What is wrong with polygamy?

[ringmastery]

One of the arguments from the right is that if gay marriage is legalized other alternative marriages may one day become legal too. Sort of like a slippery slope. I think this is a weak argument but other than for religous reasons, what is wrong with polygamy? If a man loves two women and wants both of them as their wives and they agree to it, what's the harm?

[drdigi420]

1. as long as all are consenting adults...

not a goddamned thing

[arewethereyet]

2. besides the legal nightmare if things turn south

the women will never really be OK with it.

[ringmastery]

3. but nothing is to stop

a woman from having two husbands.

[shimmergal]

5. Hey, it could work the other way.

What about one woman deciding she wants several husbands? It happens (though not verey publicly.) Would the guys be OK with that?

[geniph]

130. And you know this how?

I know a number of families who consider themselves married - and they are, in all but the legal sense - which have more than one wife.

[hansberrym]

4. A man can not serve two masters n/t

[BrotherBuzz]

14. She's who must be obeyed? n/t

[Madrone]

6. As with prostitution, I wish the morality police

would mind their own effing business!

Do I think polygamy or prostitution is GOOD? Not really - but hell, I don't have to BE a prostitute, nor do I have to join in a polygamous marriage.

The only real problem I have with polygamy is the religious control issue that can play a part in it. Men marrying young girls, etc.

Other than that - if that's your bag, more power to ya!

[K8-EEE]

7. It Happens All The Time In Utah.

The problem with it is the same with Christians (Mormons) as with Muslims....it creates a society where women are totally merchandise traded by male relatives.

Those little towns on the AZ & UT border...you see a lot of guys with trailers full of 15 & 16 year old "brides" that are daughters of their cousins or whatever, for gov. purposes they are "single moms" and they guy controls all the checks, it is the most disgusting thing.

[MI Cherie]

20. I am shocked!

Taxpayer money supporting "single moms" and rapists? What is this world coming to?

[bleedingheart]

8. I personally don't think polygamy works without religious overtones

and loads of cult like training.

I am sorry but general human nature makes it hard for me to believe that any two, three or eight women would mind sharing the same man...or even the reverse for that matter without some sort of cockeyed system.

Based on what I have read there is a lot of infighting and social manipulation in those relationships that makes it uncomfortable.

[Charlls]

10. i think you need to read about matriarchal societies

What you said is not true, its only a characteristic of patriarchal societies


http://www.saunalahti.fi/penelope/Feminism/matrifoc.html
http://www.promatriarchy.net/congress/matriarchal_societies.html


in matriarchal societies are two kind of marriages: individual marriage (which is exactly like our marriage; one woman, one man) And collective marriage, where all sons of two mother clans marry all the daughters. Dont ask me how this works out :) but its been working out for eons, and its likely to work for a couple decades more until patriarchal expansionist societies start to compete for space with these and hence, dissappear (or become absorbed)

[bleedingheart]

12. I'll take a look at those later...

thanks for posting them.

[Beaker]

25. plenty of polyamorous relationships do just fine-

it isn't always about two women sharing one man- it's better when it's about three people sharing each other.

[Muddleoftheroad]

27. Sure, I want to legalize that

I can just imagine the custody battles for children. A two-person divorce is horrible enough. Now, Johnny, you get to split time with your 17 parents...

Thankfully, I will be long dead before the electorate even vaguely considers this.

[Beaker]

44. 17 parents?

how did 3 become 17? did you take different math than me?
and why would it be any worse a situation than a woman divorced twice with 4 kids by 3 different fathers? or something similar to that...?
but because the woman's ultimately failed relationships all started under the banner of "holy" matrimony, it's OK because her heart & mind were in the right place...?

[cprise]

47. That's what you'd be asking for real

...on day when your town is NUKED by divorce proceedings.

"How did 3 become 17??? He said he was going to stop at 3!"

So did Liz Taylor. :)

[Beaker]

49. ????

I gess i'm missing whatever it is you seem to be trying to articulate...

[Muddleoftheroad]

59. It was hyperbole to make a point

If there is no limit to two, then there is no limit to three, four, five and so on.

Actually, it would be different than serial monogomy. Each parenting issue is decided one at a time, with the mother typically receiving primacy of place. In the situation you describe, it is reasonable to assume both fathers would have some claim, the mother would clearly have claim and the biological father would have more claim than the non-biological father.

With each additional parent, divorce gets more complex and custody more difficult.

[kitkatrose]

77. Okay, we're talking about polyandry right?

Why would the non biological father have any claim?

[Muddleoftheroad]

119. The same reason stepfathers have claim

They develop a bond with the child.

[geniph]

132. In the poly families I know

(and granted, they don't have legal status as such) there's not any doubt which are a particular child's primary parents. It's easy enough to establish which are biological parents, and it's generally not a problem of everybody wanting to claim they're little Johnny's daddy. That's really a straw man argument, and what a lot of people are ignoring is that there are MANY more people than you probably realize living in essentially polygamous families today. MANY.

Many other cultures have practiced polygamy - both polygyny and polyandry - successfully for centuries. Our way is not the only way.

[K8-EEE]

40. Plenty Of Polyamorous Relationships Are Trainwrecks

...see Jerry Springer.

[cprise]

43. And then you have a LEGAL trainwreck

I mean... holy crap! I don't want to be anywhere near the town where that crash occurs.

Of course, It's not a problem if a) you're rich, and b) you live in Arabia.

[ringmastery]

51. it doesn't have to be a legal trainwreck

Require all polygamous marriages to sign a pre-nuptial agreement. Make that the law.

[cprise]

54. A de-facto surrender of rights!

Here we go AGAIN. It always comes back to the same legal impulse with polygamists.

It doesn't matter what you try to exempt yourself from in a pre-nup... a departing spouse can always find some legal issue to make your lives hell. And then money doesn't even matter at that point, esp. because the chances of more wifes doing the same has risen a million-fold and what you need is to be protected from divorce ITSELF just for life to be livable anymore.

Its just creating a class of people looking for SOME way, some place where they can outlaw divorce.

[Beaker]

46. So are a lot of supposedly monogomous relationships-

-see jerry springer.

your point?

[PVnRT]

73. Plenty of monogamous relationships are train wrecks

...see, well, everywhere.

[tigerbeat]

125. and every monogamous relationship is....

...is a smoothly running train?

[Old and In the Way]

9. Based on my monogamous experience,

you'd have to be outta yer gourd to want more than one husband/wife.

:-)

[bleedingheart]

11. I agree with you...

I love my spouse but there is something to be said for quality "alone" time.. and with multiple spouses I doubt that would exist...

[mac56]

61. The inherent flaw with polygamy -

is more than one set of in-laws.

[Third Eye]

91. Funny stuff

There's also the children. Personally, I think polygamy, more than anything, denegrates women. The man gets his lustful desires fulfilled, but the woman has to wait for however long before she gets her natural need for love and affection satisfied? That doesn't seem fair. And I doubt you're going to get many men volunteering for a polyandrous relationship. The main reason is the religious objection.

[shimmergal]

106. Only if polygamous marriages expect the same "togetherness" as

we look for in American marriages. I agree. It can be hard to live with even one other person. But it's infinitely harder when the "ideal" is to share and agree on almost everything.

[Muddleoftheroad]

13. Get used to this question

The right will be asking it all through the election. They see, rightly so from this thread, that gay marriage will open the door to discussions of polygamy.

For the record, I massively support gay marriage and massively oppose polygamy.

[cprise]

19. Interracial marriage didn't lead to bestiality

...and gay marriage won't lead to polygamy.

These questions always come up when marriage is re-evaluated. It means we're doing a good job of balancing at the top of the slope and can see everything, not that we're sliding down it.

[Muddleoftheroad]

24. It doesn't lead to it

But it leads to it in the political world, which is just as bad. If we change the definition of marriage (we should, btw), that leaves open the question what is the new definition.

Can parents marry children? Why or why not? Can brothers marry sisters? Can couples marry couples? After all, it's consenting adults, right?

This is the way the right will attack this issue and discussions of polygamy only play into their hands.

[cprise]

32. Did we change the definition of voting in the Constitution

...in order to include non-whites and women in elections?

No, voting is the same as it ever was. It was discrimination that was outlawed to make the change in access possible.

Just remind them we are talking about gays, period, and if they want to link gay relationships to incest, they can just as well harrass an inter-racial couple about it for all you care... It's not the topic of discussion.

Or, to make it simpler, after they ask all those questions, ask them "Can you stop re-using stupid questions from people who were against inter-racial marriage?"

Or...

"Do you think woman should vote? Yes? Then what about foreigners and children? They're not mentioned in the Constitution either."

We, as liberals, need to be well-versed in the rightful expansion of franchise. The kind of examples you're giving me don't even require a non-rhetorical reply.

[Muddleoftheroad]

60. The franchise

When people on our own side clearly want to "expand the franchise" to include polygamy. When there are pro-polygamy people out there who will file suit the second the marriage laws are changed, then it's an issue we must contend with.

[Qanisqineq]

15. I'm for it

if I can have two husbands

[K8-EEE]

37. No Way -- One Is All I Can Handle!

Two would be the end of me!

[Yupster]

69. What about if a person wants to have

one husband and one wife?

[solinvictus]

16. Getting nagged by multiple wives!

[K8-EEE]

35. Where Are You Going? Where Are You Going? Where Are You Going?

out...

Out!

OUT!!

[fortyfeetunder]

52. -- and don't forget multiple mother in laws!

If I could do polyandry (more than one husband), they would all have to be orphans!

[mac56]

62. Hey, 40' -

See post 61.

GMTA!

[randr]

17. Crowded bathroom

[cprise]

18. Polygamy is about dominating relatively powerless people

Consider the threat of divorce. This could bring the lives of dozens of people in such a family crashing to the ground. Then you are looking at legal havoc and the possibility of more divorces for years.

I think this is why polygamy provides such a strong incentive to disenfranchise women. You have to foster a culture of ignorance and disempowerment, and escape a liberal definition of marriage and individual rights, to make it work. Otherwise, you end up with an unstable hippie commune; then people just fight and call it off (and if you're lucky, no one sues over the complex property issues).

And if you're a kid growing up in this environment, either way you're probably dealing with one or more "sister-moms" who hate and possibly abuse you because they're jealous of your birth mom. And that's just for starters.

I often think that what people really want when they consider polygamy is either a) polyamory, or b) to live in a commune. But sometimes what they want is traditional polygamy replete with repressive religious fundamentalism.

[lapislzi]

121. Excellent distinction: polygamy vs polyamory

If people can handle polyamory, good for them. It probably goes on de facto all the time. What the polyamorous group would need is some kind of legal protection. They could probably effect that by forming a corporation.

As for the polygamous power thing, I think you have a point, although heaven knows plenty of kids get fucked up in conventional settings too. Getting to the root of the power thing is a totally different matter. Polygamy is simply one of the more overt manifestations of patriarchal values run amok.

As long as adequate legal protections are in place, I think these arrangements can work among consenting adults.

Personally, I am not threatened by anyone's legal, property, or sexual arrangements, as long as they do not infringe on my own rights.

[cprise]

177. Protect polygamists AGAINST THE LAW??? Hello?

Over and over again, when pressed to defend polygamists people keep saying vague things about how they have to be protected from the courts in order for their relationships to survive.

Un F-ing real.

Lets turn marriage into the prison it used to be, x 10!!! Why not just set up wife-battering classes then lock people in rooms and let the men have at it?

You think the "polygamists" in this thread are nice? Deserve more marriage than they have now? I'd say they're pretty dubious if they don't give a damn about all the young/wealthy/oversexed men following in their wake with a harem of naive girls who find out too late that polygamy is not for them; but fear not, their relationship has special "protections" so quarrels and divorce doesn't put dozens of people at a time through legal hell... no they will be safely imprisoned in a virtually divorce-free legal zone where police fear to tread.


The idea behind * GAY * marriage is that gay spouses will have all the * SAME * rights and responsibilities as straight people if they choose to be married. But the people advocating polygamy in this thread are proposing legal cop-outs for the polygamists, reduced rights and responsibilities, to make their relationships viable.

There is this shallow tendency to promote similar conditions to rural Utah, without even realizing it. Talk about political correctness gone out of control; being liberal isn't supposed to imply a brain-ectomy.

[PVnRT]

187. Eh?

You love making strawmen, don't you?

"But the people advocating polygamy in this thread are proposing legal cop-outs for the polygamists, reduced rights and responsibilities, to make their relationships viable."

Really? Where? Where is anyone saying that polyamorous couples should get reduced rights? And why do you persist in buying into the myth that this arguement is about 'necks in Utah who want to have thirty teenage brides, when that stereotype has been torn down plenty of times on this thread?

[Snappy]

21. If a woman...

wishes to marry several men what's wrong with that?

[Beaker]

22. There are plenty of people with polyamorous relationships-

and there's nothing "wrong" with them just because they choose to live that way.
why shouldn't they be allowed to make the situation legal?

[cprise]

26. Polyamory is not polygamy

What's good about a polyamorous relationship is that it's legal just the way it is: without marriage.

If you want to be rampant, be rampant. No one is stopping you. But don't clog up MY court system because one attempt at divorce causes your hippie commune to blow itself up and everyone is suing each other for the next 8 years.

[Third Eye]

92. The case against "alternative" marriages.

Boy did you hit the nail on the head. Where there's marriage there's divorce. The problem with the Republicans' objection to gay marriage is that marriage, on a governmental level, is a contractual relationship. How can anyone prevent two consenting adults engaging in legal activity from joining into a contract that other consenting adults engage in? I'm not "for" gay marriage, but I don't see how it doesn't become law the way the legal books are written. By the way, what's the big objection to civil unions? One minute, it's a huge victory, then the next, it's not enough. I guess I don't understand.

[cprise]

180. It's consistent

Although gays disagree about marriage / civil unions, making a law that says only heteros can ever be married is very differnt. It defines gay relationships as forever outside the possibility of marriage, and by extension a gay person has no inherent CAPACITY for married life in the government's eyes and becomes an anti-marriage issue to be overcome by a marriage-promotion counselor (one Bush's proposed programs).

Its similar to the Nazis decreeing that only Germans can own certain kinds of property, and Jews/others by extension are deemed unfit to care for some of the land they do own (or could buy). Therefore, the government has to do something about them.

It sets a precedent to reinforce a second-class status based on some fundamental personal trait.

[Charlls]

23. the question here is not about if you would "do it"

the question is if you will support the right of others to "do it" if they see fit

in other words, the question is, how progressive are your views about family?

[cprise]

28. Polygamy is regressive

It needs an absense of liberalism and individual rights for the relationships to survive.

[opihimoimoi]

29. And here I thought this was the Land of the FREE

I guess not.

[K8-EEE]

34. Well There Ya Go -- An Actual Freeper Argument Comes To Life!

That's what they said -- that if you have gay marriages you have to have polygamy, incest and child molestation. You DO see the problem with the last two don't you?

[Charlls]

36. excuse me, what has to do child molestation

with polygamy, or for what it matters, with this whole marriage discussion at all??

[K8-EEE]

38. I'm Just Saying, That Is One Of The Arguments

...against gay marriage (which I support) is that it would lead to polygamy, incest, child brides etc....

Which I thought was dumb but here I see people tying polygamy in with gay marriage so I guess that had a point that people would do that.

Orrin Hatch said: don't lump gays in with polygamists, I know lots of nice polygamists.

HE REALLY DID!

[Beaker]

48. incest & child brides are not about CONSENTING Adults-

that's where the obvious difference is, in regard to that hollow argument.

[Llewlladdwr]

56. Maybe not child brides...

But incest could most certainly be about consenting adults. Once over the age of 18 what right does society have to tell me that I can't marry my sister? Or mother?

[Muddleoftheroad]

127. The concept of pregnancy

Inbreeding is harmful to society and that is why such unions are unlawful.

[Llewlladdwr]

178. You need to do better than that.

We routinely allow people to marry that have a much greater chance than siblings of producing offspring with some sort of defect. In fact, we really don't even do much checking. Would you argue that two persons with Down's syndrome shouldn't be allowed to marry either? How 'bout two folks with family histories of cancer?

[cprise]

41. It most certainly is

But that doesn't mean you can take a Girl Scout troop and demand they be given all the rights of a corporation.

Of course, there are myriad good reasons why non-profits must not take on the rights and responsbilities of corporations.

Does that mean the Girl Scouts aren't free?

[Charlls]

31. i think you have to argue that a little better

If you would say that in matriarchal societies, individual privacy is absent from family life, i would agree with you

Saying that such a structure is 'regressive' is essentialy patriarchal thinking; individual privacy is overrated in such a way so the collective familiar life can be broken down; this is an essential step to serialize the intervention of the patriarchal-society-state into each family, destroying the preexisting social patterns and turning it into processed goods

its so disgusting im dizzy

[cprise]

39. This sounds like Dr. Laura

...or Rush Limbaugh.

OK, so individual rights are <some-bad-word> now, interfering with the family "collective".

OK, so "pre-existing social patterns" are to be mourned, no matter how opressive they were.

Well no, this is nicely re-worded conservatism. You just want to trade-in the father figure for big mamma.

I think I've just demonstrated the knee-jerk tendency to dispense with individual rights and trade it for something more "preexisting" or primeval.

[Charlls]

42. so for you family equates opression?

don't you think that such an equation is the symptom of something going really bad?

Im not apologizing *any* type of pre-existing social pattern. _Specially_ not the one where "lets respect family member privacy" is an excuse to put more distance between already splitted standard families

So you want to save people from disgusting cultural ideologization in their families, and you propose to substitute them with the good ol' consume & obey doctrine Media feeds us constantly with?

so im the conservative?

[cprise]

45. For me, family includes individualism

A healthy family does not put the "collective" or family values above all else. That's a wife-beaters excuse to keep the cops out.

If you think consumerism is attacking your family, why not join a commune?

[Charlls]

50. i think you have to understand how does it work

before jumping into such conclusions, a small read about it wont hurt you

http://www.promatriarchy.net/congress/matriarchal_societies.html


btw, 'consumerism' is not the issue. Just as 'pornography' is not the issue. 'pornography', just as 'consumerism' sell sexual/lifestyle patterns. The issue is, what is what gives people criteria to stand against the constant adoctrination they receive from the Mainstream Media? wasnt that, like the unique role of family values?

[K8-EEE]

33. If Nothing Else...A Legal Nightmare

Having multiple spouses divorce you, multiple families/estates involved in every marriage? Not to mention the kids of all the different wives duking it out for inheritances etc., and separating all the half-siblings in a divorce situation.

It's not good for society. Frankly, when the women have a SAY in it, it's pretty rare; which explains the tendency of polygamous societies to deal in child brides.

[burrowowl]

Well since there are more women than

men, how about polyandry.
More logical.

[veganwitch]

68. i think you are getting your root words confused

polygamy comes from poli-many, more than one, gamy/gamos- marriage

gyny is the root for women. thus gynecology, misogyny.

[DU GrovelBot]

30. ## Support Democratic Underground! ##

RUN C:\GROVELBOT.EXE
 
This week is our first quarter 2004 fund drive.
Please take a moment to donate to DU. Thank you
for your support.
 
- An automated message from the DU GrovelBot

Click here to donate.

[onebigbadwulf]

53. A better question...

if marriage is sacred, where's the no-divorce laws? where's the no-remarriage laws?

[Hamlette]

55. it's not economically viable

as practiced now. Polygamists in Utah believe in women staying home and having kids. The majority of them are on public assistance.

[DjTj]

57. If the same benefits were conferred, everyone would get married...

...a bunch of guys living in a house together might just get married so they only need to buy one health insurance policy.

...if your friend lost his job, you could just glom him on to your current marriage so you get a tax deduction.

...if I could claim a whole lot of wives in China I could bump them up the immigration list.

They would have to rewrite a lot of the rules if marriage was no longer monogamous - it would create much bigger procedural issues than gay marriage.

[Gadave]

58. Of course it should be legal

Marriage needs to be a solely religious institution and taken awak from the government. If your church or whatever it is you go to wants to have gay marriage so be it.

That being said, the government should only enforce the finacial agreements between people. Business partners do it all the time. If 3 families want to share assets and live together they should be allowed to merge their assests legally.

[OhioStateProgressive]

63. one of many reasons why I believe it is wrong morally

We should try to live humble existences. In a world where many humans cannot find mates because of societal constructs about beauty and self worth, it is a sign of moral excess to allow some people to have multiple mates. It would provide a deepening sense of lonliness for those without, only to serve the existential pleasures of those with.

[OKNancy]

65. Profound

Wow, I never thought of it that way. I just thought it was wrong because it degrades women.
There is a lot of macho puffing going on in this and other threads, but when you come right down to it, most people would love a lasting love commitment with one person. To love and to be loved, who wouldn't want that as an ultimate goal.

[OhioStateProgressive]

67. thanks

I didn't want to sound like I was whining, but I think many people, when they think about love, fail to think about the people who go without (not by choice)

I may be jaded, but I had to put it out there

[Llewlladdwr]

179. Bah.

If you believe it's wrong, then by all means don't partake. I see no great virtue in a humble life myself. Guess I'm just not the ascetic type.

[OKNancy]

64. It's easy to argue this: marriage equals conservative values

Conservative writer David Brooks wrote about the positive values of gay marriage. He said that one would think the "we" conservatives should encourage commitment and stable relationships.

Equating polyagmy and gay marriage doesn't wash. It is just the opposite. Marriage establishes a commitment to a common goal, and to a family. These are things conservatives believe in. Immoral behavior in the conservative mind is numerous sex partners. Gay marriage, one could argue, could stem this "immoral behavior".

[Jane Roe]

66. good issue for a federalist approach

That is: allowing states to set the law here on a state-by-state basis -- maybe appropriate amendments to the full faith and credit clause could help make the state-by-state approach really work.

McReynolds and some of the other cases from the 1800s (Making polygamy a national law issue) would need to be overturned, but that is okay, because those decisions were ridiculous anyway.

[Ilsa]

70. My four husbands think it's great.

I tend to be a little tired, though.

[grisvador]

105. But are you Happy?

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

71. Is polygamy a sexual orientation?

It seems as if they are just like straight or gay people, except are sexually attracted to more than one person?

[veganwitch]

75. polyamory v. polygamy

there are many definitions of the first so the easiest why to think of it as an open group relationship amoung consenting adults. its more committed than swinging or group sex. there can be any combination of people, all women, all men, mixes of both etc.

polygamy is traditionally defined as a man having more than one wife.

by the way, a lawyer who know alternative law can help set up legal arrangements for folks who are poly and want to have some legal protection to children, financial inheritance etc.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

76. do you think people choose to be polyamorous?

genetic link? biological cause? nature and nurture?

btw, thanks - yes polyamorous is the right word :)

[veganwitch]

89. i believe that all people have the ability to love...

(including sexual attraction) more than one person at a time, and sometimes more than one sex at a time.

Its what you "choose" to do with that ability.

i am speaking as a bisexual female currently in a singly committed hetrosexual relationship (and pregnant with my first) but i would not cross out the possibility for a poly relationship in the future, if we met the right people.

polyamory requires a lot of communication and trust among the parties involved. its not for everyone, nor should it be jumped into quickly. there are safety issues, emotional issues, financial issues. its like a regular relationship, but bigger, and therefore requires bigger work and responsibility.

some people will resist "sharing" their partner so for them to get into a group relationship, its probably not the best thing. but i do know a few poly folk and for them, it works.

[tigerbeat]

126. currently in a polyamorous relationship....

....we're both bisexual and poly and i can attest that it is hard work. but at the end of the day it creates a deeper trust/bond than i ever had in monogamous relationships. i'm sure the idea offends plenty of people, but as long as people are consenting adults, people should be allowed to be polyamorous, polygamous, polyandrous, whatever....

[geniph]

134. I'm glad to see my husband and I aren't the only ones

We're also poly and bi, tigerbeat. And I know a LOT of couples who fit that description. We're all around you, folks. We're no different from you, just maybe a little less possessive.

Because polyamory requires open communication to work well (lying and hiding things is cheating), it fosters communication within a relationship, which tends, at least for me, to lead to much greater trust and security.

[geniph]

133. Polygyny is a man having more than one wife

Polyandry is a woman having more than one husband.

Polygamy is EITHER. I hate when people mix up polygamy and polygyny.

[PVnRT]

72. If ALL the parties involved consent to it

I have no problem with it. Same thing for a woman who wants more than one husband.

See, as long as adults consent to it, I find nothing wrong with it.

[OhioStateProgressive]

74. well

What it would do is create a class of second class citizens who can't find one mate, while promoting the pleasures of the few who can find many.

[PVnRT]

78. We have that already

That group is already there thanks to popular media today. And, frankly, I don't think the government should be involved in people's love lives, either helping or hindering. This is a legal issue between two or more consenting adults - anything else just involves the morality police.

[OhioStateProgressive]

81. no

We do have it already, but to allow it to become doubly worse is wrong.

I refuse to argue the rest of your point because it is a right vs. wrong issue...to support the right of unlimited, legalized carnal pleasures of some while knowing that it would only benefit a small majority while making a much larger segment of people feel worse about themselves, is wrong

[PVnRT]

82. Since when

is government in the business of making everyone happy? And your "point" that there will suddenly be these few people that manage to attract dozens and dozens of mates is simply silly. The vast majority of people will stick with monogomous relationships, as they always have, and will refuse any type of polyamorous relationship. Period.

[OhioStateProgressive]

83. not silly

Quite frankly I am offended at your post. I am not continuing this. To promote the pleasure of some at the expense of others is immoral. End of Message.

[PVnRT]

87. I guess you're for prohibition then

I mean, people get drunk and hurt others, essentially preventing their happiness, so you are promoting the pleasure of the minority (drinkers) at the expense of everyone else.

Maybe if you'd actually address anything I wrote, we could have a discussion, but I guess that's too much for you.

[OhioStateProgressive]

90. im for responsible drinking

I'm not addressing what you wrote because I find it offensive

I find it fucking offensive that while I can't find a goddamn girlfriend, there are people wankering on about their right to have unlimted marriage partners.

It's wrong.

[veganwitch]

93. so this sounds like a jealousy issue

which is not going to be fixed be governmental law.

[OhioStateProgressive]

94. no

And, your post is very offensive.

It's called understanding that I am not the only person to feel the way I do...and knowing that people who feel this way are generally ashamed of it...I will choose to speak up so others may think of more than themselves before they speak.

[DemLikr]

95. I doubt it's the government's place to guarantee my or your dating pool

, whether by its size or quality.

It could also be argued that if you or I can't find a mate, then from an evolutionary standpoint we don't deserve one, and natural selection will prevail.

That said, try the internet.

Also, the weakest of arguments I can imagine is "I find your perspective offensive." So what? There's nothing on earth that doesn't offend SOMEONE...get over it and support your position with reason and facts.

[OhioStateProgressive]

96. I am not arguing

It could also be said that America is a morally degenerate society, and elitist liberals who believe only the thin and pretty deserve to find mates ruin the ability of left based politics the chance to work

Are people so happy in their glass houses to state that those without mates must be meant to be without?

Is it so offensive for someone to identify these problems, whether by first hand knowledge, or logical understanding?

I would rather be aware, and have enough compassion to understand that these types of arguments serve only to hurt the feelings of people left behind

I refuse to accept this exchange of postings as a debate...I am comfortable in knowing that when I go to bed at night, lonely or not, I live up to the ideals I have...I speak up

[PVnRT]

97. I am one of those "left behind" that you speak of

However, I live up to MY ideals that say that individual liberty trumps all.

But what the hell, I guess it's not a debate unless you think it is.

[OhioStateProgressive]

100. blech

I'll stick with equality any day.

I don't care if my arrogance bothers you...this society is fucking degenerate and I will always state it.

[PVnRT]

Then leave

I'm sure non-degenerate societies like Saudi Arabia will be much more to your liking.

[OhioStateProgressive]

103. yeah, a society that allows polygamy

good one

I am glad I learned right from wrong, and how not to hurt other peopels feelings when I was young

It serves me well.

[PVnRT]

104. Well you're just SO MUCH better than me

Excuse me, I need to go around and hurt the feelings of random people, because apparently I'm too stupid to know the difference.

Please, OH PLEASE teach me how to be morally pure like you, so that we may FORCE everyone to be just like that!

[OhioStateProgressive]

111. say what you want

You can accuse me of trying to be morally pure, I don't care.

[DemLikr]

101. My right hand has been a very stable, loving, fulfilling partner

over the years...and never has a headache.

I suggest you find a likewise suitable mate; it's right there by your side.

:)

[OhioStateProgressive]

102. this is just wrong

I can't even comment on how wrong this post is

[DemLikr]

117. You are morally opposed to hand-human sex?

Not very open-handed of you!

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[OhioStateProgressive]

118. ok, that was funny

I must question the open hand though...the goal isn't to stove it.


I just thought your earlier post was very rude...I mean if the goal in life is love...if love truly is the answer, then why would a person make a rude comment to someone who is raising a voice in support of those who haven't or feel they can't?

my bringing up my own lack of a girlfriend was a very direct example...I could have a girlfriend, I am well aware of that

But since I know the topic made me feel a certain way, others may feel that way as well

[grisvador]

108. But if you use the other hand

Do you feel guilty?

[DemLikr]

116. No, in fact we often engage in a Menag a trois...

...this is a very open, loving, trilygamous relationship.

[veganwitch]

123. about size

have you seen most people in the poly/swing community? most are over 50 and thusly are not necessarily what society would call "thin and pretty." but they are fabulously fun people who love themselves, others and life for what it is and the many ways it presents itself.

[OhioStateProgressive]

124. well

I just don't agree with you, I am sorry.

I believe in the convictions I have, I uphold them and keep as true to myself as I can.

A post was made that asked if 'it is wrong', I believe it is and said why I believe that way.

Maybe I am a prude

[veganwitch]

129. what dont you agree with

that the poly community isnt older?

or that they dont love life and other regardless of outer appearance?

[OhioStateProgressive]

144. i don't doubt either of those claims

But I still disagree with what you are saying, because you are justifying the action.

I just disagree that any factor makes it acceptable morally.

[PVnRT]

98. What makes you think

that I am "wankering on" about wanting multiple partners simply because I am arguing for individual liberty? I haven't had a date in months, haven't had sex for over a year. I can't even get a nibble when it comes to the dating scene, so cut this shit off about how people are being selfish and taking women away from you.

[veganwitch]

137. where you at??

i got another whole half of the bed that isnt currently being used except by my cats. ;)

[PVnRT]

161. Far away

Assuming you're in Rhode Island...and I like eating meat...oh well.

[John BigBootay]

155. This'll sound like I'm a religious conservative...

But I'm not. Hardly.

I can find no legal or constitutional reason to prohibit marriage between a single man/woman and multiple spouses. Nor can I find a prohibition for gay marriage, animal / human marriage, living / dead marriage, animal / plant marriage-- you name it.

And so I am tacitly in favor of extending such rights.

HOWEVER, this is one reason why Rome fell. Corruption in politics, overextension of the Empire and essentially zero adherance to cultural taboos and mores.

[grisvador]

107. But what about

the "geeks" in college who have no one now - while their dorm mate has 6 girlfriends. No on is married but women and men are attracted to someone who is successful. Do we change so much by taking a marriage vow? Many men and women continue to have affairs after marriage - keeping those who do not have someone from attaining their desires. Legal machinations will not change this, regardless of whether the laws change or remain the same.

[OhioStateProgressive]

112. you are right

I'm not arguing the legalities

Just the moral issue.

[geniph]

135. Okay, let's take that example a bit further

Five geeks in college who have no spouses have a dormmate who has six spouses (note I am not referring to either gender here). Is it "unfair" of the multiply-married one to "hog" all the available partners? Only if you consider those mates as a commodity and assume that, if they were not mated to that person, they would automatically seek out the five unmated geeks. Both assumptions are false. If I have two husbands, that does not mean I'm taking a husband from another woman, unless one of the two would unquestionably seek that woman for a wife if I were unavailable. Can I guarantee that if I don't marry Joe Blow in addition to my current husband, that Jane Doe will not be alone because Joe will marry her? No I cannot.

Making it legal doesn't change who people are attracted to, nor will it "take" partners from the unpartnered. The unpartnered are solo under our current system.

I agree with grisvador.

[PVnRT]

163. Exactly!

Polyamory, frankly, appeals to a fairly small segment of the population as it is (that is, in a healthy polyamorous relationship, not some frat guy's lesbian fantasy). And an excellent point about women as commodities vs. human beings capable of making their own choices in life. You put it into words better than I have been doing on this thread.

[shimmergal]

110. This already happens.

If you're rich or beautiful, or just willing to devote a _lot_ of time and effort to finding "soul mates", it's not so hard to have several (not legally, but in fact.) Actually, I think few people want to invest that large a percentage of their time & energy that way. Those who do (either serially or at the same time) may be driven by stronger than "normal" needs for emotional support and/or ego support.

[Must_B_Free]

79. usually invloves young women not quite old enough

to consent with the proper perspective.

But it was obviously a necessity of the cult to grow their own. Now that it is un-PC they have abandoned it.

[PVnRT]

80. Please actually read my post

"Consenting adults" - is there something ambiguous about that statement, or what?

[9215]

84. I'll tell you what's wrong with it

It doesn't give women the right to have multiple husbands. ;)

[geniph]

136. Again, you're confusing polygamy with polygyny

Polygamy does indeed include women with multiple husbands.

[Selwynn]

85. What's wrong is that I am skeptical that most polygamy relationships...

...are truly concensual. Most are for religious reasons and are about power relationships of the man in dominance over women. They idea of speaking of those kind of relationships as between two equally consenting adults is a joke, and the state should protect the powerless.

[PVnRT]

88. What about

the ones that are fully consented by all involved? Do you deny them their right to have that kind of a relationship simply because some abuse it?

[Charlls]

113. Polygamy MUST BE UNDERSTOOD

in the wide sense: marriage of (one or more) men with (one or more) women. If you would actually read my links about Matriarchal societies you wouldnt be up with this senseless confusion

[kcwayne]

86. My guess is that divorce lawyers would HATE it!

Divorce would be so outrageously complicated and expensive only the absurdly wealthy could afford it.

[amazona]

99. if you want to end family insurance coverage by all means...

...press the polygamy issue. Insurers are already looking for excuses to provide health insurance ONLY to the employed and not the spouse or children. It's getting tougher and often impossible for small companies and self-employeds to get coverage -- and then they would have to consider that we might be looking to get coverage for all our friends too?

Child labor will need to be brought back so the kiddies can work enough hours to qualify for coverage. Or kiddies and spice won't be covered at all and will die from the usual poor public health care, which causes many U.S. inner cities to have infant mortality rates at a par with Bangladesh.

If you are serious about polygamy, you need to attack the entire capitalist framework first. If you just want an excuse to bed lots of women, you can do that without the gov't stamp of approval surely. Sorry if I sound harsh but in practice polygamy is used to exploit teen-age girls 99 percent of the time. It's one of those supposedly beautiful ideals that just doesn't work real world. As men age they need Viagra to cope with the demands of ONE woman, and they think they need multiples? Please.

[shimmergal]

114. I agree. Polygamy doesn't fit well with our culture.

Not only now with capitalism, but not with the type of expectations our child-rearing patterns etc. inculcate.

On the other hand, family insurance coverage doesn't make much sense logically, or from a humanitarian standpoint. Why should somebody's access to medical care be dependent upon a legally recognized sexual bond?

Universal health insurance would avoid this problem. The sooner, the better! (We've already waited since Harry Truman's admin.)

[Charlls]

115. that is like to say that our culture

isnt wide enough to tolerate such different cultures?

[Muddleoftheroad]

128. Or that we set reasonable limits on some things

[Charlls]

147. reasonable limits according to whose moral?

yours? or the one of the holy roman church?

[Muddleoftheroad]

149. Society

As a group, society gets to choose and set limits.

[Charlls]

152. so you accept to live in a society that excludes other cultures?

see that polygamy is not related in any way with domination-of-man-over-woman thing at all (which would indeed compromise it with other principles); this is demostrated in polynesian families, where polygamy exists, however their society are tight matriarchates

[Muddleoftheroad]

165. In a word

Yes.

All cultures are not equal. All practices are not acceptable.

I won't accept female genital mutilation even though it is commonly practiced.

[Charlls]

172. you still fail to argue how polygamy can be compared to genital mutilation

[Greyskye]

109. Polygamy vs. Polyamory

For all of y'all who don't get the differences between polygamy, polyandry, and polyamory, get thee hence to http://www.polyamory.org and educate yourselves.

A polyamorous relationship is definitely not for everyone, but for crying out loud, know what you're talking about before you spout off your collective 'wisdom', eh? :grouphug:

[geniph]

139. Thank you, Greyskye

I feel like I'm listening to a roomful of people who've never heard classical music debate the relative merits of Beethoven vs. Mozart.

[cprise]

171. True. The "polygamists" here don't know what they're talking about.

Because they aren't... polygamists.

[Charlls]

173. i dont have to be a polygamist

to support their right to do so. Cultures have the right to exist as long as there are humans willing to live under them, and other Cultures have the duty to respect those existences

[cprise]

176. There is no inherent difference or right involved

You seem confused.

Polygamy is a legal construct, not a culture. If it is a culture, then you have no business imposing it on the courts.

[Mattforclark]

120. Nothing

[Skittles]

138. so you'd be all for your teenage daughter being the fifth wife

of some disgusting 50 year old piece of shit?

[Xithras]

145. Apples to oranges

I'd be opposed to my TEENAGE daughter being the wife of anybody, and I'd be opposed to my LEGAL AGED daughter being married to any "piece of shit".

But if my daughter wanted to marry into a polygamous household because she actually loved her fiancee, and if he was a good, decent man and they BOTH understood what they were doing, who the hell would I be to tell her no? How would opposing such a marriage be any less discriiminatory than opposing her marriage to another woman?

The polyphobia in this thread should be an embarassment to anyone who considers themselves liberal.

[Mattforclark]

150. Thanks

:)

[Muddleoftheroad]

153. Fortunately, I only consider myself a radical moderate

So I am not embarassed by the opposition to polygamy in all its forms.

I know that's not what you want to hear, but that's what a whole bunch of people are thinking, they just don't admit it.

Society does NOT have to approve every action that individuals wish to take. While I support gay marriage, I do not feel that America is ready to assess the infinite issues that would come from legalizing polygamy.

Is that unfair to you? Perhaps. But that doesn't prevent you from continuing your lifestyle. It merely prevents you from having a legal structure for it.

[PVnRT]

164. What issues?

Logically, if there are infinite issues related to legalizing it, you must know what some of them are. Most result from ignorance of the topic, which is not surprising in the Puritan America that we live in.

If the only legitimate arguments against the legal status of polygamous couples are based in religion and morality, then a secular government has NO RIGHT to ban it. Period.

[Muddleoftheroad]

166. Of course a government has the right

The people give it that right.

To provide for the common defense and promote the GENERAL welfare. That means, if we as a society consider polygamy to work against the general welfare, then we can ban it.

[PVnRT]

167. Our government

is also formed on the principle that the majority should never be allowed to be a tyranny - this leads to fascism, as other countries have found out.

Who decides if something is bad for the general welfare? What if the majority is wrong? The majority once thought that segregation was good for the general welfare, were they right then?

[Muddleoftheroad]

168. Our leaders

However, they get input from the general public. Kennedy and LBJ helped drag an unwilling America along on civil rights issues.

However, there is no similar constituency for polygamy. It is, at most, a micro-minority and most (I don't think I'm going out on a limb here) Americans view it as an unacceptably alternative lifestyle.

Again, no one is stopping people from swinging or whatever, but they can and are stopping a societal codifying of the act.

[Charlls]

174. it dont acceot that premise

"majority once thought that segregation was good for the general welfare"

I think majority accepted things without questioning them, just as they do now. However, had the debate the chance to arouse in a ideal democratical climate, i assure you no significant majority would have thought "segregation was good" in any way.

Spiral of silence theory asserts that a silent majority can maintain open standpoints near the widely accepted standpoints to be accepted. Once debate arise in a conscious level, isolated bubbles of people that share similar standpoints that are countermainstream can overcome the fear threshold to support them openly

I think that "majority" you say thought "segregation was good" was mostly silent acceptance

[PVnRT]

186. Is there a difference?

Whether they thought it was good or just silently accepted it, is the result different?

[Skittles]

156. UGH

that's all I have to say. I have yet to see one of those ladies interviewed who didn't look SCARED TO DEATH.

[Mattforclark]

160. So if those people are scared to death,

then they are probably being coerced. If they are being coerced, then the state can intervene. If they are not being coerced, then the state couldn't care less.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

122. Children. Period.

The problem with polygamy is the children. The two adults may consent, but the children that result for a man and his 5 or 15 different wives did not. They are then stuck in a situation where it can be easily argued is detrimental to the normal development of the child. Since this is an infringement on the child's rights, polygamy cannot be allowed to exist. There's a constitutional argument against polygamy for you.

[veganwitch]

140. that may be debatable

as children were often raised by the community and/or more than just two parents.

of course emotionally it will be very hard if people at school call you a freak or something but thats why most poly folk are older (so they dont have to worry about small children) or live in intentional communties or away from a society that will cause harm to them or their children for the way they live.

[Xithras]

141. Deleted

Didn't mean to post this as a reply

[geniph]

143. I didn't consent to my father bailing when I was six weeks old

and leaving my mother with six small children, either. So what? There were no laws preventing him from doing so. I fail to see in what way the rights of the children are a foolproof argument against polygamy.

In the poly families I know, the children benefit tremendously from having multiple adults around, and most have not the slightest doubt who is Mom and who is Dad. But I'm talking about families that are polyamorous, not this stereotype everyone has of the old patriarch with a houseful of teenage wives. Most of the kids are very cool with it.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

181. Actually, there are.

Dead-beat dad laws are in effect in most, if not all, states. Nice try though.

[PVnRT]

184. Yeah, and they're so well enforced, too

Ask my friend who grew up in a trailer with her sister and mother barely earning enough to survive, while dad lived down in Florida in a nice two story house with his second wife.

Nice try, though.

[Charlls]

146. if its "easily argued"

to be detrimental to the "normal development of the child"

why dont you argue such peculiar argument to all us?


matriarchal societies have existed for THOUSANDS of years, and collective marriage has existed in those societies long before language or agriculture. So please, explain to all us how you qualify "detrimental" here


.... or maybe you are unconsciously judging those societies with _your_ moral??

[EV1Ltimm]

131. It likens women to cattle IMHO (nt)

[Xithras]

142. I can't believe the hipocrisy of the supposed LIBERALS in this thread

My wife and I are both bisexual (a fact that I've shared here repeatedly in the past), and she has had an ongoing relationship with her girlfriend for several years now. When Newsom announced that he was ordering the city of San Francisco to allow gay marriages, my wifes girlfriend joked that they could "go get married now". My wife then had to point out the obvious...both of them are already married to men, and polygamy is illegal under both state and federal law.

Here's the thing, I wouldn't CARE if my wife was married to both me and her girlfriend (for the record, there has never been any kind of of sexual relationship or flirting between her and I, so that isn't driving my thinking). My wife is happy today with me, and with her girlfriend, so why SHOULDN'T they be allowed to form something more legal and binding?

What if we were talking about three gay men, or women, wanting to marry each other? Does that change the equation? Polygamy and polyamory is NOT about domination.

[Greyskye]

148. No kidding!

And what your message points out in spades is that if you have jealousy issues, then a polyamorous lifestyle is not for you! On the other hand, if the happiness of your loved one(s) is(are) your primary concern, then polyamory is a viable choice.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

151. It is a choice?

Can people just change to being monoamourous?

[Mattforclark]

154. Does it matter?

[Skittles]

157. YES IT F***ING MATTERS

there's choice and then there is COERCION and BRAINWASHING.

[Mattforclark]

159. Do you think

that the only alternative to something being a choice is COERCION and BRAINWASHING?

Do you think I was endorsing non-consentual activity?

[veganwitch]

162. i believe the question of choice

was first proposed above and it was akin to the is homosexual a choice or a genetic impulse. are people naturally polyamorous or do they choose that path.

[Greyskye]

170. Not a simple answer

Humans are, by nature, polyamorous. There are actually very few species on this planet that actually mate for life - and humans are not one of them. Sure, there are many societal/cultural influences - especially in western society - which dictate a monogamous lifestyle. But there are many human cultures which do not. If humans actually were monogamous by nature, we wouldn't have the rampant divorce rates and cases of 'serial monogamy' (not to mention people cheating on their spouses).

And in my case, although I was in a poly relationship for a number of wonderful years, I'm currently married. And we don't consider ourselves to be poly - even though there was that episode a few years ago with us and a good friend of both of ours. :evilgrin:

[cprise]

175. Hardly any

...western societies dictate a monogamous lifestyle. People choose to have open marriages, even get married with an understanding to re-evaluate the relationship after 10 years or so.

This whole idea of people assuming a 'poly' identity is kind of grating. You weren't married in a polygamous manner and do not know what it is like.

Gay people ask to be included in an institution of restraint, and we get this? Demands for the ability to choose boundless legality???

A small number of gluttonous men (no doubt rich) and their harems would bring our courts to their knees. Of course they will ruin it for the "nice" laid-back polygamists. How do we resolve the potential of these legal atom-bombs? No one here has offered a possible suggestion except that polygamists would need to surrender certain legal rights automatically when they marry. Brilliant. Switch to a tribal system of government to make it work? Genius. Not.

This impulse to be rampant dressed up as high-minded liberalism is already spoiling to nullify rights to property, custody, divorce and in time probably any social services that would represent a threat to the relationships by outside authority. Put simply: Police interfering in quarrels is anathema.

And then there is the potential for many-to-many relationships. As bits of logic, marriage laws operate within the constraints of the legal system to manage. Many-to-many is flat out unworkable with the legal imperatives of matrimony. It is utterly absurd.

As I depart, I'd like to point out that this thread stands out as a shining example of how post-modernist bullsh!t is taken to an extreme by the spiritually-bored. It is precisely the quality that neocons encourage in the left to induce chasing one's own tail and/or giving them excuses for legal repression.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

182. No! No no no no no NO!

Being liberal does NOT mean we have to accept EVERY TYPE OF BEHAVIOR!! I do not support polygamy or poly-anything relationships and I am no less liberal for doing so.

[Darranar]

158. Absolutely nothing.

[redwitch]

169. read "under the banner of heaven"

by jon krakauer. It was pretty scary and generally polygamy seems very bad for women and children. At least, all the cases in his book made it seem so. I have never read or known about any success stories concerning polygamy.

[bicentennial_baby]

185. Bingo!

I was going to suggest that book as well.

[varun]

183. nothing

as long as all participants are consenting, and not under some duress, it should be legal.

In many Islamic countries, a man is allowed to have 4 wives. In some societies, a woman marries a man, and all his brothers.

Very few polygamous relationships survive though (unless it is held together for religious, financial or other coercive reasons). It is hard enough to have two people commit, imagine the problems with three or more.