DOMA and Prop 8. Both History.

[FireIceTalon]

It's not even a *shame*, to say it is, is still an implication that they are doing something wrong (even if not "legally" wrong). They are doing absolutely nothing wrong, legally or socially. Well, it is wrong in the eyes of those who uphold bourgeois family values, but such values are a load of crap anyway, so who cares what they think?

And what is the stereotypical polyamorous relationship structure as opposed to the non-stereotypical? Explain what you mean by this please.

[Lissa]

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.

Try the opposite direction at birth, the ratios are 0.48 for male, 0.52 for female.

[eppie]

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.

Mavfin, I mentioned several times in this thread that it is fine for me. I just would not let them get married all together. Even though in your example the relation looks to be on a pretty equal basis. So in this situation my opinion would actually be to let them get married apart form the fact that you can't make laws like this and enforce them in an easy way (more than half of the arguments I give here are about that little aspect).

If you read my posts again (I know they are quite a few) you will see my issues are with relationships that are based on inequality.

[Jester]

If you read my posts again (I know they are quite a few) you will see my issues are with relationships that are based on inequality.

Men and women have always been, and still are, in a structurally unequal relationship. It's getting better, but it's still far from completely equal. By that argument, shouldn't the primary target of your ire be *straight* marriage?

-Jester

---

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.

This argument has the interesting property of considering people as a kind of undifferentiated pool of possible matches. But, it says nothing about preferences. We don't seem to presume that homosexual marriage will alter the ratios particularly much; why would we presume so with polygamy, except perhaps in Utah?

The demographic impact would also likely be small. How many people want to marry multiple people? If the number was as high as 5%, I'd be surprised.

-Jester

[eppie]

Men and women have always been, and still are, in a structurally unequal relationship. It's getting better, but it's still far from completely equal. By that argument, shouldn't the primary target of your ire be *straight* marriage?

-Jester

Well, that is exactly why I favor the state marriage (and not the church one).
Apart from the fact that the woman carries children, in most modern countries I have lived in theoretically these relationships are equal. And they have already for a long time. Which is also why divorce rates are higher in modern countries.....the woman doesn't have to stay married to the man for financial reasons.
(and yes I know there are many exceptions but they don't counter my argument)

[Jester]

Well, that is exactly why I favor the state marriage (and not the church one).
Apart from the fact that the woman carries children, in most modern countries I have lived in theoretically these relationships are equal. And they have already for a long time. Which is also why divorce rates are higher in modern countries.....the woman doesn't have to stay married to the man for financial reasons.
(and yes I know there are many exceptions but they don't counter my argument)

Your argument then makes no sense to me. Either we say men and women are equal enough, or we don't - mono vs. poly marriage is not the core of that issue. If we sanction straight marriages as okay, on the basis that the men and women in them are equal, then why could those exact same men and women not engage in polygamous marriages?

-Jester

[eppie]

Your argument then makes no sense to me. Either we say men and women are equal enough, or we don't - mono vs. poly marriage is not the core of that issue. If we sanction straight marriages as okay, on the basis that the men and women in them are equal, then why could those exact same men and women not engage in polygamous marriages?

-Jester

Let me phrase it differently.
I modern western societies we want men and women to be equal. We give them the same right and we try to let them participate in our workforce in equal shares. We know there are differences between men and women but our modern society is so evolved that we find it unfair that just because women carry babies they for example cannot have jobs or so.
The only issues we have with polygamy is among religious groups who don't share our same equality ideas. They only consider their god when it comes to rule-making and it is obvious that their set of rules is based on men coming before women.

As I say again; your argumentation is theoretically correct. A polygamous marriage between people who are really equals should be OK. But practically we both now that more than 99% of polygamy cases are from sub-society in which women are second grade citizens.
A state (in my opinion) should also protect its citizens from other citizen who psychologically pressure them into doing things, also when that is part of a religion.

[Mavfin]

It's not even a *shame*, to say it is, is still an implication that they are doing something wrong (even if not "legally" wrong).

That was very tongue-in-cheek, because they're four hot babes in their 20s, off the market for males to date. It's something I kid my friend about and she and I both laugh about it. It was a joke. I hoped that people could see that with the smilies attached. But I forgot that you can't take a joke.

[kandrathe]

A state (in my opinion) should also protect its citizens from other citizen who psychologically pressure them into doing things, also when that is part of a religion.

How do you know what is pressured versus what is free will? Is it your superior judgement?

[Jester]

Let me phrase it differently.
I modern western societies we want men and women to be equal. We give them the same right and we try to let them participate in our workforce in equal shares. We know there are differences between men and women but our modern society is so evolved that we find it unfair that just because women carry babies they for example cannot have jobs or so.

I'm with you so far, mostly.

The only issues we have with polygamy is among religious groups who don't share our same equality ideas. They only consider their god when it comes to rule-making and it is obvious that their set of rules is based on men coming before women.

Here's where we part company. There is no "us," to which religious groups are "them." We're all citizens of democratic governments of various kinds. We have rights to voice our opinions, and to influence the political process. We also have rights to be protected, to some degree, against other peoples' attempts to restrict our rights. I have no religious beliefs of my own, and think that religious doctrine has no place in law. Nevertheless, religious people get the same consideration as citizens that I do as an irreligious person. I don't consider myself the part of some great secular "we," opposed to the religious "they."

A polygamous marriage between people who are really equals should be OK.

Then it should be legal.

But practically we both now that more than 99% of polygamy cases are from sub-society in which women are second grade citizens.A state (in my opinion) should also protect its citizens from other citizen who psychologically pressure them into doing things, also when that is part of a religion.

Even if we grant that to be true, it is also true of monogamous marriages in these supposed "sub-societies". The correct remedy in that case (which I absolutely do not advocate) would be to ban such people from "unequal" groups from getting married at all, not to prevent everyone else from polygamy. I think that's a terrible idea, but it makes more sense, assuming your argument to be valid.

-Jester

[eppie]

A state (in my opinion) should also protect its citizens from other citizen who psychologically pressure them into doing things, also when that is part of a religion.

How do you know what is pressured versus what is free will? Is it your superior judgement?

No, and that is why we don't choose to check every single 'normal marriage' to see if both people really really really consent.
And about psychological pressure in sects, cults and religions I don't have to make judgement at all, just read the scientific literature about this.


But again (judging from the reactions it seems people misunderstand me) I know that when making such rules you will harm some people who mean well like the 4 girlfriends mentioned earlier in this thread, but you protect many more. (and I don't think the 4 girls mentioned are particularly harmed they can't get married all together, I guess they are happy enough just living together)

[Jester]

No, and that is why we don't choose to check every single 'normal marriage' to see if both people really really really consent.

Convenient for mono people, they get a free pass on whether their marriage is sufficiently equal, whether or not it actually is. So much the worse for poly people, that without exception, they are forbidden, because there is a chance it might not be equal.

(and I don't think the 4 girls mentioned are particularly harmed they can't get married all together, I guess they are happy enough just living together)

I'm glad you're good enough at reading minds, that you can check if people you'd forbid to get married are "happy enough" without that right. What if they aren't? Or, if they are, what about another group that isn't?

-Jester

[eppie]

No, and that is why we don't choose to check every single 'normal marriage' to see if both people really really really consent.

Convenient for mono people, they get a free pass on whether their marriage is sufficiently equal, whether or not it actually is. So much the worse for poly people, that without exception, they are forbidden, because there is a chance it might not be equal.

(and I don't think the 4 girls mentioned are particularly harmed they can't get married all together, I guess they are happy enough just living together)

I'm glad you're good enough at reading minds, that you can check if people you'd forbid to get married are "happy enough" without that right. What if they aren't? Or, if they are, what about another group that isn't?

-Jester

Jester, you are behaving like you are in a pissing contest discussion. You discuss because the fun of it. You mix theory and practice when it comes convenient to you.

Allow polygamy? That means you will also allow 73 women and 85 men to get married right? And what would that mean? I guess that would make things easy right? And would people who want to marry 458 others at the same time be interested in the law regarding marrying or just living together?


About your comment that a polygamous marriage has a chance to be unequal. Please phrase differently; it has a chance of being equal, but it likely isn't and without some religious conviction it is not worth fighting for.

(and if it is; please let them go ahead....I will support those 4 girls for their specific case, but let's not let some theoretic whining allow people who think women are second class citizen to have their way.)

[shoju]

I disagree Eppie.

We can't automatically assume that something is "unequal" purely because something has a history of it. Things change, times change. Equality is an ever progressing concept, one that we still struggle with.

But that doesn't mean that we automatically assume that a polygamous marriage would be unequal because a portion of the population shows inequality. I'm sure the four women that Mav mentioned would have a relatively equal polygamous existence. Arguing that it only has a chance of equality because another group of people in a completely different ideological setting normally have rather unequal-"atic" polygamous marriages does a disservice to those people.

It's very likely that polygamous unions born outside of a specific ideology will be equal, because it isn't the polygamous union that is unequal, it is the ideology of the religion that makes them unequal. Calling all Polygamous Unions unequal with a chance for equality based on one religious experience, would be the same as saying that Every Apple in the world has a worm in it, because some apples in some orchard that didn't properly plan for insecticide treatments ended up with worms in their apples.

The problem with what we see in the church in question is not an uncommon thing to find in many churches. Women are still, by and large, second class citizens in many religious entities. Their position is better than it was 30 years ago, but it is still a work in progress. If you take the bible as a biblical literalist, without historical and cultural context, they will always remain that way, and they will actually show regression in their position, because the bible is very strict about it.

But what people fail to see, and realize, is that the culture within which these texts were written was far closer to the dreaded "Sharia Law" style Islam that everyone fears. Woman are to be subservient. They are to be quiet in church. They are not to question their husbands. They are to obey his every command.

There are people who still spout this nonsensical babble today. Not too long ago, that reject on the 700 club told a woman that she should make her home more enticing for her husband so he wouldn't cheat. As in, it's her fault that the home doesn't keep him home.

These people will slowly evolve, and slowly change their perceptions. But the problem is, religious perceptions are a lot like geology. The reference of time with which you need to measure them is far slower than what you think. It doesn't make it right, or ok, but change is happening, slowly.

I rambled there. Sorry.

[FireIceTalon]

It's not even a *shame*, to say it is, is still an implication that they are doing something wrong (even if not "legally" wrong).

That was very tongue-in-cheek, because they're four hot babes in their 20s, off the market for males to date. It's something I kid my friend about and she and I both laugh about it. It was a joke. I hoped that people could see that with the smilies attached. But I forgot that you can't take a joke.

"off the market for males to date"

This very statement itself suggests they are some sort of a commodity. I don't think you even realize you objectify them in your everyday language.

And it hardly matters if you are joking. People tell racist jokes all the time and may not mean anything by it, but they shouldn't be told in the first place. Why doesn't the same logic apply here?

[Mavfin]

It's not even a *shame*, to say it is, is still an implication that they are doing something wrong (even if not "legally" wrong).

That was very tongue-in-cheek, because they're four hot babes in their 20s, off the market for males to date. It's something I kid my friend about and she and I both laugh about it. It was a joke. I hoped that people could see that with the smilies attached. But I forgot that you can't take a joke.

"off the market for males to date"

This very statement itself suggests they are some sort of a commodity. I don't think you even realize you objectify them in your everyday language.

And it hardly matters if you are joking. People tell racist jokes all the time and may not mean anything by it, but they shouldn't be told in the first place. Why doesn't the same logic apply here?

Sorry, but if the person or people I'm mentioning think it's funny when I say it, then someone totally uninvolved like you being offended is irrelevant to me.

On topic, Shoju and Jester pretty much said everything else about poly relationships for me, so I don't need to go on.

[FireIceTalon]

Comrade, me being involved or not makes no difference. Either way, it doesn't change the fact you objectify women (whether in jest or in spite isn't the point), and the fact they laugh along with you doesn't make it anymore right. So if I am hanging out with my black friends who don't mind me cracking jokes about black people, does that make it right for me to do even if I have their permission? Hardly. You use the typical excuse that most reactionaries resort to when trying to justify their bigotry, but it doesn't work that way.

[LochnarITB]

"off the market for males to date"

This very statement itself suggests they are some sort of a commodity. I don't think you even realize you objectify them in your everyday language.

Do you realize you've made an assumption that demonstrates your own objectification of women?

It is normal for humans to want to pair bond. These particular women do not wish to date males. In this instance, shame does not indicate they have done something wrong. If you look at the definition of shame on Merriam-Webster online you will see "also : something to be regretted : pity <it's a shame you can't go>". Males regret that these women would have no interest in them. You've assumed that "attractive", and even "hot babe", can only express a measure of physical beauty or even the desire to "hit that". I maintain that, for many, those adjectives describe someone intelligent, fun and witty, someone that challenges them.

e.g. I met this attractive hot bade [brilliant, exciting, witty] today but it's a shame [I regret] she has no interest in exploring a relationship because she dates only women.

[FireIceTalon]

"off the market for males to date"

This very statement itself suggests they are some sort of a commodity. I don't think you even realize you objectify them in your everyday language.

Do you realize you've made an assumption that demonstrates your own objectification of women?

It is normal for humans to want to pair bond. These particular women do not wish to date males. In this instance, shame does not indicate they have done something wrong. If you look at the definition of shame on Merriam-Webster online you will see "also : something to be regretted : pity <it's a shame you can't go>". Males regret that these women would have no interest in them. You've assumed that "attractive", and even "hot babe", can only express a measure of physical beauty or even the desire to "hit that". I maintain that, for many, those adjectives describe someone intelligent, fun and witty, someone that challenges them.

e.g. I met this attractive hot bade [brilliant, exciting, witty] today but it's a shame [I regret] she has no interest in exploring a relationship because she dates only women.

LOL. Are you trolling, or are you actually serious? Saying I objectify women is reaching longer than Scottie Pippen's arms. There is absolutely nothing in my post, direct or implied, that objectifies women in any way.

The term "hot babe" in our culture, does NOT usually refer to humor, intelligence, or sophistication - quite the opposite really. That isn't me objectifying women, thats just me stating the cold hard facts. And to deny that the social context of how a term like "hot babe" is used otherwise, you'd have to be living on another planet, or just be completely divorced from reality.

The term "attractive" is much more politically correct, but even this term can have negative connotations since again, in our culture, we have a very stereotypical prototype of what constitutes beauty or being attractive - typically portrayed in magazines like Glamour, People, etc etc. A fat person might be funny, smart, and extremely sophisticated, but won't be considered "attractive" physically by the majority. Beauty does indeed run more than skin deep, but unfortunately the material conditions of the society in which we live don't recognize it. Because that isn't what sells or generates a profit.

You can't just take terms at face value and assign them meanings for what they SHOULD mean or how they should be used, you have to take cultural context and other material realities into account. Otherwise, we can use and define language or any particular word to mean, well, just about anything. Which doesn't work.

[Jester]

Jester, you are behaving like you are in a pissing contest discussion. You discuss because the fun of it. You mix theory and practice when it comes convenient to you.

And if I'm not discussing this because it's fun?

Allow polygamy? That means you will also allow 73 women and 85 men to get married right? And what would that mean? I guess that would make things easy right? And would people who want to marry 458 others at the same time be interested in the law regarding marrying or just living together?

Pretty much, yes.

About your comment that a polygamous marriage has a chance to be unequal. Please phrase differently; it has a chance of being equal, but it likely isn't and without some religious conviction it is not worth fighting for.

Who on earth are you to tell me what's worth fighting for, whose rights matter and whose don't?

(and if it is; please let them go ahead....I will support those 4 girls for their specific case, but let's not let some theoretic whining allow people who think women are second class citizen to have their way.)

Do you have some reason to think this is theoretical to me?

-Jester