptor (# 10533) on
:
Yes IngoB. I see libertarians (no government involvement in private affairs) marching hand in hand with atheists and liberals (lots of government involvement in private affairs) all the time. Libertarians are so not conservative ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
See your theory falls apart due to the fact that libertarians don't want enforced atheism, any more then they want enforced theism. They want the government out of religion all together. And moral relativism? Libertarians? Their whole belief is based around objectivity (for example: property rights) and the idea that people create their own destiny (personal responsibility).
Claiming "liberals" and libertarians would even be capable of working together, is like claiming Catholics and fundamentalist baptists are working together to create theocracy.
Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by nurks:
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
Because (if I had a wife) I would trust her not to sleep with you.
What you thought about it would hardly be a concern. It's not love and trust between you and me, but between me and your wife.
I think you are intentionally couching this discussion in offensively personal terms. I would be more actually offended if I happened to have a wife.
You are also being wilfully obtuse, or else setting me up as a straw man. If you were to wish to commit adultery with my wife, the state of my relationship with you is immaterial, and the state of your desire for her is inconsequential. When I speak of love and trust, I speak of that love and trust which would exist between me and my wife, such that I would trust her not to sleep with you. What you want, frankly, doesn't count for squat.
T.
[ 23. November 2006, 09:25: Message edited by: Teufelchen ]
Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by nurks:
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
quote:
Originally posted by nurks:
Polygamy is theft. It's stealing what ought to belong to another man: his future wife, family and happiness.
Women as property? I didn't think you'd admit to that opinion.
Lewis mentions this. MY boot is not the same as MY wife, and MY wife is not the same as MY God. The sense of possession is utterly different in each case.
In that case, your theft analogy is rather useless, isn't it?
In any case, it was a lousy analogy. It is not theft to take from a limited supply in the knowledge that doing so will prevent others from doing so too. If an artist makes 100 prints of her work, it is not theft for me to purchase one in the knowledge that it will make it harder for other collectors to do the same.
T.
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by nurks:
Jesus is perfectly clear. A man joins to a woman in faithful marriage. Two become one. Note those little numbers: Two and One.
You might want to read this thread which took 4 pages to come to no firm conclusion about the Biblical model of marriage, and the rightness or otherwise of polygamy. Even if you don't take any of the arguments on board (which, I must admit, seems very likely), it might at least convince you of the folly of saying anything on the subject of the Biblical attitude to polygamy is "perfectly clear".
Posted by rufiki (# 11165) on
:
Just a thought:
If we are to decriminalise polygamy, could we have the option of putting a monogamy clause into individual marriage contracts? The thing is that if I got married, I'd want some reassurance that the hypothetical Mr Rufiki won't decide a few years (or decades) down the line to bring in an extra wife.
ETA and he of course should have the option of the same protection re extra husbands.
[ 23. November 2006, 11:34: Message edited by: rufiki ]
Posted by the_raptor (# 10533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rufiki:
Just a thought:
If we are to decriminalise polygamy, could we have the option of putting a monogamy clause into individual marriage contracts? The thing is that if I got married, I'd want some reassurance that the hypothetical Mr Rufiki won't decide a few years (or decades) down the line to bring in an extra wife.
ETA and he of course should have the option of the same protection re extra husbands.
If there is no consent then it isn't polygamy. Unless you want to define it to mean any time a person has more then one sexual partner at a time. In which case western society is significantly polygamous.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
Originally posted by the_raptor:
quote:
Why would a change in polygamy law increase forced marriages? Right now I can "live in sin" with as many male or female partners as I like. If I wanted to be an non-legally recognized polygamist I could (if you are smart about it).
Using laws against bigamy to stop forced marriages is like keeping laws against homosexuality to stop drug use.
If you are against polygamy then at least have the balls to admit it is because of moral reservations. And don't throw up a smoke screen about stamping out some secondary crime.
Where have I denied that I am against it on moral reasons? I think the legalisation of polygamy will increase the exploitation of women and less powerful men in fundamentalist groups. The empirical data proffered by Toujours Dan on the second page of that thread appears to back up that supposition. Hence, I am against it. Presumably you think morality only applies to sex. I think that has the twin benefits of being an ethical position and one which acknowledges the facts on the ground. Advocates of polygamy on this thread have largely concentrated on an ethical position 'the government should not interfere in arrangements made by consenting adults' (which, as it happens is not a position that I share) and not really addressed the empirical arguments with the exception of Scot who thinks that the legislation could be drafted in such a way that protects the vulnerable.
I don't think that this is a self-evidently absurd proposition but I think the experience of the decriminalisation of abortion and homosexuality in the UK demonstrates that legislation with quite limited aims can, in time, take on quite wider significance. The 1967 Act did not aim to make abortion comparatively widely practiced and the intention of the decriminalisers of homosexuality did not intend for homosexuality to become socially acceptable. Both, however, happened. One can multiply examples. It being the case that legislation can have unintended consequences it seems elementary prudence to examine whether this would be the case with polygamy.
[ 23. November 2006, 12:27: Message edited by: Callan ]
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
There's a considerable difference between allowing "gay marriages" and polygamy. The former is not threatening to the prosperity of our glorious rulers in business and parliament, the latter may very well be. So I expect this to get squashed.
I think this cynical position is entirely correct. At the end of the day it will be the argumentum ad state benefitium which swings it. If HMG ever work out they can reduce the tax burden by legalising polygamy there will be a statue of Brigham Young on the empty plinth in Trafalgar Square.
Posted by the_raptor (# 10533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Where have I denied that I am against it on moral reasons? I think the legalisation of polygamy will increase the exploitation of women and less powerful men in fundamentalist groups. The empirical data proffered by Toujours Dan on the second page of that thread appears to back up that supposition.
Which completely ignores that fundamentalist's are not the only advocates. Should we ban home schooling as well, because it is overwhelmingly practised by those same fundamentalist's?
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
The 1967 Act did not aim to make abortion comparatively widely practiced and the intention of the decriminalisers of homosexuality did not intend for homosexuality to become socially acceptable.
Give me hard data on the number of abortions prior to legalisation. Im given to understand that back alley doctors didn't keep meticulous records. And homosexuality socially acceptable? Maybe among flaming liberals. There is a reason that calling someone "gay" or a "fag" is one of the deadliest insults among young people.
Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Advocates of polygamy on this thread have largely concentrated on an ethical position 'the government should not interfere in arrangements made by consenting adults' (which, as it happens is not a position that I share) and not really addressed the empirical arguments with the exception of Scot who thinks that the legislation could be drafted in such a way that protects the vulnerable.
That sounds like a challenge. I'm not an especially keen advocate of religious polygamy, for a wide range of reasons, but I do think that a conventionally liberal, rather than libertarian, government could adopt a pro-polygamy legislative position in at least two distinct ways. I'm indebted to a friend of mine for much of the following analysis:
In the first case, multiple marriages could be permitted through an extension of current marriage and contract law. Each marriage would be a binary legal relationship between the parties directly concerned, without specific bars on the number of such marriages any individual could contract. To be honest, although such a move is technically possible, the interactions of the different marriages undertaken by any one individual would raise a large number of difficult questions, ranging from childcare to property rights. In particular, there is no clear way in which this solution defends the most vulnerable member of any group of married people. Divorce proceedings can still deprive people of the bulk of their property.
Alternatively, the legal state of marriage could be entirely redrawn using the current law on trusts as a basis. In this case, a marriage is a trust, of which all the participants, two or more, are trustees. The trust then owns all the property in common. Responsibility for any children both of whose parents are trustees would also rest with the trust. (Children conceived outside marriage would be subject to the law on such matters as it currently stands, mutatis mutandis.) Moreover, the more vulnerable participants would be better protected, since as the beneficiaries of the trust, they could not be denied a fair share of the capital in the event of a dissolution. Marriage as a trust would indeed be a partnership of equals. It would also be none of the state's business which pairs of people within a group marriage were, in fact, sexual partners.
Not a perfect solution, nor one which I would necessarily fully endorse, but a good defence, I hope, of the idea that an interventionist government could still permit plural marriage and defend the rights of the weak.
T.
Posted by the_raptor (# 10533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Advocates of polygamy on this thread have largely concentrated on an ethical position 'the government should not interfere in arrangements made by consenting adults'
I missed this. Nice attack.
I am not an advocate for polygamy, or homosexuality, or home schooling. I don't personally favour any of those things. I only think it is entirely inappropriate for a secular government to make laws which support traditional Christian values.
You would be the biggest advocate of 'the government should not interfere in arrangements made by consenting adults', if you lived in a country whose government passed laws supporting traditional Islamic values.
Posted by rufiki (# 11165) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the_raptor:
quote:
Originally posted by rufiki:
Just a thought:
If we are to decriminalise polygamy, could we have the option of putting a monogamy clause into individual marriage contracts? The thing is that if I got married, I'd want some reassurance that the hypothetical Mr Rufiki won't decide a few years (or decades) down the line to bring in an extra wife.
ETA and he of course should have the option of the same protection re extra husbands.
If there is no consent then it isn't polygamy. Unless you want to define it to mean any time a person has more then one sexual partner at a time. In which case western society is significantly polygamous.
Consent is an ambiguous word. If you love someone you may consent to things that you do not like. What I would want is to know that there is no question of the marriage ever being, er, expanded.
Posted by the_raptor (# 10533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rufiki:
Consent is an ambiguous word. If you love someone you may consent to things that you do not like. What I would want is to know that there is no question of the marriage ever being, er, expanded.
Well if you really love your husband you wouldn't mind would you? ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Pre-nups or similar would solve this problem.
Posted by rufiki (# 11165) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the_raptor:
Well if you really love your husband you wouldn't mind would you?
Yep, thars the problem!
quote:
Pre-nups or similar would solve this problem.
So what about those couples already married "when" the legislation changes? ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
Posted by My Duck (# 11924) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
quote:
Originally posted by My Duck:
Hmmmmmmmm can anyone tell me, apart from the stamp of legitimacy, how does polygamy differ to adultery?
Because polygamy is openly expressed and (apparently) consensual. Adultery is secretive and involves one partner deceiving the other.
I'm not suggesting that I favour polygamy, but it's way different from adultery.
Ummmm,.... thanks. Thats OK then
Posted by PhilA (# 8792) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rufiki:
Just a thought:
If we are to decriminalise polygamy, could we have the option of putting a monogamy clause into individual marriage contracts? The thing is that if I got married, I'd want some reassurance that the hypothetical Mr Rufiki won't decide a few years (or decades) down the line to bring in an extra wife.
ETA and he of course should have the option of the same protection re extra husbands.
As an aside:
As far as I am aware, I didn't actually sign a contract when I got married at all. (UK C of E wedding) I signed a register to declare that I was married to a specific person and she did the same, but it is not, legally speaking, a contract.
The only part of the marriage that could be construed a contract was the verbal contract of the vows, where we both promised to be faithful to each other and love each other. The key words here being 'faithful to each other'.
Posted by CrookedCucumber (# 10792) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the_raptor:
I don't personally favour any of those things. I only think it is entirely inappropriate for a secular government to make laws which support traditional Christian values.
Where your argument fails, if I may so so, is in assuming that a reluctance to encourage polygamy is a `traditional Christian value'.
But it isn't, is it? I'm sure that there is no more general support for polygamy among (say) atheists than there is among Christians.
If you believe that there is good reason to fear than the liberalisation of restrictions on polygamy will tend to lower the status of women in society, you don't need to be a Christian to oppose it. Good old-fashioned ethical humanism will suffice.
I am in favour, generally speaking, of legal measures that lead to greater equality and respect for the individual. It's irrelevant whether those measures align with the values of some religious group or other.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
Originally posted by the Raptor:
quote:
Which completely ignores that fundamentalist's are not the only advocates. Should we ban home schooling as well, because it is overwhelmingly practised by those same fundamentalist's?
The OP referred to the FLDS who are the major advocates of polygamy in the US. I think the onus is on you to show us these huddled polygamist masses, yearning to breathe free.
quote:
Give me hard data on the number of abortions prior to legalisation. Im given to understand that back alley doctors didn't keep meticulous records. And homosexuality socially acceptable? Maybe among flaming liberals. There is a reason that calling someone "gay" or a "fag" is one of the deadliest insults among young people.
Estimates for the pre-1967 period range from 10,000 to 100,000. Historians tend to regard the latter figure as unreliable. The British government reported 185,000 abortions in 2005. So abortion has, at best, nearly doubled and at worst increased by 175,000. In the Wilson administration there were no openly gay Cabinet ministers and the merest breath of such things would have resulted in political ruin. In the Blair administration there were two openly gay cabinet ministers (Chris Smith and Peter Mandelson). I hardly think the continued existence of 'gay' as a playground insult means the vast social shift that has taken place in the UK since 1967 did not happen.
quote:
I am not an advocate for polygamy, or homosexuality, or home schooling. I don't personally favour any of those things. I only think it is entirely inappropriate for a secular government to make laws which support traditional Christian values.
So the laws against murder should be repealed? After all 'thou shalt not kill' is a traditional Christian value. There are lots of values which Christians and secularists share. Opposition to polygamy may well be one of them. In the one instance where I expressed a religious reason to disapprove of polygamy I explictly stated that I did not think this was a good reason to criminalise it.
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
quote:
Alternatively, the legal state of marriage could be entirely redrawn using the current law on trusts as a basis. In this case, a marriage is a trust, of which all the participants, two or more, are trustees. The trust then owns all the property in common. Responsibility for any children both of whose parents are trustees would also rest with the trust. (Children conceived outside marriage would be subject to the law on such matters as it currently stands, mutatis mutandis.) Moreover, the more vulnerable participants would be better protected, since as the beneficiaries of the trust, they could not be denied a fair share of the capital in the event of a dissolution. Marriage as a trust would indeed be a partnership of equals. It would also be none of the state's business which pairs of people within a group marriage were, in fact, sexual partners.
I think this is plausible. I'm not wholly convinced by it, not least because you appear to have abolished the Married Women's Property Act, but if I were inclined to defend the legalisation of polygamous unions this is the line I would probably take.
Posted by rufiki (# 11165) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by PhilA:
The only part of the marriage that could be construed a contract was the verbal contract of the vows, where we both promised to be faithful to each other and love each other. The key words here being 'faithful to each other'.
Point taken. I guess it would come down to whether you keep the "forsaking all others" bit in.
Posted by the_raptor (# 10533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
If you believe that there is good reason to fear than the liberalisation of restrictions on polygamy will tend to lower the status of women in society, you don't need to be a Christian to oppose it. Good old-fashioned ethical humanism will suffice.
Polygamy isn't the same as polygyny. Educate yourself.
How about we only legalize polyandry and group marriage (mixed numbers of male and female)?
Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by the Raptor:
quote:
Which completely ignores that fundamentalist's are not the only advocates. Should we ban home schooling as well, because it is overwhelmingly practised by those same fundamentalist's?
The OP referred to the FLDS who are the major advocates of polygamy in the US. I think the onus is on you to show us these huddled polygamist masses, yearning to breathe free.
I'm at work, so I can't safely do the legwork for this one myself, but I suggest you Google 'polyamory' (no u).
quote:
Concerning my proposed 'trust law' group marriage system:I think this is plausible. I'm not wholly convinced by it, not least because you appear to have abolished the Married Women's Property Act, but if I were inclined to defend the legalisation of polygamous unions this is the line I would probably take.
I'm not a lawyer, and I've missed many of the subtleties that my friend (who is) included. I can't remember if she mentioned the Married Women's Property Act specifically. That said, I don't pretend that my account is wholly convincing - merely that it's more serviceable than the binary contract model, and more humane than the FLDS patriarchal model.
T.
PS: Is Peter Mandelson openly gay? I remember an awful lot of flapdoodle at the BBC to suggest he wasn't.
Posted by CrookedCucumber (# 10792) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the_raptor:
Polygamy isn't the same as polygyny. Educate yourself.
You know what I mean. Do you have a counter-argument, or is it just that being a pedant turns you on?
Posted by the_raptor (# 10533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
In the Wilson administration there were no openly gay Cabinet ministers and the merest breath of such things would have resulted in political ruin. In the Blair administration there were two openly gay cabinet ministers (Chris Smith and Peter Mandelson). I hardly think the continued existence of 'gay' as a playground insult means the vast social shift that has taken place in the UK since 1967 did not happen.
A social shift doesn't equal homosexuality being socially acceptable (tolerable is a different matter). Homosexuality is still very much regarded as almost scandalous amongst public figures (who aren't arts types). People may not care that the bloke down the road is gay, but they still wouldn't normally vote him into office (being a white family man with an inoffensive religion is still the sure ticket into office).
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
So the laws against murder should be repealed? After all 'thou shalt not kill' is a traditional Christian value. There are lots of values which Christians and secularists share. Opposition to polygamy may well be one of them. In the one instance where I expressed a religious reason to disapprove of polygamy I explictly stated that I did not think this was a good reason to criminalise it.
Secularists may very well oppose homosexuality (communists didn't like it). The only thing that liberal western style government should regulate are acts against the will or human rights of a person (and maybe public standards of decency).
Posted by the_raptor (# 10533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
quote:
Originally posted by the_raptor:
Polygamy isn't the same as polygyny. Educate yourself.
You know what I mean. Do you have a counter-argument, or is it just that being a pedant turns you on?
How does polyandry or polyamory lower the social status of women? Polygyny is the only one that you can even being to claim does that (and we only have the data from a loud mouth fundie group). Never mind the fact that fundie monogamous marriages tend to do the same (that whole headship thing)
And if you would bother reading my previous posts you would notice I covered the issue you raised (we could do more for these women if they came into the open).
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
Originally posted by Raptor:
quote:
A social shift doesn't equal homosexuality being socially acceptable (tolerable is a different matter). Homosexuality is still very much regarded as almost scandalous amongst public figures (who aren't arts types). People may not care that the bloke down the road is gay, but they still wouldn't normally vote him into office (being a white family man with an inoffensive religion is still the sure ticket into office).
That may be the case in Australia. It emphatically isn't in the UK and it was the UK example I was discussing.
Posted by the_raptor (# 10533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
That may be the case in Australia. It emphatically isn't in the UK and it was the UK example I was discussing.
Uh huh. I never hear anything about harassment or discrimination of gays in the UK. No sir. A few gays in parliament does not mean homosexuality is completely socially acceptable. But this is OT so ends here.
[ 23. November 2006, 17:34: Message edited by: the_raptor ]
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
Originally posted by the Raptor:
quote:
Uh huh. I never hear anything about harassment or discrimination of gays in the UK. No sir. A few gays in parliament does not mean homosexuality is completely socially acceptable. But this is OT so ends here.
You really are a complete twonk aren't you? But this is Off Topic so you cannot reply.
Posted by the_raptor (# 10533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by the Raptor:
quote:
Uh huh. I never hear anything about harassment or discrimination of gays in the UK. No sir. A few gays in parliament does not mean homosexuality is completely socially acceptable. But this is OT so ends here.
You really are a complete twonk aren't you? But this is Off Topic so you cannot reply.
No that's a personal attack. I reserve them for hell.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
Mental note, sarcasm doesn't work either.
In the simplest possible terms.
1/ You cannot make an assertion and then announce that it is off topic and goes no further.
2/ Irrespective of your confident pronouncements the public climate for homosexuals is vastly more liberal now than it was before homosexuality was decriminalised. Pockets of illiberality to not alter or invalidate this fact.
Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the_raptor:
But this is OT so ends here.
Translation: Let me have the last word! Please! Please! Let me have the last word! Wouldja?!
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Advocates of polygamy on this thread have largely concentrated on an ethical position 'the government should not interfere in arrangements made by consenting adults' (which, as it happens is not a position that I share) and not really addressed the empirical arguments
I deny being an ‘advocate’ of polygamy. I disapprove of it. I just don’t extend my disapproval so far as to want to send people to jail for practising it, or to denying them the legal protections most of the rest of us can choose to have when it goes wrong. My belief in making legal marriage available to polygamists is based on my judgment that legal marriage is a good thing. That’s the ethical reason.
The empirical reason is based on the ‘polygamous’ household that I know. If plural marriage were allowed, my friends might choose to get married. Why shouldn’t they? Much as I consider their choices unethical (by Christian standards, though none of the parties involved are Christian), and much as I worry about the likely consequences of their choices, they are a loving a functional family unit, and I cannot see any reason at all to deny them the option of marriage. Your answer seems to be that my friends shouldn’t marry, but should (as long as they stay together) continue in illicit cohabitation, because OTHER PEOPLE are bad spouses, bad parents, and follow wacky religions. I don’t get that at all.
quote:
I think the experience of the decriminalisation of abortion and homosexuality in the UK demonstrates that legislation with quite limited aims can, in time, take on quite wider significance. The 1967 Act did not aim to make abortion comparatively widely practiced and the intention of the decriminalisers of homosexuality did not intend for homosexuality to become socially acceptable. Both, however, happened.
I’d question whether the law reforms CAUSED the social change. Maybe in the case of abortion a case could be made (since the state has a great deal of control over access to safe medical services) but I think it more likely that the legalisation of homosexuality was a result of a change of social attitude (which has advanced since).
quote:
It being the case that legislation can have unintended consequences it seems elementary prudence to examine whether this would be the case with polygamy.
Whatever the consequence of legalised polygamy, they would have the great advantage of being the outcome of decisions that people have actually chosen to make.
The law isn’t meant to protect people from their own poor choices. Even adultery isn’t against the law in the UK. It is far more clearly a sin than polygamy. It involves harm to an unconsenting party. It destroys people’s lives, estranges children from their parents, causes deep despair and can lead to murder and suicide. It is responsible for much more human misery than polygamy.
Posted by CrookedCucumber (# 10792) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the_raptor:
How does polyandry or polyamory lower the social status of women? Polygyny is the only one that you can even being to claim does that (and we only have the data from a loud mouth fundie group). Never mind the fact that fundie monogamous marriages tend to do the same (that whole headship thing)
And if you would bother reading my previous posts you would notice I covered the issue you raised (we could do more for these women if they came into the open).
In fact, I also questioned the causative link between polygamous marriage and the social status of women, in response to Callan's post on the subject. And his reply, which I think is pertinent, was that given the strong correlation down the ages, we ought to be cautious, even in the absence of an established causative mechanism, about assuming they are independent.
That seems right to me. It's possible that polygamous marriage, and polygyny in general, arise from the same social factors as lead to the chattelisation ( new word ) of women; one may not be the cause of the other. I'm just not sure we ought to take the risk of finding out.
I concede that we don't have sufficient unbiased data to make a firm conclusion.
I concede also that there is a risk involved in allowing society (via government) to interfere in relationships between consenting adults. We've been there already, and it wasn't very nice.
But are there no limits to non-interference? For example, it is an offence in the UK to assist a woman to carry out genital mutilation on herself. It seems right to me that this should be the case, although I confess a difficulty in articulating why it should be.
I suppose the reason why I think it should be an offense to abet female genital mutilation is the same as the reason it should be an offence to abet polygamous marriage -- it is not safe to assume free and informed consent from the women concerned, in the presence of strong religious and cultural pressures.
Even as I write this, I am aware that it makes me sound like an interfering old nanny, and a male chauvinist nanny at that. And state interference in private arrangements isn't something I am comfortable about recommending, you may be sure.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
I deny being an ‘advocate’ of polygamy. I disapprove of it. I just don’t extend my disapproval so far as to want to send people to jail for practising it, or to denying them the legal protections most of the rest of us can choose to have when it goes wrong. My belief in making legal marriage available to polygamists is based on my judgment that legal marriage is a good thing. That’s the ethical reason.
The empirical reason is based on the ‘polygamous’ household that I know. If plural marriage were allowed, my friends might choose to get married. Why shouldn’t they? Much as I consider their choices unethical (by Christian standards, though none of the parties involved are Christian), and much as I worry about the likely consequences of their choices, they are a loving a functional family unit, and I cannot see any reason at all to deny them the option of marriage. Your answer seems to be that my friends shouldn’t marry, but should (as long as they stay together) continue in illicit cohabitation, because OTHER PEOPLE are bad spouses, bad parents, and follow wacky religions. I don’t get that at all.
You're right about one thing. I should have said 'advocates of the legalisation of polygamy'.
That out of the way, your citing of one case doesn't really constitute an empirical reason. It's anecdotal evidence. If I say my aunt's rheumatism cleared up after she started to wear a copper bracelet that doesn't really count. There could be all sorts of other factors. You have to persuade lots of people with rheumatism to wear copper bracelets and analyse the results. Which is more or less what the Canadian government have done. Citing one instance in which the Canadian governments findings don't hold doesn't cut it. If legalised polygamy would have good results in, say, one out of three cases and bad results in two out of three cases then there is a strong case for keeping it illegal.
quote:
I’d question whether the law reforms CAUSED the social change. Maybe in the case of abortion a case could be made (since the state has a great deal of control over access to safe medical services) but I think it more likely that the legalisation of homosexuality was a result of a change of social attitude (which has advanced since).
I certainly think they made the social change a lot easier. It's a lot easier to defend a legislative decision already made than it is to advocate such a change. If polygamy were to be legalised and if it did have the kind of effects I suspect it would it would be a lot harder to repeal the law than to pass it. Which is another factor which indicates that caution is the order of the day.
quote:
Whatever the consequence of legalised polygamy, they would have the great advantage of being the outcome of decisions that people have actually chosen to make.
The law isn’t meant to protect people from their own poor choices. Even adultery isn’t against the law in the UK. It is far more clearly a sin than polygamy. It involves harm to an unconsenting party. It destroys people’s lives, estranges children from their parents, causes deep despair and can lead to murder and suicide. It is responsible for much more human misery than polygamy.
The same argument can be made against the minimum wage. Who is the government to interfere in the decision of a worker to find a job that pays 50p a day? The answer is that power imbalance between worker and employer is such that it is legitimate for the government to rectify said imbalance. I think a similar imbalance exists between men and women in communities where polygamy prevails.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
That out of the way, your citing of one case doesn't really constitute an empirical reason. It's anecdotal evidence. If I say my aunt's rheumatism cleared up after she started to wear a copper bracelet that doesn't really count.
If I was using the example as evidence, to say that polygamous unions tend to make for loving and supportive households, then you'd be right. But I'm not. I'm not using it as evidence at all. I freely concede that if my friends manage to make their relationship work, it will be an exceptional case.
The point is, in this particular case, what is the right and just thing for the parties involved? And I hold that it would be right and just, if they so wished, to allow them to marry. I think you need good reason to deny someone a thing which is right and just. Even if they are the only person in the world for whom it would be right and just.
To reverse your example, a law that says that your aunt ought not to wear a copper bracelet, and that she should risk going to prison if she did, would be unfair. It doesn't matter (as far as the justice of the case is concerned) that in at least 99% of cases copper bracelets lead to false hope and disappointment for rheumatism sufferers. It doesn't matter (as far as the justice of the case is concerned) that some of those other cases will be deterred from seeking proper medical care because they trust in copper bracelets, and will suffer appallingly. If your aunt wants to wear a copper bracelet, she should damned well be allowed to do so.
quote:
If legalised polygamy would have good results in, say, one out of three cases and bad results in two out of three cases then there is a strong case for keeping it illegal.
Actually, I disagree. I don't think that is a strong argument at all. If I did, I would want to ban smoking, alcohol, fornication, spending Christmas with one's mother-in-law, and falling in love. All those things (it could be argued) cause harm more often than not. It is still a good thing that people are free to do them.
It is also a good thing that people are free to make appalling bad choices about who to marry, to follow bad religions, and to make poor decisions for their children.
quote:
The same argument can be made against the minimum wage. Who is the government to interfere in the decision of a worker to find a job that pays 50p a day? The answer is that power imbalance between worker and employer is such that it is legitimate for the government to rectify said imbalance. I think a similar imbalance exists between men and women in communities where polygamy prevails.
The question is one of freedom. An agreement that I should work for fourteen hours a day for 50p and a bowl of gruel is so one-sided that it can be presumed that there must be power imbalance sufficiently great that my ‘decision' to accept was not made freely. It is inherent in the nature of the agreement that it is unjust.
It cannot be presumed that if two woman want to marry one man, the agreement is so one-sided that they must be victims of oppression or necessity. It is not an inherently unjust arrangement. Of course, it may be that in a particular case, one or both of the women (or the man, for that matter) has had the decision forced on them by family or social pressure and does not truly consent - but that is potentially true of any marriage in a culture where strong family or social pressures exist. It is not an inherent in the nature of polygamy (though it may be inherent in the nature of some cultures which practice polygamy, as well as some which do not). The cure for forced marriage is firstly to make it illegal (which in the UK it is), and secondly to put a premium on free individual choice of marriage partner(s), rather than to impose conformity to traditional models, and thirdly, to make our society more generally open, liberal and tolerant of other people's choices, no matter how bad we think they are.
[ 24. November 2006, 11:26: Message edited by: Eliab ]
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
Hosting
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
You really are a complete twonk aren't you?
This is personal attack, as you well know. Please take it to Hell.
RuthW
Purgatory host
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
Yes miss. Sorry miss.
Posted by ptarmigan (# 138) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by WatersOfBabylon:
From a completely anthropological perspective, polygamy would make sense for a society with a high woman to man ratio (for example, a society recently stricken by war). It makes sure all the women are cared for.
During the 1830s / 1840s as the American West was being initially colonised by European / White settlers, there were always initially more men than women. But the Mormon pilgrimage to Utah was exceptional.
Nevins and Commager, describing the settlement of Mormons in Utah, say:
quote:
Polygamy for a time continued, serving a sound colonizing purpose - for women were in the majority among the converts, and the frontier had little place for unmarried and childless women.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
What concerns me about polygamy is that the balance of power is rarely equal between a given man and a given woman, particularly as time goes on. While they may have entered the marriage as economic and physical "equals," it is the woman who must bear the burden of pregnancy and early motherhood, particularly if nursing or a C-section is involved. This leaves her in critical need of her husband's support at the very time when polygamy would authorize him to consider taking another wife to meet his, um, needs. It also means that she will have to consent or risk the loss of what support he is willing to offer.
I was my husband's equal for the first dozen years of our marriage. I could have walked out at any time, had I felt the need. But then I got pregnant. I never felt so vulnerable in my life.
Physically, I was hampered and even endangered (for various health reasons); economically I was suddenly on thin ice, because employers can and do discriminate against pregnant and newly delivered women, whatever the law may say. Essentially, for that period of my life, my husband held the bulk of the power in the marriage, and I was not in a place where I could realistically tell him to "stuff it" and walk out. Where does an eight months pregnant woman go without an income?
Fortunately for me, my husband was committed to me in a monogamous marriage, and that gave me a bit more protection during a very vulnerable time. He could not simply walk out and pick up a young "hottie" to amuse himself while I struggled with our issues alone (now become MY issues, not ours)--and then bring her home to force ME to cope with the permanent legal and financial ramifications of this intrusion into our existing family. Nor could he lean on me at a vulnerable time to authorize this behavior for fear of losing his support. Legal monogamy protected me. Not wholly, of course--some men do have affairs in spite of it--but at least the affair cannot be "legalized" into a formal second wifeship with all the concomitant legal and financial issues.
And the protections of monogamy go both ways. Fortunately for my husband (as he grows old, retires and develops health problems) I am committed to him in a monogamous relationship, and he need not fear that some younger man with a better income will show up and, er, move him out of the master bedroom. Which he would be obliged to put up with, since age, lowered income and disability would place the family power in MY hands, and make it much easier for me to force his consent to polyandry.
I'm really not sure if I would choose to marry in a culture that allowed legal polygamy. If I did, there would certainly be one hell of a marriage contract closing off that possibility forever, and with stiff penalties for trying to get around it.
Posted by Iole Nui (# 3373) on
:
I totally get the vulnerability thing, but that scenario does presuppose a lot.
You could equally imagine a situation where the second wife is a huge support to the new mother - sort of an unpaid au pair. Certainly I've read a few articles suggesting that in some polygamous families it's the younger wife who gets the shitty end of the stick - rather than being in a position of favour, she's subordinate to the existing wives and may be treated as a servant. (Not that that is an ideal scenario either, of course.)
It was a long time ago I studied it, but I seem to remember a fair amount of evidence that the rulers of the Ottoman Empire had to put quite a lot of effort into curbing the political power of their harem - given a bit of political nous and the chance to gang up with the eunuchs the wives ruled the roost and thus the empire, through sheer force of numbers. The same dynamic could easily translate to domestic life, if the wives made common cause against their husband.
I've also read modern accounts of warm and supportive relationships between 'sister-wives', so much so that it's the husband who finds himself feeling isolated and unhappy. It's worth remembering that in cultures where people don't marry for love, but for social or political reasons, sexual jealousy may simply not be an issue.
I'm not particularly advocating polygamy, like Eliab I suspect the unofficial arrangements that are currently legal and a few people go in for mostly end in tears. And I realise that the idealised scenarios above are no more valid than the nightmare ones. But I do think that the issue is more complicated than a simple 'polyamy == oppression'.
Posted by Laura (# 10) on
:
Lamb Chopped:
I am not a proponent of legal polygamy, but your story actually supports it, from a cerain point of view. Proponents of polygamy would point out that your husband was absolutely free to dump you and get a new woman, only the law requires that he divorce you first. In a polygamous situation, the husband cannot divorce you (generally, under Mormon or shari'a law) because he fancies a new woman -- he must be able to support you both. Instead of what we have in monogomous western societies, which is hypocritical serial polygamy. You can have lots of wives, and you get to dump the earlier ones and trade up. New alimony laws mean that you can be free of obligations to former wives much more quickly than before, assuming that they are theoretically able to work. So, the polygamists say, they are actually the ones who ensure that old wives don't get cast aside like a squeezed lemon just because Papa wants some new arm candy.
I don't agree with it, but they have a point there, I think.
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
What does anthropology indicate about the ratio of men to women in societies that practiced polygyny? I suspect that women outnumbered men considerably, as can happen when the general level of health and nutrition is relatively low. If so, then polygyny made sense from all points of view that I can see.
However, when the ratio is about 50:50 as in our case, I'd abhor polygamy as brazenly elitist. It is of course the richest and most powerful that would successfully desire, attract, and maintain plural spouses among the other trophies and ornaments of their exalted status, and doing so would leave other men or women perforce single. Even a gay boy like me might understandably find such a society inferior to the status quo.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
What does anthropology indicate about the ratio of men to women in societies that practiced polygyny? I suspect that women outnumbered men considerably, as can happen when the general level of health and nutrition is relatively low.
Not really. In general very poorly fed societies are more likely to run short of women of marriageable age because many die in childbirth - there will be excess women but they tend to be older.
Its probably that in most socities that approve of polygyny only a small number of particualrly attractive men have more than one wife - usually the rich and powerful of course.
The big exception to this is in a rapidly growing population if women tend to marry men older than themselves. If the population is growing by 2% a year - typcial of the last two centuries - and if the age gap between marriage partners is typically 5 years, then there will be just over 11 women in the marriage market for every 10 men.
If the growth rate is four percent and the gap 15 years - which has been the case in some parts of East Africa for the last generation or so - then there are 18 women for every ten men.
Posted by Bernard Mahler (# 10852) on
:
A multiplicity of wives implies a multiplicity of mothers-in-law.
What man dare....?
Posted by ananke (# 10059) on
:
I think the interestingthing is that so many people are looking at "bloke + wives" rather than "bloke + husband + wife" or "woman + husband + husband" which, in my limited experience of poly communities, is the norm. Relationships are not heirarchalised, but common. That said there are still jerkwads who use it as an excuse to be abusive. Much like marriage really.
Posted by Emma. (# 3571) on
:
Are all 3 sexually active with each other then? Or is it a case of x alternates y and z?
Posted by Emma. (# 3571) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
Lamb Chopped:
I am not a proponent of legal polygamy, but your story actually supports it, from a cerain point of view. Proponents of polygamy would point out that your husband was absolutely free to dump you and get a new woman, only the law requires that he divorce you first. In a polygamous situation, the husband cannot divorce you (generally, under Mormon or shari'a law) because he fancies a new woman -- he must be able to support you both. Instead of what we have in monogomous western societies, which is hypocritical serial polygamy. You can have lots of wives, and you get to dump the earlier ones and trade up. New alimony laws mean that you can be free of obligations to former wives much more quickly than before, assuming that they are theoretically able to work. So, the polygamists say, they are actually the ones who ensure that old wives don't get cast aside like a squeezed lemon just because Papa wants some new arm candy.
I don't agree with it, but they have a point there, I think.
Oooh what a lovely idea. When my ex wandered off, if he still had a legal obligation to support me *and* number 2 that would have been fab
Posted by Iole Nui (# 3373) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ananke:
I think the interestingthing is that so many people are looking at "bloke + wives" rather than "bloke + husband + wife" or "woman + husband + husband" which, in my limited experience of poly communities, is the norm. Relationships are not heirarchalised, but common. That said there are still jerkwads who use it as an excuse to be abusive. Much like marriage really.
I suppose it's because the structured belief systems that people are worried about are of that form, and highly patriarchal. But yes, my very limited observation of unusual relationships has tended more towards the woman + man + man style of thing. And on the programme I saw on telly (so it must be true ) of the various relationships featured only one was man + wives, the rest seemed to feature a central female plus satellites. I wonder if there is an observable pattern to unconventional Western relationships that is quite different to the established patriarchal model.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ananke:
I think the interestingthing is that so many people are looking at "bloke + wives" rather than "bloke + husband + wife" or "woman + husband + husband" which, in my limited experience of poly communities, is the norm.
Only amongst a few middle-class white people here and there. Its hardly common. And most of those relationships turn out to be abusive or unstable in the end. There is nearly always someone who actually wants an exclusive relationship but hasn't got the social power to demand it, and ends up feeling betrayed and left out.
Worldwide polygyny is overwhelmingly more common. Its even more common among middle-class western white people, its just not usually called that.
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Emma.:
Oooh what a lovely idea. When my ex wandered off, if he still had a legal obligation to support me *and* number 2 that would have been fab
I used to know a woman whose husband, whom she still loved, decided to move a mistress into the same house with them. It tore her apart emotionally; a few years later she was in mental hospital. What good is physical sustenance in the face of such psychological torture?
I blush to recall that the bastard was a seminarian at the time (from a well-to-do family, of course), but happily for the church was never ordained.
Posted by Scot (# 2095) on
:
That is no more representative of polygamy than spousal rape is representative of monogamy.
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
That is no more representative of polygamy than spousal rape is representative of monogamy.
One hopes it isn't, but unless all a man's existing wives must assent before he adds one to his harem, how is it avoided?
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
... But then I got pregnant. I never felt so vulnerable in my life.
Physically, I was hampered and even endangered (for various health reasons); economically I was suddenly on thin ice, because employers can and do discriminate against pregnant and newly delivered women, whatever the law may say. Essentially, for that period of my life, my husband held the bulk of the power in the marriage, and I was not in a place where I could realistically tell him to "stuff it" and walk out. Where does an eight months pregnant woman go without an income?
....
May I say, your story made me think and see things more...that I need to bear this in mind if I ever were to look at a man to consider for marriage. Even if say I did not have my own kidlets...if I somehow ended up economically making less or losing my job, I would still feel a vunerability. Great post, girly. And I should try to bear that in mind and think about that. ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
Posted by Scot (# 2095) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
One hopes it isn't, but unless all a man's existing wives must assent before he adds one to his harem, how is it avoided?
You are obviously envisioning something very, very different than what I have in mind. I would think that adding another member to an existing marriage would generally require the consent of all parties involved. This isn't any different than adding parties to most other sorts of contracts.
Posted by ananke (# 10059) on
:
I agree with Scot. Nova can't go out and find a nice girl to bring in because she's gotta be my kind of girl too. We operate as a partnership, not as a heirarchy. The only woman we've met who we would even consider as a third isn't attracted to Nova, and he is not attracted to her. Hence there is no poly relationship.
There are situations where one partner (usually the man) enforces his kind of 'poly' - usually not involving any male relationships for her, or any relationships at her. This isn't all that different to those who are adulterous, just more obvious. Neither are true 'poly' situations - they are merely someone's power structure involving sex.
Posted by rufiki (# 11165) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
One hopes it isn't, but unless all a man's existing wives must assent before he adds one to his harem, how is it avoided?
You are obviously envisioning something very, very different than what I have in mind. I would think that adding another member to an existing marriage would generally require the consent of all parties involved. This isn't any different than adding parties to most other sorts of contracts.
The difference with most sorts of contract is that if you can't agree on the (new) terms, you can just end the contract. I'm struggling to think of any kind of contract that walking away from would be quite as emotionally damaging as divorce.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
unless all a man's existing wives must assent before he adds one to his harem, how is it avoided?
That is quite a common law in societies that allow polygyny, but far from universal.
Probably even more common is the rule that the wives must recieve equal treatment - the same housing, the same amount of food or money, the same opportunities for their children.
I would expect that both sets of rules are broken quite often, depending on the balance of power between the man and his existing wives, between the man's family and the woman's family, and between men and women in general in their society.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
Originally posted by Iole Nui:
quote:
It was a long time ago I studied it, but I seem to remember a fair amount of evidence that the rulers of the Ottoman Empire had to put quite a lot of effort into curbing the political power of their harem - given a bit of political nous and the chance to gang up with the eunuchs the wives ruled the roost and thus the empire, through sheer force of numbers. The same dynamic could easily translate to domestic life, if the wives made common cause against their husband.
I've also read modern accounts of warm and supportive relationships between 'sister-wives', so much so that it's the husband who finds himself feeling isolated and unhappy. It's worth remembering that in cultures where people don't marry for love, but for social or political reasons, sexual jealousy may simply not be an issue.
I'm not particularly advocating polygamy, like Eliab I suspect the unofficial arrangements that are currently legal and a few people go in for mostly end in tears. And I realise that the idealised scenarios above are no more valid than the nightmare ones. But I do think that the issue is more complicated than a simple 'polyamy == oppression'.
That implies that to be oppressive an institution must have bad effects in all times and at all places for the oppressed class, as it were. I don't think that is the case. I can think of a number of women in antiquity who were in polygamous marriages and wielded power. One thinks of Queen Atossa of Persia or Alexander's first wife Roxanne or even his mother Olympias. Clearly these were powerful individuals who might well wield more power than the governor of a province or the commander of an army. But then similar power might be wielded by a freedman in the earlier part of the Roman Empire or by a court Eunuch who was, technically, a slave in the later history of the Roman Empire. One wouldn't, I think, conclude that slavery isn't oppressive because one can point to instances where slaves did quite well out of it. The same applies mutatis mutandis to polygamy.
Posted by Iole Nui (# 3373) on
:
I wasn't really arguing that those examples made polygamy desirable (I'm fairly neutral on the issue). Just that the reality may be more complex and more varied than some people seem to be assuming.
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
One wouldn't, I think, conclude that slavery isn't oppressive because one can point to instances where slaves did quite well out of it. The same applies mutatis mutandis to polygamy.
I'm not sure it does. Slavery is a priori oppressive because one person owns another, power is the issue. I don't think that poly-whatever comes into the same category - a marriage containing more than two people doesn't in itself imply a power differential. If it did, surely the same power differential would be implicit in monogomous marriage.
I agree with what you said earlier, that there is enough corrolation between polygyny and oppression to make sensible legislators nervous. But I don't see why multi-way relationships, in a non-oppressive cultural context, would be of themselves necessarily oppressive. They could be conducted equitably, unlike slavery. Like monogamous marriage, it would all depend on the people involved.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
Well, on one hand if there are two women per man then the man has more choice. "If you keep nagging I'll spend the evening with Jane instead." or "Jane's so much better at sex because she does X for me."
However, I know some polyamorous long term relationships that seem to be working beautifully. But that tends to involve both people having multiple partners so I don't know.
Posted by mirrizin (# 11014) on
:
Regarding polyamory, I remember seeing an informal sort of presentation by a polyamorous set (as opposed to couple?) who did some Q&A back in college. I think they were living in a commune type thing at the time.
One observation they made (these being about five or so folks) was that it wasn't entinrely a sexual relationship, at least not a five-way one. It was more like a couple of families choosing to live together as a single family unit. The ones that chose to sleep together could, but the emphasis seemed more on the more boring, mundane aspects of family life than who got to spend time with who in the bedroom.
Of course, that's only one example, it's not the only way and it certainly isn't for everybody, but I can see the sense in it.
I'm sure this is also a far cry from traditional FLDS polygamy.
[ 29. November 2006, 16:07: Message edited by: mirrizin ]
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Iole Nui:
I don't think that poly-whatever comes into the same category - a marriage containing more than two people doesn't in itself imply a power differential. If it did, surely the same power differential would be implicit in monogomous marriage.
You're ignoring the power differential between those who acquire two or more spouses and those consequently left to go through life with none.
Posted by Scot (# 2095) on
:
No, we're just assuming that, statistically speaking, they'll be offset by another group with a reversed gender balance.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
You know, I can see the point that some of you are making, that there is no LOGICAL reason why polygamy/polygyny must be oppressive--but then what's going on with the observable fact that it usually is when we see it in action (that is, in whole cultures, not in isolated cases)? Why is this so? There's got to be reasons, and I think they'd be very interesting.
Forgive me, but I still do think that pregnancy, nursing and a woman's limited childbearing time create an inherent vulnerability for her that unscrupulous men easily take advantage of. And God knows there are plenty of unscrupulous men--they're part of the human race, after all. What similar vulnerabilities do men possess?
There is a reason why jackass employers prefer male workers, all else being equal. There's a reason why my jackass former employer asked me at the interview if I intended to ever get pregnant. And there's a reason why studies show that the most dangerous time of all for a woman in an abusive relationship is the period when she is pregnant.
I think the idea of polygamy as a form of support for "squeezed out lemons" is, um, weak. Men in such societies can and do divorce their "worn out" wives, often for trumped up reasons, and the women have little or no redress. After all, the fewer women you have to support, the easier it will be to secure that new younger wife--who isn't likely to want to be junior to anyone else, or to share the family resources. Nor will her parents want that, and they are probably making the arrangements in most polygamous cultures.
The serial monogamy thing is also dreadful, but at least it forces the jerk to go through a legal process that takes some time before he can permanently acquire his new arm candy. And the previous wife has a fighting chance at retaining some property, since a judge is involved in the settlement. But if you're still married when hubby decides to move sweetie #2 into the master bedroom, to whom do you appeal when your usual prerogatives are taken away? Or when your children find themselves treated like second class citizens by their own father?
I do know that laws and customs exist to safeguard the less-wanted wife's rights (witness the OT). What I'm wondering about is how able a married woman is to take advantage of those laws in reality. For example, can a polygamously married Arab woman take legal action against her (still-married) husband? It seems a tad unlikely, though I'll bow to those who have better real life knowledge on the subject.
Even though the laws exist, and may possibly be enforceable, one is likely to end up in the same boat as the worker who takes legal action against his or her employer: you've got the job, but boy, will he make you regret making waves.
Maybe I just don't have enough faith in human nature.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
No, we're just assuming that, statistically speaking, they'll be offset by another group with a reversed gender balance.
Statistically speaking, worldwide, they aren't
Polygyny is traditionally at least tolerated by societies comprising about half the population of the world, though it is only at all common in somewhere between 1 & 5 percent of the worlds population.
Polyandry is traditional in a handful of societies, maybe a dozen at most, widespread in none of those, and probably practiced by well under a tenth of a percent of the total population.
Posted by Scot (# 2095) on
:
I do not see what that bearing that has on how plural marriage could be done in a liberal western democracy. Monogamy, modesty, religious observance, politics, and any number of other things are commonly practiced and enforced worldwide in ways that would be completely foreign to most of us here.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
I do not see what that bearing that has on how plural marriage could be done in a liberal western democracy.
Because people are the same even when laws change.
Human mating systems are many and various, but not infinitely flexible. There are real biological constraints.
Posted by Magic Wand (# 4227) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
I do not see what that bearing that has on how plural marriage could be done in a liberal western democracy.
Because people are the same even when laws change.
Human mating systems are many and various, but not infinitely flexible. There are real biological constraints.
Yeah, ok. But then we know that other things that we sanction in modern democratic states (monogamous marriages, homosexual relationships, etc., etc.) are abused in parts of the world. So do we criminalize them as well?
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on
:
There are some superb posts on this thread from Callan and Lamb Chopped. Thank you!
I can't add much to their arguments except to say that adding another individual to an intimate relatioship always seems to seriously skew the balance of power, and what had been a partnership becomes a hierarchy. I've seen it with some gay couples-turned-trios, and with a straight same as well. It always seems to be the (dominant) male who benefits, and the jealousies are really ugly.
The FLDS and their ilk certainly don't provide a particularly attractive role model for polygamy. The Muslim experience also suggests that women are always going to be the losers when men can have more than one wife.
Ross
Posted by Iole Nui (# 3373) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
I can't add much to their arguments except to say that adding another individual to an intimate relatioship always seems to seriously skew the balance of power, and what had been a partnership becomes a hierarchy.
Now that I suspect is probably true. It seems to be human nature, from the playground onwards, that when you have more than two a hierarchy sets in and people start jockeying about. Someone is usually the centre, and everybody else is vying to be best friend, trusted side-kick or favourite lover.
I'm not sure I agree that it's always the male who benefits, though. In my (very limited) experience of poly-whatsit arrangements, it's always been a female queen-bee surrounded by her courtiers.
I do suspect it usually ends badly and painfully. But hell, so do most monogamous relationships.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0