DOMA and Prop 8. Both History.

[Jester]

Because it is an unequal type of living together. Well....maybe theoretically also one woman could marry several guys at the same time, but we all know that that is not the deal with polygamy right?
Polygamy is institute in societies in which women are second rank citizens. So the same reason we don't allow children under 18 to get married.

The historical legacy of polygamy is pretty ugly, and in general, it does tend to exist in societies where women's rights are suppressed. But that's an argument by correlation. Is there any reason groups of consenting adults should not be allowed to marry one another? It certainly defeats the second argument: We don't allow kids to marry because they can't legally consent, not because it's associated with societies we don't like. Also, why you can't marry goats, or airplanes. The two words "consenting adults" do a lot of heavy lifting.

-Jester

[LochnarITB]

Because it is an unequal type of living together. Well....maybe theoretically also one woman could marry several guys at the same time, but we all know that that is not the deal with polygamy right?
Polygamy is institute in societies in which women are second rank citizens. So the same reason we don't allow children under 18 to get married.

The historical legacy of polygamy is pretty ugly, and in general, it does tend to exist in societies where women's rights are suppressed. But that's an argument by correlation. Is there any reason groups of consenting adults should not be allowed to marry one another? It certainly defeats the second argument: We don't allow kids to marry because they can't legally consent, not because it's associated with societies we don't like. Also, why you can't marry goats, or airplanes. The two words "consenting adults" do a lot of heavy lifting.

-Jester

I was going to make the same point about polygamy and consenting adults. I certainly find it more palatable than bigamy. As to those under 18 getting married, we do allow it with parental permission laws varying by state.

[kandrathe]

Seriously.....you are lobbying for lawyers here??

Or, do it yourself, ala legalzoom or whatever.

So the same reason we don't allow children under 18 to get married.

It was because of the sex. It was assumed that marriage came before the sex. Children end up having sex earlier than 18, which is hardly, barely handled, although we might counsel them against it or to use birth control. If we do away with this "responsible procreation" tradition for promoting marriage, then what is the State's concern with what is then only a matter of relationships and commitments?

[eppie]

Is there any reason groups of consenting adults should not be allowed to marry one another?

-Jester

Because in the US society of 2013 you will not be able to find out if the adults are really consenting. Those mormon wives will say they are, but everybody sees that those mormon societies are not equal for men and women.

But OK, let's do a test.....allow this for 5 years and if the amount of multiwive families is more or less the same as the amount of multihusband families let's allow it for good. What do you think?

[FireIceTalon]

Polygamy is neither a cause nor result of inequalities. The context of polyamorous relationships can be (and almost certainly is) effected by class relationships and the cultural norms and conformities that structure around such social arrangements, but polygamy by and large is a pretty harmless thing in my opinion. I probably wouldn't engage in such a relationship, but that is simply due to personal preference.

Conducting such a test would be meaningless given the current circumstances of society. Lets use a much more egalitarian model than what we have now, THEN conduct the test. Of course right now it is bound to fail, but that isn't because of polygamy itself, but rather because of the cultural hegemony and chauvinism that is structured around capitalist social relations.

[Jester]

Because in the US society of 2013 you will not be able to find out if the adults are really consenting. Those mormon wives will say they are, but everybody sees that those mormon societies are not equal for men and women.

Well, I'm glad it's that easy to see. I assume we have a similar smell test to tell whether monogamous marriages are "really consenting"?

But OK, let's do a test.....allow this for 5 years and if the amount of multiwive families is more or less the same as the amount of multihusband families let's allow it for good. What do you think?

That seems like a very strange criterion. That's like saying we should allow trial gay marriages, and if the number of lesbian marriages doesn't equal the number of gay male marriages, then we should scrap the whole deal. I don't understand what sense this makes, except that you don't like Mormon polygamy, which I agree with, but then, I don't like Catholic monogamy much, either.

-Jester

[eppie]

Well, I'm glad it's that easy to see. I assume we have a similar smell test to tell whether monogamous marriages are "really consenting"?

Well of course there are many cases of monogamous marriages which are not really consenting. Here in the Netherlands we try to get legislation to make people bringing cousins from Morocco to marry become more difficult (these things are almost always arranged by the parents).
But the big difference you can just discard is that a marriage between two adults is theoretically an equal thing. And a marriage between one man and 5 women isn't even theoretically. The norm is that it is a non-equal thing.






[quote='Jester' pid='206952' dateline='1372759655']
But OK, let's do a test.....allow this for 5 years and if the amount of multiwive families is more or less the same as the amount of multihusband families let's allow it for good. What do you think?

That seems like a very strange criterion. That's like saying we should allow trial gay marriages, and if the number of lesbian marriages doesn't equal the number of gay male marriages, then we should scrap the whole deal. I don't understand what sense this makes, except that you don't like Mormon polygamy, which I agree with, but then, I don't like Catholic monogamy much, either.

-Jester

Not a good argument. A marriage between two male gays and one between two female gays are still equal marriages. If for some reasons lesbian are less willing to get married than gay men are, I don't see a problem. Enough man/woman couples decide not to get married. (in the Netherlands you can by the what also get a legal 'living-together-contract'; you are not married but have the same rights.

(What my feeling about Mormon polygamy are is not relevant. Polygamy is natural. Males of most species want to mate with as many females as possible, but that is not how our society works. Especially now that sex and reproduction are not the same thing anymore. If you want to have sex with as many partners as possible you just go ahead and as long it is consenting there is no problem, but don't say you do it because god tells you to.
In modern society we have rightfully decided that man/woman/black/white/hetero/gay etc. should have the same right because they are emotionally and intellectually equal; that is why a marriage should be between two consenting persons.)
Of course a lot of this depends on how we have chosen to build our society, but if you are really into hitting your wife and being supreme rules of your household etc. you just have to emigrate.

Catholic monogamy also to me is not a good thing. That is why I favor the rights for gay people to get married.
By the way, also Catholic gays have the right to get married.....to someone from the other sex making them frustrated.

[kandrathe]

I assume we have a similar smell test to tell whether monogamous marriages are "really consenting"?

It's pretty hard for the authorities to sanction or prohibit any relationship -- but, adults should be free to make their own decisions. I believe the stigma's against group marriages are societal norms, not based upon any practical theory of harms.

In the US, when looking at the behavior of those having many relationship partners outside of marriage, polygamy is an obvious choice of some (for both men and women), but one that is outside the cultural norm. Women tend to be more serial monogamists, but again that may be influenced by norms. Don't look at the fundy Mormans -- that is antiquarian. Look at the how the society is engaged in sexual relationships. In the US, 1 in 5 women have children from multiple fathers.

The law enforces monogamy.

[shoju]

Frankly, if you are a consenting adult to the relationship, I don't think that the GOVT should be able to tell you yay or nay. It's sort of the whole idea of keeping them out of personal lives. It's the same sort of problem I have with some other countries that force people to "apply" for a name for their child. Sometimes, while warranted when people want to name their children just stupid things, it's sort of understandable, but really when it comes down to it, it's not their business.

[eppie]

Frankly, if you are a consenting adult to the relationship, I don't think that the GOVT should be able to tell you yay or nay. It's sort of the whole idea of keeping them out of personal lives. It's the same sort of problem I have with some other countries that force people to "apply" for a name for their child. Sometimes, while warranted when people want to name their children just stupid things, it's sort of understandable, but really when it comes down to it, it's not their business.

A 12 year old girl in Saudi Arabia who marries a 60 year old guy will also tell you she consents. That doesn't make it true or right.

Of course i agree with the fact that the government should be able to tell yay or nay, but: we do agree on something that you should not be able to marry a 12 year old girl right?
We do that because we know that the whole 'consent' issue all boils down to a person testifying that he or she agrees with marrying this person. And we all know that people can be forced (using physical or psychological threats). People in Mormon communities where they practice polygamy have the same mental 'brain-washing' if you want to call it like that. And for that we choose not to agree with polygamy. And yes that is a choice society makes, but it is the same as saying we don't want 12 year old girls to marry. And they are both defendable choices.


A government cannot check every single wedding to see if both partners 'really' consent, but the government can ban certain wedding forms because they are very likely to suffer from huge inequality.
Well probably nowadays the US government CAN know of there is real consent....I mean they are spying on everybody.

[shoju]

A 12 year old girl in Saudi Arabia who marries a 60 year old guy will also tell you she consents. That doesn't make it true or right.

Of course i agree with the fact that the government should be able to tell yay or nay, but: we do agree on something that you should not be able to marry a 12 year old girl right?

We do that because we know that the whole 'consent' issue all boils down to a person testifying that he or she agrees with marrying this person. And we all know that people can be forced (using physical or psychological threats). People in Mormon communities where they practice polygamy have the same mental 'brain-washing' if you want to call it like that. And for that we choose not to agree with polygamy. And yes that is a choice society makes, but it is the same as saying we don't want 12 year old girls to marry. And they are both defendable choices.


A government cannot check every single wedding to see if both partners 'really' consent, but the government can ban certain wedding forms because they are very likely to suffer from huge inequality.
Well probably nowadays the US government CAN know of there is real consent....I mean they are spying on everybody.

You missed a very key word in what most of us are saying.

ADULT

12 years old is not an adult.

Go back and look at my post again,

Frankly, if you are a consenting adult to the relationship

That's the key point, as Jester also pointed out. Those two words (Consenting Adult) do an awful lot of heavy lifting in the debate.

[eppie]

That's the key point, as Jester also pointed out. Those two words (Consenting Adult) do an awful lot of heavy lifting in the debate.

Sorry, I misread your post. And I agree with you.

Still the reason why we use the term 'consenting ADULT' is the same reason we say polygamy is wrong.
There are enough under 18s who are emotionally and intellectually ready for marriage but we don't allow this, and there are many over 18s who aren't and we do allow this. But exactly because we don't want the government to get in between our personal business we set some sensible rules. This means that some people have bad luck, and other are allowed something they should actually not do, but we can't spend the time and money to do a deep psychological research to every couple that wants to get married.

So we take the point that if we can consider two adults as equal they are allowed to get married.
So that means gays, and over 18s are allowed. And marriage of more than two people and marriage of under 18s are not allowed.

And we should be happy it is this way....the alternative is the government telling you for example you are too emotionally unstable to marry another person.

[shoju]

Sure there are plenty of under 18's that are emotionally, and intellectually ready. And they have a means by which they can have the rights that would be afforded to them based on their maturity. Those under 18, can get parental approval, and in cases where that isn't happening, there is always the process of legal emancipation.

My cousin married her husband of 15 years when she was 17. She was granted emancipation from her parents, and treated as a legal adult.

It's a line in the sand that has to be drawn. 18 is the legal age of adulthood. There will always be people who aren't ready for the line in the sand. Adulthood, Driving, Drinking, etc... You will always find people below the line in the sand that would be fine with it, and those above the line who are still not ready for it.

The alternative is to just get the government to allow marriage to be between consenting adults. We shouldn't draw the line at polygamy. If they want it, they want it. It's not my life. It's theirs. I prefer to be monogamous. My choice of Monogamy is no more "Right" than my parent's choice to be Evangelical Christians, or FiT's Choice to be a Communist, or my co-worker to be Muslim.

What's good for me, isn't necessarily good for you. But, as long as it isn't interfering the life of someone else in a negative way, It shouldn't be a problem. And for the record, thinking that something is "icky" doesn't qualify as affecting someone in a negative way. Personally, I think that Polygamy is pretty stupid. I think it leads to too many psychological issues and a strained family dynamic. I would NEVER want to be in that type of environment.

But, if Joe, Sally, John, and Betty want to have some weird polygamous marriage where they are all married to each other, well... That's not my business. If they all agree, I don't care.

Just like, I don't have a problem with people who want to have a strict religious belief system. That's their choice. They want that. As long as they aren't trying to govern the lives of others through it, have at it.

[Bolty]

I do recall reading once of a societal reason why polygamy is a Bad Thing™ - and I'm referring to the commonly-practiced form of polygamy as "one man, multiple women." The problem was that wealthy men would accumulate multiple wives, leaving fewer women for the rest of the population.

In short, being poor or underprivileged would result in your inability to find partners to reproduce with. Since this is a core biological urge of all life on earth, such poor people would be even more disenfranchised with society and thus more likely to be violent and uprising. I realize I'm really talking out of my posterior by this point, but the argument was made that polygamy contributes to the preponderance of violence in some Middle Eastern societies where it is allowed (and why the thought of being showered with virgins after death is so tantalizing).

In short, polygamy destabilizes a society because it causes more unrest. The more likely it is that your average/lower end males can find someone to reproduce with, the less likely such males will become disenfranchised. If the birth ratio of males to females was more skewed to support polygamous marriages, it wouldn't be a problem. Even if it's not true (and good luck finding a study that actually evaluates that in a scientific manner), it sounds plausible.

Of course, you can extend that argument to just about anything having to do with wealth inequality (in before FIT) and stable societies.

[eppie]

I do recall reading once of a societal reason why polygamy is a Bad Thing™ - and I'm referring to the commonly-practiced form of polygamy as "one man, multiple women." The problem was that wealthy men would accumulate multiple wives, leaving fewer women for the rest of the population.

In short, being poor or underprivileged would result in your inability to find partners to reproduce with. Since this is a core biological urge of all life on earth, such poor people would be even more disenfranchised with society and thus more likely to be violent and uprising. I realize I'm really talking out of my posterior by this point, but the argument was made that polygamy contributes to the preponderance of violence in some Middle Eastern societies where it is allowed (and why the thought of being showered with virgins after death is so tantalizing).

In short, polygamy destabilizes a society because it causes more unrest. The more likely it is that your average/lower end males can find someone to reproduce with, the less likely such males will become disenfranchised. If the birth ratio of males to females was more skewed to support polygamous marriages, it wouldn't be a problem. Even if it's not true (and good luck finding a study that actually evaluates that in a scientific manner), it sounds plausible.

Of course, you can extend that argument to just about anything having to do with wealth inequality (in before FIT) and stable societies.

Very true. And I indeed believe men and women make out around 50 % of the total population and not 1:2 or 1:3 or even more.

@shoju
'icky'? As a men it would not seem very awful to have, say 5 women Of course I don't have the salary for that (coming back to Bolty's point)
But well it is an unequal situation one that very few women not under influence of religion would make....and if they would? Just let them stay together unmarried....(for those max 5 cases a year) I don't think that would be a gross injustice.



But let's stop talking to ourselves here. We all now that polygamy is only a thing among (a) religious group(s) in which it is very clear that men and women are not equal, the rest is just useless babble about our rights and what the government can and cannot around a topic that is off almost no importance.
I still remember the other thread where most people were actually quite OK with the US government spying on the whole world, because well, they had the technique, so please don't complain that in this case they don't embrace religious rule.

[FireIceTalon]

Bolty's post is pretty right on.

It may not seem apparent at first, but the context of polygamy is very much related to class and gender. But there are many contradictions, for example in American society, when a guy sleeps around with multiple women, he is patted on the back for it (at least by other guys, maybe not so much by women). But if a woman does the same thing, she is considered a whore (by both men and other women). It's a unfair double standard created as a result of the patriarchal functioning in American culture, or the dominance of male culture in general. But that's just the gender line. Of course to a lesser extent, guys who don't sleep around with many women may also suffer from stereotypes that extend across other lines in society ("he hasn't slept with many women, he must either be a closet homosexual, or he's a sissy").

There is a class element also as Bolty mentioned. If you notice, most women in the upper class do not participate in prostitution, for the simple reason they do not have to. It is much more common among working class women (especially single mothers) who are trying to make ends meet. And of course due to cultural hegemony, they are demonized for it, as the poor are for many things. In a classless society, there would be no such thing as "sluts" or "whores" - these are terms created under capitalism, designed to dehumanize, degrade, and stereotype women, who are seen as the lesser gender. You cannot have capitalism without male domination, prostitution and degradation of women, or racism - these things are REQUIRED for the system to work, because divisions of labor are necessary to keep class structures intact, which in turn, is necessary for the accumulation of profits. It is hard to say if polygamy would exist under a communist organization of society or not, or how it would function if it did. But I see no reason why it wouldn't be able to, since there would be no dominant culture projected onto the rest of society by a ruling class, to which the rest of us must conform to or risk being marginalized and being considered "fringe". Women would certainly no longer be forced into objectification and prostitution while at the same time being scrutinized and dehumanized for it, since male hegemony would cease to exist, and degrading labels like "whore" would be completely obsolete under these circumstances. Ah, the joys of Cultural Marxism. It's a shame many leftists (including many tendencies within Marxism) like to denounce it, but I find an invaluable tool. Can't always focus strictly on the economic, though it certainly starts there.

[LochnarITB]

I still remember the other thread where most people were actually quite OK with the US government spying on the whole world, because well, they had the technique,

There is a big difference between "quite OK" and accepting that it exists but not being worth starting the revolution. I think most would fall in the latter attitude. And, the US is most certainly not the only player in that game.

[shoju]

Yeah, I wouldn't say that I'm "ok" with the spying, but I'm certainly not "shocked" or "awed" or find it "completely unfathomable" that it happens.

Personally, my current sticking point is my taxation without representation. I'm taxed income tax in the city I work in, and they do not refund income tax. So. You take my money, and keep my money, and only allow me to claim a % of it as a credit on my city's income tax.

Fine. Where do I register to vote within this municipality? If I'm going to be taxed in it, I should have a say in how it is spent, and who decides how it is spent.

But back to the topic at hand, while I can see the ideology of polygamy being bad for the lower class, I still don't have a huge problem with it. But at this point, my lack of care regarding it, stems from it mainly being restricted to a small subset of the religious culture.

[kandrathe]

Very true. And I indeed believe men and women make out around 50 % of the total population and not 1:2 or 1:3 or even more.

The world is about 1.01 male/female at birth, but much less .7 for 65 and over.

@shoju
'icky'? As a men it would not seem very awful to have, say 5 women Of course I don't have the salary for that (coming back to Bolty's point)

Money. Time. Patience. Competence. Pick one. I know for me... I can hardly keep up with one woman.

But let's stop talking to ourselves here. We all now that polygamy is only a thing among (a) religious group(s) in which it is very clear that men and women are not equal, the rest is just useless babble about our rights and what the government can and cannot around a topic that is off almost no importance.

This is your hang up. There are many societies around the world that are semi-matriarchal (egalitarian) or unusual to our standards. But, even so. It's their religion, and their society, so who are we to impose a European standard upon them?

I do recall reading once of a societal reason why polygamy is a Bad Thing™ - and I'm referring to the commonly-practiced form of polygamy as "one man, multiple women." The problem was that wealthy men would accumulate multiple wives, leaving fewer women for the rest of the population.

In a "free" society, shouldn't men and women (religiously motivated or not) be able to choose mates for themselves? I'm really ok with people being able to practice "sexual selection" whether that is cognitive, or biological. In full disclosure, I happen to know some friends of friends who are in long term "poly" relationships and not swingers. I went to one of their parties once and it kind of blew my mind. But, hey, live and let live. I guess if you live long enough, and get out of the house once in awhile you are bound to have your mind blown on occasion.

I still remember the other thread where most people were actually quite OK with the US government spying on the whole world...

Acknowledging it is "probably" happening is one thing, but I doubt we'd condone it when faced with the details. Especially when it's directed at friends and good neighbors.

[Mavfin]

I happen to be friends with a woman in her late 20s who lives with three other women in a lesbian relationship, and has for the last six years steadily. They all have decent jobs, a couple of them really good jobs. They all contribute, but, they don't date men. Are you, eppie, going to tell them that they can't live like that? Who are they hurting?

They're not asking for the government to give them federal marriage benefits, so, they're just dealing fine with living differently. I've met all four of them, and they're pleasant and intelligent young women. They just aren't going to go out with males. I don't think that's a crime. (It's a *shame*, but, that's not the same thing. They're all very attractive from my point of view, but I digress. )

So, polygamy/polyamory isn't always automatically bad. Yes, the stereotypical sort is, but, not all.