Let's get it into the open: What's so wrong with polygamy or polyandry?

So I was listening to Rick Santorum's dumb ass speak on anal sex (which will always be associated with him...) and the court case about which he felt he had to open his big yapper. I've also watched this dumb, sentimental bastard milk it on the Senate floor for everything he's got -- it's really pathetic.

But the reason that he didn't want the government to be able to say that what "two consenting adults do in their bedroom" is their right to do, based on "consent," was because he didn't want that to apply to polygamy -- which, without a marriage certificate (which wasn't even part of the court case) is basically just an "orgy," no?

I realize that the real reason he said it is because he's a dumb, bigoted, delusional asshole -- and everything else was just backtracking, after he got national media attention for piping up about it -- but WHY THE FUCK should Rick Santorum get to voice his opinion, if, like say -- I joined in an orgy?

And while we're on the topic -- another anti-gay-marriage argument is that we couldn't stop polygamy/polyandry if we sanctioned gay marriage (which is a slippery slope logical fallacy and is, in plain speak: bullshit), but people: what's so wrong with polygamy or polyandry?

I mean -- it's good enough for the Mormons, right? I've never heard anyone make a real good argument about why we shouldn't have multiple marriage partners. I think I'd like to hear some -- because I just don't think that conservative social institutions are the end-all, be-all of existence. Call me a cultural libertine, but filial arrangements can take many forms --- and who cares if you're raised by like your eight moms, so long as they were nice? How is this any worse than being a latchkey kid in a cardboard house in exurbia?

not that I was necessarily pro-polygamy - I didn't really have an opinion - but in practice anyway, group marriage is used as a power tool and often constitutes child abuse. It's also a way for cults to swell their numbers quickly. This may have been necessary when man was first trying to populate the world, but not so much now.

book.

It really turned me off polygamous marriage and the Mormon faith in general.

Nevertheless, I still don't feel that I have a right to tell other people what to do in their marriages. If we are worried about the unpleasant "side effects" of polygamous marriage such as spousal and child abuse (and the other civil rights related stuff as detailed in Banner of Heaven), then we need to legally deal with that directly. The illegality of polygamous marriage is clearly not addressing those issues currently, so there doesn't seem to be any reason to continue to keep it illegal.

When people discuss these kinds of issues, I think they often confuse "it's bad" with "it should be illegal". Those are two separate issues and should be addressed seperately, IMO.

excommunication.

And I used to think I liked Mormons, until I moved here. Now, I really just think that all religious organizations have gone so political as to render them useless as philosphies and perfectly useful as methods of oppression.

but then I was thinking about how the "regular" institution of marriage has some of the same problems, and how maybe a post-end-of-polyandry polyandry might work out differently.

Nothing wrong with it then, right?




http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13
Buttons for brainy people - educate your local freepers today!

LOL. Slippery slopes and all that aside, it's a discussion that needs to take place, I just don't know how many folks are ready for it.

Personally, I wonder if government should just get out of the marriage business.

and on edit. Civil and criminal laws should cover most of the excessive behavior that harms individuals regardless of marriage or family status. (I think I read an incredible amount of science fiction in my formative years. It can really give one a perspective, a feeling one is on the outside looking in. Mormons happen and will continue to happen.)

Polyandry would raise issues of fatherhood and that would sit well with cultural mores based upon mens' egos.

as everybody is in it because they want to be and no one is being coerced to be in the relationship.

David Allen
www.thoughtcrimes.org

a triad marriage. They got involved when they were in HS - they're all the same age. They've been "married" for 15 years or so, have 12 kids and are still very happy. In cases where minors are involved, it's not a good thing. In cases where they're within the same age range and 18 (or close to it), I can't see the problem.

Lord knows it would be nice to have another adult in this household. Someone to help clean, parent and earn money. Of course, you could get much the same thing by living in a commune.

I'm pretty easy going, so it works for me. People who are superoverdramatic and high-maintenance don't work in communes.

I seriously think the reason that any other arrangement than the "individual family home" is snuffed is because it gives the opportunity for the male or males to not be dominant -- just a change-up in the situation. This is not to say that it doesn't end up that the males are dominant -- because it does -- only that the relationship of more than two people kind of scares people, because it interrupts the "who's boss" thing.

if teenagers under eighteen aren't involved as spouses. When a spouse is forced to accept a new spouse without their consent, or if a young person is forced to marry into such an arrangement, then I would say it's not acceptable.

Allowing gay marriage would not prevent the government from stopping polygamy or polyandry.

The problem with banning gay marriage is that it violates equal protection - one specific group of people is being singled out. If gay marriage was allowed, all it would mean is that EVERY adult could be married to ONE other adult of their choice at any given time, regardless of the gender of the two people involved. As it stands now, only male/female couples have that right.

Banning polygamy or polyandry isn't discriminatory because it applies to EVERYONE equally. NO ONE would be allowed to be married to more than one person at a time.


On edit: I forgot to answer your question, LOL! Personally, I don't care how people live their lives or who they're married to, just as long as no one is forced into any situation and no minors are involved in the marriages. We don't need middle aged men marrying 5 or 6 teenage girls! ;-)

Is preventing individual men (sorry ladies too) from creating an army of children conditioned from birth to worship their leader.

... at least it seems like a better reason than any of the ultimately weak "moral" reasons I've ever seen...

All the best,

FMH

and many women - which is the whole problem - women inherently (in those situations) acquire the role of being a brood mare.

or more appropriately, girls............

ultimately though, whomever can chose this relationship and there are groups that do this. generally though is cult like or religious group. male heirarchy. not my thing. not thrilled in seeing a woman allowing themselves to be in the submissive weak role, but hey...

what evah

all teenage boys.

and the first woman elected to a state senate was in Utah, and Utah had more professional women than other areas of the US in the 1850's when polygamy was legal. None of that has anything to do with polygamy as it is practiced today, but it is historical fact. I've always wondered how to reconcile those contradictions.

No problem.

Marrying minors, forcing teenagers to marry old men, one guy ruling the lives of everyone; wives and children virtual prisoners of the men? Bad, bad, bad ideas.

Totalling consenting adults outside of any religious or other hierarchical structure...no problem.

And I've known one or two situations where it's the woman with more than one 'husband' and it was a pretty stable situation for all concerned.

Some guys are 'high-maintenance' and it's nice to share the burden with a co-wife or sister-wife, too.


Different strokes...

as long as they're all consenting adults.

and believe me, the likes of Santorum are horrified by that idea too. As a member of the poly community, I know a number of folks who consider themselves married to more than one person (although, of course, the law doesn't recognize that). I do think you should only be able to get the various tax, insurance, inheritance, etc., benefits for one marriage at a time. However, there are one whole hell of a lot of polyfolks out there who've been living that way for a very long time without anyone being exploited, abused, or otherwise misused. I don't think most monogamous folks realize just how many triads and group marriages are out there. Many, many people live very happily in these arrangements. Monogamy simply doesn't work for some of us. Nor should it. One size doesn't fit all.

The legal benefits of marriage should probably only extend to one couple of group marriages, otherwise things get very confused and are more easily abused (I'm thinking of that one fellow who had like eighteen kids by eight different women, most of whom were collecting ADC as "single mothers").

The state doesn't belong in the marriage business at all, really. It's their business insofar as you're claiming to be married for tax purposes, inheritance, etc., but those things can be accomplished with civil unions. I don't see why anyone who wishes to should be prohibited from forming civil unions with any consenting adult. Note the "consenting adult". That part is not optional.

I always associate polygamy with the practice of men being able to take more than one wife. It seems that it's usually prevalent in extremely male-dominated cultures -- like Saudi Arabia, for instance.

My understanding of polyamory, OTOH, is that it is a lifestyle in which people are free to enter into loving relationships with more than one person -- much as you described the "triads" and "group marriages" that take place out there. Where polygamy is usually associated with a patriarchal setting in which the man commands and his wives obey, I've always associated polyamory with much more of a "consensus" approach in which all participants in the marriage are equal partners.

Polygyny = more than one (female) spouse. Polyandry = more than one (male) spouse. Polygamy = more than one spouse, gender unspecified.

Polyamory simply means loving more than one. The reason I mentioned it is that there's many people within the polyamory community who consider themselves polygamous as well. I actually KNOW poly families. What I want to know is how many of the people blanket condemning the idea actually KNOW polyfolk.

A man and two women. The women were business partners, and they both had children by the man, although only one of them was his legal wife. They kept it quiet, though, and I figured out the arrangement only by accident. I ran into them again earlier this year, and they're still together.

The potential problems with jealousy could be explosive, though.

Do you think Laura and Condi have such a relationship with the *, or maybe each other? I dunno, things aren't adding up with those relationships in my demented mind.

the idea of any of those three bumping uglies makes me wanna lose my lunch.

Just ask Belva Ann Lockwood.

Although monagamy has been patriarchal in the past, modern American monagamy is between equals under the law. Both partners have equal rights and equal repsonsibilities under the law. Monagamy is the only system of marriage in which equlaity can exist, even if it doesn't always exist.
If there are more than two people involved, the marriage must be inherently unequal. In traditional polygamy, the male is the head of the household his wives rank is either by tradition (suck as first or oldest wife is most important) or by his choosing. If all the women are heterosexual, he will be having more sex than any of the women. He can choose to divorce any of them and and she will be left with less than half of his property. If he dies, all the women must divide the property.
Bisexual group marriage is also another possibility with all members married to each other. Even if they agree to all be equals though, things could get ugly if at some point the group has problems. Indivduals may be asked to choose between partners and the relationship will become unequal. Child custody could also be a nightmare in such a group.
I really do think that if any and all combinations were allowed that there would be much more marraige for convience since you always could marry someone else even if you were married. Then there would be really weird cases going to marriage counseling as well.
This might be a really ignorant question to polygamous people: What advantages would you have by being legally married to more than one spouse that you would not have with informal, private relationships? Would there be other ways to satisfy those advantages? Should some advantages such as hospital privleges be given to people of one's choosing regardless of marital status for example?

I'm not talking about cult shit or super male dominance -- just the idea of, instead of the individual family home, with the nuclear family, the household that's not exactly a shared-commune or an extended family or tribe, but literally, where more than two people are married.

I think that you can't make too many arguments against it that aren't applicable to monogamous marriage -- it's fraught with problems of the same sort -- power, dominance, abuse, legal red tape, hurt feelings, sad kids and marriages of convenience.

I as well don't believe it is the government's business. The issue
for the state is ensuring that children have a decent household, and
surely more flexible arrangements make this more complex. That said,
if the spirit of the law is to ensure children get a fair shake, and
that underaged people are not exploited, then the letter of the law
can be made reasonably.

I believe it has to do with past lives. Some people love each other,
no matter what body they inhabit in this life, and no matter the
existing social relationship standards.

Really, it strikes me that the trouble is in legislating marriage
at all, and not relegating the whole lot to "civil unions".

...to share with your beloved over many years gives such a spiritual depth, brings one joy and tears and profundity of indescribable depth, all in the midst of physical celebration!

Moreover, a good marriage heals the childhood wounds of both--saves on psychology bills. :-)

Really--I am watching John and Elizabeth Edwards right now on Larry King, where they are talking about feeling "physically connected," even in the midst of her cancer. It is a depth, and I believe, gift of God, that gives and gives and gives, for both men and women.

For example, one married couple has been close friends with another married couple. They decide that they want to live together, raise their children together, be able to visit each other in the hospital at any time, give each other insurance benefits, and provide an inheritance in case of death. If group marriage would be legal, they might decide to marry for these reasons. They may go into it intending though to keep their original sex partners though. Then one night, one half of each couple end up having sex and the other partners are angry. Explain that one to the marriage counselor.

It should be up to the church who gets married. I don't think the government needs to be playing any role in it. It's a contract between two (or what the hell three or four) people not a contract between two people and the government. Thats just my opinion I guess.

the church does not have the corner stone on marriage.

I've heard people outside the (assumed we're speaking of) christian church get married too - hindus, jews etc.

Do I care? No because it's not my business.

with others.

-------------------------------------
Would Jesus love a liberal? You bet!
http://timeforachange.bluelemur.com/

"what is wrong" is a question for those engaged in the philosophical and societal ramifications of behavior - marriage carries with it priviledges which can affect the whole through tax breaks and the like.

Perhaps we should ask: Does soceity as a whole benefit by such a structure and if so by how much and how should we handle the tax codes relating to such? What are the pluses and minuses to the whole of us and how should we compensate such people (which is based on what they contribute back in general theory and idea - though all will not fit into the standard the majority may well).

From a purely governmental point of view such relationships can be weighed over time to see the effect - and if it is one which benefits society at the expense of said individuals we may decide to invest in that via tax breaks and laws which promote it (ie the single person has only to focus on themselves but the multi-married has many more children which are the future of our society and are a needed function - people raising them need more money to do so and therefore we take less from them than others because they sacrifice more for the future).

At any rate, some fun :)

The military budget and corporate welfare contain copious funds that more than offset lost monogamy revenue.

He doesn't have the same rights as anyone else ?

Re: the Mormons, they do not support polygamy.

I appreciate that I am not on the left wing of the Democratic party, which makes me an outsider on DU, still if we want Democrats to be elected, polygamy would seem like an odd issue to advocate.

I was just wondering why he, personally, feels he's a moral authority.

And I don't think Democrats should ADVOCATE polyandry or polygamy. I just think that people sometimes just say stuff -- like it's OK to just pick on polygamy or polyandry because it's "weird," without actually taking the time to step outside the box and think about it. That's all.

I misunderstood you.

women can only bear children to one man at a time, therefore monagomy works better for childbearing. When men have multiple wives it diminishes the equality of the wives, for their own security, and also diminshes the resources those wives have to raise their offspring. The only society in which this would be workable would be one wherein women greatly outnumbered men, so much that there really were not enough men to go around. That's why the Morman's turned to multiply marriages in the first place, because of a severe man shortage. It never worked well for the Mormons, it oppresses women, and, it generally sucks. However, multiple partners is not the same thing as same sex partners.

I've read a lot of anthropology from Africa and dynastic China. In both societies, polygamy was practiced -- one man with multiple wives or concubines.

Many accounts of the lives of African women typically did not focus on their oppression by men. In fact, in West Africa, polygamy tended to give women more economic independence, because each wife would receive a separate household.

The biggest problem with polygamy is that the richest men monopolize the supply of women. I once lived in a small West African village in which the three richest men has 7-10 wives each and there were maybe three younger men with wives and the 20-30 young marriageable age men were single. The 20-30 women who should have been available for them were all married to the old rich guys.

This means that in a polygamous society, there are many younger, poorer men who have no wives and no prospects for marriage. They get very horny, very angry, very bored and very irresponsible. They tend to join bandit groups and live outside of society (China) or they form an easily exploited group for use in warfare (Africa).

The closest example of what modern American society would look like with polygamy would be the middle east -- in which young Muslim men without jobs cannot get married, and because of strict religious prescriptions cannot have informal sexual and romantic relationships with women. The result is that they drift into angry nihilistic cults of violence.

A polygamous society in America would look a lot like prison society.

This country is far to bigoted to even allow gay marriage. The demand for non-traditional marriage arrangements will never be more than a small minority of the traditional monogamous whole.

to each other. Obviously, that romantic notion goes right out the window with multiple spouses. The whole idea of multiple marriage partners disrespects and devalues each partner, for neither is the one special person that the other puts before everyone else. If you didn't want that, why would you bother to marry? Might as well just date. But this has nothing to do with gay marriage, as same sex couples do only want one partner, one person to trust more than anyone else, one person to put ahead of all others. What could possibly entice a woman to marry a man who doesn't offer her his complete loyalty and devotion? Who would do it? Only a few pubescent mormon girls who have no choice because their Daddy traded them for some livestock. Polygamy results in women being treated like livestock, and we are not livestock. It's a silly distractionist technique for the rightwingnuts to use polygamy as an argument against gay marriage, the two concepts have nothing to do with each other.

:kick:

Why on earth would people want more than one spouse?

I have just one spouse, and she drives me CRAZY!!!!!

they would argue among themselves rather arguing with you?

in giving you hell. My wife is Chjinese-Vietnamese and has some real tales to tell about her father's friends who had multiple wives in the Chinese community in Vietnam. she herself was the daughter of the second wife. The first wife handled the business money and her mother handled the household money.

And, as every good Christian knows, whatever is mentioned even once in the Bible must be enforced here in the US.

the church does not recognize the practice any longer (since admitted to the Union). There are fundamentalist Mormon churches that still practice it, the Kingston Family is a very well known group. They have had quite a bit of legal trouble as of late.

I used to live near Colorado City, AZ and the horror stories that leaked out of that closed community certainly turned me against polygamy as a concept.

Under the Banner of Heaven was accurate and should be required reading.

Get married, get divorced, get married again, repeat. Having multiple marriage partners is very popular these days.

Eight wives? I'd rather go to a whorehouse - that's more enjoyable if it's legal outside Vegas.

21st century whorehouse? Baby, there are some diseases out there...doesn't matter what you wear...there are just some very special things out there...besides, presumably, your wife gives you sincere sex.