Why should I support legalizing polygamous marriage?

[cali]

I've notice that most DUers do seem to support it. I don't First of all, it would be expensive and would involve rewriting marriage laws in a way that gay marriage does not. But more importantly, polygamy reinforces male dominance. Most polygamous societies are not about women with multiple husbands, but about men with multiple wives, who are always subservient to the male.

I'm a strong proponent of gay marriage. I don't want to see polygamy recognized.

[Unvanguard]

1. Then require the consent of all the partners before new ones are added.

How would that reinforce male dominance?

What about same-sex polyamorous relationships? Polyandrous relationships? (Less common historically, yes, but we live in this society, not other ones.) Are you going to take away their right to marry because others might abuse it?

[get the red out]

15. Women would be raised to be slaves

you would very quickly see the fringe sects, like FLDS, become mainstream and all of us being forced to "respect" them. More and more females would be raised from birth through complete separation from society to be completely subservient and be dominated. They would never have a single choice in their lives from the time they were born and our "respect" for their dominator's through law would never even afford them escape. Their minds would never be their own but if they weren't taken into some kind of possession by a male owner until age 18 we would kid ourselves, through acceptance in law, that they made an adult decision. There would never be a choice for more and more women. Probably the whole state of Utah would turn back to female slavery, they would be born to never have a chance to even breath on their own. All the while our society calls it a choice. We ignore the brian washing, the isolation, the lack of education afforded these women. It would be a choice after all if they weren't raped by the old man until age 18.

And what about the pressure of regular women, if a man could tire of them and simply go out and bring in some co-wife, then the old used up version has to take care of both of them, hearing her husband having sex with the little creature he brought home. What about her children, any daughters in the home would quickly know that their only worth to society was the sexual appeal they could have for a man. They would know that as human beings go, they are nothing.

[Unvanguard]

17. What do child-raising practices have to do with polygamy?

What's stopping parents from raising female children like that right now? It's one of the prices we pay for our assumption of parental sovereignty... if you ask me, I think we shouldn't be paying it, but solving that problem requires steps far more radical than prohibiting polygamy.

As for adult women, they have the options of divorce, of marrying another husband, or (in my proposal) of not consenting to a new member of the marriage. What options do they have now if the man they marry is an asshole? The risk is in the nature of relationships.

[annabanana]

32. I agree that this could be a problem. Jim Jones got people to

drink stuff they believed to be poison, time and time again. Unless the women had a well defined sense of self, the tendancy to abuse by social pressure would be pretty strong.

[Unvanguard]

33. That's true of monogamous marriages as well.

Not much we can do about it legally, unless we want to go so far as to ban heterosexuality. What we can and should do is continue the feminist struggle for a country and a world that genuinely recognizes the rightful equality and freedom of all people regardless of sex and gender.

[annabanana]

35. The larger struggle is the best, again.

But it's also the one that takes so damn long

[qwlauren35]

53. I, too, think it should be acceptable among consenting adults.

I cannot see accepting one and not the other. AND, I can think of many, many practical reasons for a multiperson marriage. If it prevents a divorce, and is acceptable to all 3 people, I think its a worthwhile solution to a problem of people falling out of love, OR, one person losing their sex drive, where divorce is not really wanted by either party.

A multipartner marriage may also address some of the awkwardness of someone gay who comes out of the closet during the middle of their lives. Again, where there is still love, but the sexual needs aren't compatible.

To me, it comes down to respect. If all the people involved can respect each other and live together amicably, I think it's wrong to prevent it.

My only concern is if a spouse is pressured to go along with it.

Perhaps the best way to address it is that the original partner has a clear option to choose between a multi-partner marriage and a divorce with an initial lump-sum settlement, alimony and custody.

I think the fact that it may be messy shouldn't eliminate it from consideration. Messiness can occur in any and every marriage.

[unpossibles]

2. I think two things are getting confused: polyamory and polygamy

Polyamory is group marriages regardless of the ratio between men and women and involves consenting adults only.

Polygamy is multiple wives, and as mostly practiced today, also often involves sexist behavior and child-marrying.

Two totally different things. Most people I've seen support the former, or are at least open minded to the former, not the latter.

[antigone382]

49. No, that's not entirely correct.

Polyamory is multiple partners. It does not specify marital status or gender. Polygamy is multiple marriages. It does not specify gender. Polygyny is multiple wives. Polyandry is multiple husbands.

I believe that whatever contractual agreements honest, consenting adults want to make regarding their romantic/sex lives is entirely up to the individuals involved. I understand there are related problems, but you cannot deny all people their rights because some people will abuse them. Strict educational standards (for example, as a homeschooled child in Georgia I still had to take state exams to prove that I was at an adequate educational level with my public school peers) would hopefully prevent some of the deliberate isolation and brainwashing of the women in polygynous societies, though by no means all of it. However, as with other negative behaviors such as drug addiction, I don't think the prohibition of polygamy stops the more radical, and abusive fringe groups from doing what they do, nor is its legality necessarily going to legitimize them.

[unpossibles]

57. thanks and good point

I had confused polygamy with polygyny. My bad.

For what it's worth, I don't have a problem with anyone doing whatever they wish as long as it involves consenting adults.

[mondo joe]

3. Personally, the only thing about it that matters is the Constitutionality of the case.

Those who want polygamy can make their case, and there can be a reasoned debate.

If their case is Constitutionally sound I will support it. Whether it is expensive or not to implement is a non-issue for me, as I don't put a price tag on civil rights.

I'm not saying the case has been made. It hasn't.

[Iggo]

36. Bam. Right there.

Thanks for stating it clearer than I've been able to.

(I have a real fresh anger related to a certain obvious bias. See sig line...lol.)

[dipsydoodle]

4. I'm not sure that most Duers support

legalizing polygamous marriage. More likely that they don't give it a second thought because they are busy enough with the complications of own lives without giving a fig what Mormoms etc may do.

[thraxis]

5. Actually, it comes down to relationships among consenting adults.

And the same reasoning used to justify gay marriage, will be used to justify polygamy or any other marriage arrangements involving consenting adults. Is more than three too many? Should there be a limit? Wasn't this type of arrangement part of Utopia?

[dkf]

6. Isn't the point that other people's judgements shoudn't be the

determining factor on marriage?

Polygamous situations will occur whether we approve or not, as will any relationship that exists.

A person currently in a polygamous relationship will not be more or less receptive to male dominance because they are married or not. It is what it is.

[wuushew]

7. The FLDS will continue with or without your approval

if legal, I believe that social service support might reach more people who need it. Is your argument that a full legal recognition would greatly increase the prevalence of polygamy?

[cali]

8. I don't know that it would greatly increase it.

but I don't see that polygamy fits into the social fabric or social contract. gay and lesbian marriage clearly does.

[get the red out]

12. FLDS

The only support FLDS men deserve is a prison cell with some guy forcibly giving them a pain in the ass.

[High Plains]

26. Nice. Another advocate of prison rape.

[mondo joe]

56. Rape isn't funny, or justice. NT

[LisaL]

21. Most of them aren't legally married to more than one person

anyway.
However it is my understanding that under TX law they can still be charged with bigamy, as long as they give an appearance of being married to more than one person. How exactly does it make sense?
We are not talking about allowing someone to legally marry more than one person. We are talking about making it a crime for someone to have relationships with more than one person.

[lynnertic]

9. I don't know if I could handle more than one husband

it takes me all day to clean up after the one I have


(kidding of course)
(sortof)

[Lex]

10. I don't get how marriage between 2 people = polygamy is okay now.

Doesn't compute.

[NashVegas]

14. I'm Pretty Sure It's Not

I suspect some people are:

1. Being contradictory for its own sake.
2. So antipathetic of gay marriage that they insist polygamy MUST be allowed, too - self-fulfilling "slippery slope" argument.
3. Wanting their own kinks normalized.
4. Trolling
5. Gaming the board ("omg! You should see! Those godless DU freaks want legalized polygamy!")

[LisaL]

20. Oh really?

It goes to the idea that consenting adults should be able to decide what's best for them in their relationships.
Seems rather simple to me.

[Lex]

24. Yes really.

If you want to argue that multiple people in a marriage should be lawful, fine.

But it's not the same as 2 people being married.

[LisaL]

28. So if two women want to be married to each other,

they should be able to do so. But if those two women decide they want to be married to one man, it should be a crime? What's the difference? If they are above the age of consent, should they be able to decide who they want to be with or not?

[Lex]

30. Did I say it should be a crime? Strawman much?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

[LisaL]

31. Well, regardless of whether you said it, bigamy is a crime right now.

[AlCzervik]

48. agreed.

and Mormons can still get married, no one is denying them that right unless that mormon couple is gay.

[get the red out]

11. I would rather see this country utterly destroyed

Then to put such subservience on women, demeaning their lives and their worth, into law. If the US ever threatens to make polygamy legal I will do whatever I can as a citizen to oppose it and I will work with whoever needs to be worked with to oppose it. I will abandon the Democratic party and work with anyone available to destroy it if the Democrats ever threaten to make male dominance a legal part of our social order in this way. If that doesn't work to prevent polygamy, then I would hope this country would be nuked out of existence for eternity. We don't deserve to exist as a nation if we try to legalize this.

People that hate women badly enough to want men to own several of us as slaves don't belong in a civilized country. They are monsters.

I am thankful Democrats as a whole are not this sickening. I am glad only people that are totally disgusting fringe creatures would ever support this.

[Unvanguard]

18. I wasn't aware that marriage was ownership.

I mean, I'm not too keen on the institution myself, but that's a little extreme--is a man marrying one woman making her his slave as well? Why would it inherently be any different if he married more than one?

And what about women marrying multiple men? Men marrying multiple men? Women marrying multiple women?

[High Plains]

27. Are you insane? Hyperventilate much?

"I would hope this country would be nuked out of existence for eternity."

[annabanana]

37. we are actually having a fairly reasoned discussion here..

It is a little rude to bust in and start calling people "totally disgusting fringe creatures" after 67 posts and an, um, interesting screen name...

[Mari333]

13. Polyandry, Polygamy, I support

the rights of consenting ADULTS to choose how they want to be married. Its none of my business why 2 or more consenting ADULTS want to get married. I stay out of the bedrooms of consenting ADULTS and I would hope they stay out of mine.
besides, if polygamy was legal then polyandry would be legal. woman with multiple husbands. think of the tax breaks and benefits. :)

[GliderGuider]

16. The big legal issue is division of property on dissolution.

Having been through two marriages and a long-term cohab, each of which relieved me of more than half my net worth when it ended, I'd want to see some careful thought going into property rights.

I was also in a polyamorous relationship for a while, so various loving arrangements aren't the problem. Having clear legal statements of rights and responsibilities in the face of the changeability of the human heart is the issue.

I see the problem regarding the current state of polygamous marriage and FLDS in the USA as analogous to the War on Drugs. As long as something is illegal it can't be regulated. Legalizing polygamous marriage (both polygyny and polyandry) would allow more oversight on who can enter into such marriages, how they can get out, and what conditions apply during them.

[helderheid]

19. I don't think those who have no problem with polygamy have a problem with polyandry as well.

[WolverineDG]

22. If it's between consenting adults,

what business is it of yours?

dg

[shimmergal]

23. The wives are subservient only

because these groups (fundamentalist Islamic and Mormon sects) have an explicit ethic of male dominance and superiority, which they enforce. Otherwise the wives could cooperate and yes, in a sense have the upper hand.

It might work out differently if the people involved had egalitarian values.

[WolverineDG]

29. Not all monogamous marriages are egalitarian either

so should those be banned too?

dg

[uppityperson]

25. Where do you notice "most DUers do seem to support it"?

I agree with your opinions about it.

[NeedleCast]

34. I can't help but see prejudice there Cali

If it's consenting adults, why shouldn't it be okay, regardless of the number of adults? To me, there's little difference between what you're saying in your OP and someone saying "Hispanics are good, hardworking people, but I don't like blacks."

If it's consenting adults, the government shouldn't be able to pick and choose who can and can't get married based on sexual preference, religious preference, or pretty much anything else.

[cali]

38. I knew it was a matter of time before someone called me a bigot for

not supporting legalizing polygamy. Your post is disgraceful- but so fucking stupid it's hard to get worked up about it.

If consenting adults want to live together polygamously, they can. Polygamy itself is invariably terribly oppresive for women.

So if I'm a bigot, you're just a sexist, woman hating little piggy.

[seabeyond]

41. it is history, and present. the majority of "girls" that will willingly consent

and we are talking young, not older, are those that have not had control, or raising that has allowed the free tinking you imagine on this issue

if it were a better place, where self condifent women, knowing what they want and confident and secure in their beliefs were making the choice i would be a lot more confortable with it. but that is not the female i think we will see in the majority of these arrangements

i have to wonder about the person that cannot look at not only female history, but the reality of today for some female, and not get this.

[seabeyond]

39. i also hear support of porn for kids, girls free for all after puberity, as young as 10

and all kinds of absurd opinions.

i dont put much stock into an issue like this with voters at du

[Cerridwen]

40. Cali, do you realize you're using an old r/w canard?

Equating gay marriage rights with polygamy is how the neocons and r/w "religious" groups have catapulted the propaganda about gay marriage for a couple of decades now. This particular angle went silent for a while as they used the "gay marriage will destroy your hetero marriage" these past couple of years. Prior to that, they used this one.

It's the same type of "ick," "fear" factor dog-whistle used when they warned that we'd have to use uni-sex bathrooms if the ERA passed.

If we're ever to take control of the conversation and the words we use, we need to know where they come from.

This one comes from anti-gay "churches" and neo-con organizations from decades past.

[cali]

42. oh, please. this issue has come up repeatedly over the last week

with many folks saying that they think polygamy should be legalized.

And yes, I'm completely cognizant that this is a right wing meme, but sorry, it's being talked about right here in River City.

[Cerridwen]

43. Well, excuse me for asking you if you were aware of where this

particular idea comes from.

You're aware it's a right wing meme and yet you buy into it and take a stand on it as though the two are the same. Uh, huh. In the future, as I have in the past, I'll just presume you're an idiot and post accordingly.

It's obvious you're happy with accepting r/w words as fact rather than questioning them. Way to think for yourself there.

[roody]

44. If you want more than one, don't get married. Isn't that the idea???

[GliderGuider]

45. Pretty much.

Aside from things like health care and pension benefits for your second or third partner, there isn't much about a multi-person relationship that can't be handled contractually. I'm not sure what the big deal is about formal marriage.

[LisaL]

46. Except it could still be a crime, even if you are not legally married

to more one person.

[GliderGuider]

52. Could you expand on that?

I come up short trying to imagine circumstances (at least in modern North America or Europe) where a multi-person relationship between consenting adults would run afoul of the law.

[LisaL]

54. Read this.

If a person is married, but living with someone else other than his spouse, at least in TX (not sure what laws are in other states) he can be charged with bigamy.
http://law.onecle.com/texas/penal/25.01.00.html

[GliderGuider]

55. Good grief. What's the punishment, a week in the stocks?

There's something positively medieval about that law. Thank the Goddess I live in Canada, far far away from Tejas.

[gollygee]

47. Theoretically it wouldn't have to reinforce male dominance

but it practice it almost always does at this time. I'd have to see things be different than they have been to support it. If things change then I'm open to changing my mind on it.

However that issue is not at all related to same-sex marriage, and I am very strongly in support of that.

[Cleita]

50. What if it were the marriage of a woman with more than one husband?

Would you consider it male dominance then. Some societies do allow for polyandry too. I think the consenting adults phrase applies here. Also, if a woman likes her husband to dominate her, it is her choice. I have known many women who do. They don't want the responsibility of making decisions for the family.

[LeftishBrit]

51. I agree on this

It would reinforce male dominance very seriously.

And by definition, only some of the men in a society would be able to have multiple wives, so that social, legal and financial inequalities between monogamous and polygamous families would be created and reinforced.

In particular, I think it would create severe problems both in (1) establishing eligibility for family-related state benefits (and would be virtually incompatible with the establishment or maintenance of any form of welfare state); and (2) in equitable solutions to property disputes.

I know people may say "but it would be OK if women can also have multiple husbands" - but this simply would never happen to any extent.
It virtually never occurs in polygamous societies.

I'm not a believer in throwing someone in jail for having several partners, but I also don't believe in formal recognition of such unions as marriages with the associated legal and financial rights.

I also support gay marriage, and don't think polygamy is in the same category.