should polygamy be decriminalized?

[RagingInMiami]

The polygamous communities on the border of Arizona and Utah are asking state officials that it be decriminalized. These communities are an offshoot of what we know today as LDS or Mormons and they are considering relocating to Texas where apparently they won't get so much heat.

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_2595703

[BlueEyedSon]

1. Imagine the insurance/social program abuses possible!

[bleedingheart]

16. it happens now...

Man marries wife number 1...fathers a bunch of kids...

Man divorces wife number 1 and she ends up on welfare...

Man marries wife number 2...and repeats cycle over and over again.

[havocmom]

27. There ya go. If men want to legally have more than one wife at a time,

fine, just so they make their sure every one of their peers takes care of their obligation to provide for kids already here. If they pull that too, let them have all the wives who will have them. When every body is current on their support payments, we'll talk. Til then, talk to the wall, guys.

Oh, and mulit-spousal arrangements are ok, so long as there is no discrimination based on gender (women cha have many husbands too), no forced marriages, and no holding young girls as virtual prisoners then forcing them to marry. Everybody has freedom or nobody does.

[bleedingheart]

46. sad fact is that they typically prey upon the women who are already

in bad situations....

I find the whole concept sick, not that people can't live and love more than one person but I think that these societies are just based on one man's sick fantasy..

[Ravenseye]

54. Not talking about polygamy

you're talking about abuse. Yes many of the poeple doing this are preying upon women. Do you really think more will that arne't already doing it?

Legal polygamy would protect these women. Allow them to divorce and seek damages. AS it is now they have nothing. If they leave they have nothing. Legal polygamy would protect more women than it woudl hurt.

[bleedingheart]

58. why doesn't it fall under common law marriage?

I think that it would...and if they were originally married to the fellow then why don't they go after him for support?

The ones that are abusing the system and abusing it won't follow the law and keep each wife...they will most likely stick to their old ways because it is in their favor and forcing them to stay married to the wives would be seen as an abuse of their liberties.

[Ravenseye]

62. If he's already married, no

If the guy marries a woman, then brings in a 'second' wife. That second wife can't sue for common law marraige becuase he's already married. THe courts would rule (and have) that it's her decision tos tay in that situation and the man isn't responsible. Can't hit the guy under bigamy charges either because he only married the one woman.

Now if she got beat, and went to the cops, she could probably ahve him arrested for abuse, but you don't get alimony payments from criminal abuse cases.

[AngryAmish]

124. Most states don't have common law marriage

[WillowTree]

77. Naw. LESS protection for women, and less still for children.

Here comes the guy who has three wives and three children by each. Now one of the wives becomes unhappy with the situation for whatever reason and decides to divorce. The court grants her the divorce and appropriate child support for her children. Considering how many deadbeat parents there are now under the current set-up, do you honestly see the majority of these men paying, or even being able to pay, the amount of CS that's necessary and appropriate to support three children in a separate household when they've still got two more wives and six more children living with them? All polygamy would accomplish more people to produce more children that they can't afford to support through the vagaries of life. Bad idea. Bad, BAD idea.

[Ravenseye]

80. Why not just force people to get a liscene to have kids?

I mean I need a fishing liscence, with an extra sticker to fish for trout...

Why not just make it illegal to have kids unless you're deemed in an socially acceptable relationship, are financially able to support any children you might have under said liscence, and also that you recieve proper training and qualification to be a parent so that you raise your children properly?

bad idea. bad bad idea.

[bowens43]

84. The man would be responsible for the child support

whether or not he married the woman. Paternity , not marital status, determines whether or not a man is financially responsible.

You seem to be under the impression that lack of a marriage certificate prevents sex.

[WillowTree]

88. No.

But a lot of people are a lot more careful about producing children outside of marriage. Furthermore, the guy in my illustration still has two wives to support, as well. This would not be the case if the children were born "without benefit of marriage" or even, in most cases, if the two previous wives had been divorced.

[bowens43]

90. So?

You think that the state should be able to determine who a person should and should not be able to support? Do you want to have means testing for marriage and child rearing? If a person loses the ability to support the person he married should the state force them to divorce?

[DoNotRefill]

148. If polygamy was legal and "normal"...

I'd still only have one wife. More than one wife strikes me as masochistic.

[Warpy]

66. Right, serial polygamy is the GOP way

and it's perfect, marry a young chick, breed her, then discard her in favor of a racy new model when her body starts to show the signs of age and childbearing. This is why many major religions make divorce difficult, and why those with easier divorce embraced some form of multiple marriage for men. Serial polygamy is the worst system possible for women and children.

Polygamy (not the serial kind) can be a great system for women if the women in the relationship have veto power over who joins it and if the people in the relationship are all adults who freely consent to it. In a case like this, there is cooperation in things like childcare, work outside the home, housework, and the like. Plus, paterfamilias can be passed off to another wife when he's on your last nerve. I can see some advantages to the system once jealousy issues are conquered.

However, as it's practiced in the southwest, it's an evil system whereby men take young girls barely into puberty against their will, breed them, go whining for food stamps and welfare, and look for the next child to fuck. The girls themselves have been brought up in this system to the extent that they don't really know there's a world outside it, and few run away because by the time they catch a clue, they're tied down with children.

So the problem with polygamy isn't the institution, itself, but the type of male who practices it and the type of child who gets sucked into it. Enforcing existing laws against pushing minors into sex would probably take care of the problem. Why this isn't being done is a question that needs to be asked of the men in charge.

[Ravenseye]

70. Nicely Put

The problem is that law enforcement down there isn't doing their job to protect these women from predator men, not polygamy.

[Radical Activist]

165. Interesting. I've read that when it was done legally

and under sanction of the actual LDS church in the 1850's that it allowed some women to carry on professions while other wives in the family took care of their children. I read of one family where each woman traveled east to receive training as a doctor one at a time while other wives in the family cared for her children. Eventually they were all working while their husband lived off their efforts. They divorced him and continued living together and helping to raise each others children while they all worked. What's happening today is far from that.

[Egalitariat]

182. What does marriage have to do with that?

I see that happen all day long here in Ocala, FL and marriage has nothing to do with it.

[blondeatlast]

156. It's already happening. These are thoroughly nasty people.

http://www.polygamyinfo.com/plygmedia%2003%2091newtimes.htm

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/issues/2003-04-10/feature.html

http://www.janabommersbach.com/phx-mag-oct03.htm

[chicagojoe]

2. No. It should be MORE criminalized.

The abuse that most of the women and children in these "families" endure is outrageous.

[Hello_Kitty]

6. Agreed

These communities are not situations where consenting adults enter into these marriages voluntarily. These are 13 year old girls being married by force to their 37 year old uncles. It's horrific.

Not to mention how many millions in welfare dollars Colorado City has sucked out of Arizona.

[Ravenseye]

12. Not all are like that

And if they're forcing a 13 year old into a group marriage that's a statutory rape crime, not anything against multiple marriage. A 13 year old girl isn't old enough to legally enter into a contract.

a 13 year old being forced to marry a 37 year old uncle is illegal for a number of reasons, but not polygamy.

[bowens43]

15. You paint with a very wide brush....

This is not always the case. If we were to LEGALIZE and regulate the the practice, marrying 13 year olds would still be illegal.

[chicagojoe]

18. By painting with a wide brush, societies "stains"

can be eliminated.

[bowens43]

22. yeah right....

and I suppose YOU want to decide what is and isn't a stain.

[chicagojoe]

37. I'll bet you my paycheck to yours

that I'm not the only one who feels this way. Anyone who defends the abuse of women and children, even in the context of "religious freedom", ought to be, at minimum, jailed.

[Ravenseye]

40. Noone is defending the abuse of women and children

You've got to separate the abuse of women and children logically from your head with Polygamy. They're two different things.

If a polygamists abuses his wives and children, that's wrong because he's physically (and more) hurting other people against their will.

If everyone who abused animals owned dogs, should we take away everyones right to own a dog?

[chicagojoe]

47. The reason that I WON"T separate the two in my head

is that I believe that the whole arrangement CAN BE, but I'm sure IS NOT in all cases, a breeding ground for abuse.

[Ravenseye]

60. Plenty of breeding grounds for abuse

Doesn't mean we can take away people's rights, it means we need to protect them. These situations are occuring WIHTOUT polygamy being legal. If it were legal the women would have recourse.

A women in these situations now, being abused, has no legal recourse. She can't sue for divorce or a settlement or alimony. She can leave with nothing, or she can put up with it. If she leaves, she's not married, can't sue for divorce, can't get alimony...one of the reasons alot of those damaging situations occurs.

Polygamy (both Polygyny and Polyandry) occur in mutliple socities arond the world (and not just in Osama Bin Laden's backyard) and work just fine. The different types of family relationships worldwide is an entire sub-area of Anthropology.

Legaizing it would protect women. Keeping it illegal would do nothing to protect these women who are being abused.

[Pushed To The Left]

169. Very good points

This topic reminds me of the drug reform issue. Just because there are some bad things associated with drug use does not mean the government should throw you in jail for smoking marijuana! It seems that making these things illegal creates more problems than it solves.

[bowens43]

44. I have no doubt that there are more like you.

The discussion isn't about the abuse of women and children and no one here has defended those things. The question asked is ' Should polygamy be legalized'.

[chicagojoe]

50. And it should not be legalized because of these abuses.

It's really simple.

[Ravenseye]

64. This isn't as black and white as you make it out to be

Do you feel the same way about any multiple marraige situation in any circumstance anywhere?

[bowens43]

65. There is abuse in traditional marriage.

There is incest and abuse in many families with traditional marriages. Should traditional marriage be illegal? Or should incest and abuse be illegal?

[chicagojoe]

68. Yes, there is. So, why add more potential victims to the mix?

[Ravenseye]

73. They're already victims

legalization would do something to help protect them.

I'm not advocating polygamy, but logically the problem isn't polygamy. Comparring it to problems in traditional marriages points out another hole in your logic.

Both systems breed abuse, but you oppose one yet not another, based on similar evidence.

If the position is illogical it'll never win me over.

[bowens43]

75. for freedoms sake?

Why should the abuses of some determine what is allowed for others?

[RaleighNCDUer]

72. If it was to be legalized, every one of those current polygamous

families would have to apply for the proper legal documentation -- that documentation would expose those who practice underage marriage, forced marriage, etc. They could be prosecuted then. And further abuse would be stopped, or at least slowed way down.

Further criminalization won't do any good when the entire community believes they are being unjustly put upon because of their religious beliefs, and have the sherrif, the courts, and the city fathers on their side. Legalization = regulation. You can't regulate something that is underground.

[Ravenseye]

76. Exactly

Legalization would protect people. As it is they're protected by their secrecy.

The funny thing is even if they legalized polygamy, many of these families wouldn't take part, because they wouldn't legally be able to marry their 13 year old niece.

Which emphasizes the point in other parts of this thread. Polygamy and these predators down in Utah and Arizona are two different animals.

[Morose]

120. I think the problem in this case is there aren't many apparent

instances where polygamy has been demostrated as a place from which healthy communities arise. On the contrary, the institution itself has been the blanket excuse for gross abuses of children and women. So being able to understand how it has been implimented in the past and would LIKELY be used in the future, I can't see where the benefit is. I'd predict that it would create more, rather than less victims, while doing little to set a precedent for individual freedoms.

Now yes, philosophically, what consenting adults do in their own privacy is their own business. The problem is that the people advocating for this law in Utah and Arizona aren't really interesting in engaging in Informed and consenting adults. They aren't concerned with defending basic individual freedom. They are trying their best to create a wedge exception in the law for their continued abuse of children.

This is the difference between theory and practice. I don't disagree that polygamy is, in a vacuum, no big deal...but in reality (actual application), I think it's toxic. For me, I think the measure of all laws are, Do they actually make things better or not? I'm a strong believer that making polygamy legal would have massive unintended consequences that would be overwhelmingly negative, while having few or any positive effects in supporting the kinds of individual freedom that many here (myself included) are concerned with advancing.

[blondeatlast]

158. You've done your reading! Thank you for an excellent summation.

Welcome to DU.

:toast:

[Ravenseye]

24. Sounds like Fascism/Dictatorship to me

While we're at it lets get everyone to stop practicing deviant religions like Islam and Hinduism. Those Buddhist temples should be closed as well.

And whats with women wearing pants?

[chicagojoe]

35. Quite the contrary.

I'm not attacking ANY religion, just those who cloak seriously fucked up behavior in "religious freedom". I like to think that we have progressed beyond 19th century mentality.

[Ravenseye]

39. I still see judgement based on your background

just because you see it as seriously fucked up behavior doesn't mean other people do. Why should your view of that behavior be classified by you as 19th century mentality or deemed as inappropriate?

Most people on this board I doubt have ever met a Polygamist and most never will. I have in fact met one family. They were normal in every other way you could imagine, and the kids seemed really good, well behaved. All three adults held normal, some might say good, jobs, had a nice house, and were really nice people. They kept their situation generally in the closet because of reactions of people like you.

Not all polygamists are trailer living stone age dwellers who marry their 13 year old niece.

I think the 19th century mentality is pressing judgment on people who's ideas differe from yours.

[chicagojoe]

43. And yet I still stand in judgement, just as you do.

[Ravenseye]

45. True

My judgement is that adults who wish to do something of their own free will that doesn't harm anyone, should be allowed to do it.

Your judgement is that people shouldn't be allowed to do something they want to do, which wouldn't hurt anyone, because you assign a negative moral judgment on that action, which they don't share.

Which one sounds progressive, and which one sounds oppressive?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

104. I knew a polygamous family,too

They lived together in one big house, the two "wives" ran a business together, and both women had children by the man. The arrangement had been going on for 15 years or so by the time I met the family, and no one seemed downtrodden. All three were well into adulthood by the time the arrangement was made.

[Radical Activist]

17. Underage marriage is a separate crime.

The system was also much less abusive in the 1850's when it was still practiced legally. Back when Utah territory was the second place that gave women the right to vote and elected the first woman to a State Senate position in the US.

[Ravenseye]

7. How?

They're living in multiple partner relationships already. Wouldn't a marraige contract help in some ways to protect some of these women and children?

They're getting abused now without the official marriage, and will continue to be so.

Are you saying the government should make it a crime for more than two women to live with a man? Should they criminalize adultery too? How on earth can it be more criminalized without it taking away more and more people's rights?

[bowens43]

9. Please provide evidence that

"The abuse that most of the women and children in these "families" endure is outrageous.".

Even if true, why would that justify making it illegal for everyone? There is plenty of abuse in traditional marriages. Do you want to outlaw marriage all together?

[chicagojoe]

41. Google it, my friend. Abuse is abuse is abuse.

[bowens43]

55. So your contention is that

in EVERY case , polygamy is about incestuous relationships with children?

They are separate issues. The question wasn't about abuse, it was about polygamy.

[Dufaeth]

10. And homosexuals would beat each other if allowed to wed

so we shouldn't allow that either.

[Botany]

3. One wife is tough enough.......

....... and people want more?

[bowens43]

4. Of course it should be legalized.

[Ravenseye]

5. Why Not?

I think when something is a crime the better question is 'Why shouldn't it be decriminalized?' As far as why should it be? We come to simliar arguments for gay marriage. Marriage is essentially a social contract. If three adults are willing and desire to sign such a contract what's wrong with that? They allow people to use otherwise illegal drugs for religious purposes...what if their religion allows, or even recomends or requires, multiple marriages?

What's the reason it's criminal though? If it's simply because there is some protestant majority that thinks it's wrong, I don't see that as enough of a reason to make it illegal.

Even if they legalized it it'd be such a small minority of people who would participate. Most of these families are living as multiple marriages right now, they're just not recognized. If people claim that it damages children, they're not doing anything to prevent it becuase it people are already living that way, and the government can't stop them.

All legalizing it would do is to protect the children, and the rights of some of these women.

Where's the negative? Just that some bible beaters think it's wrong?

[amazona]

28. well first it harms me because it destroys my insurance coverage

The legal recognition of multiple marriage will give insurance companies the excuse they need to stop providing health insurance coverage to spouses and children. Many companies are already making noises that they would like to see this happen already. They have to draw a line somewhere. If we don't allow the line to be one spouse per person, then the line will be drawn at worker coverage only.

And all to legalize the activities of groups whose goal is to out-breed us so they can transform our country into another theocracy of hate?

What's the negative, you ask? I would ask, what is the positive? If three adults want to live together and have sex today, fine, who is stopping them. The evidence is clear that polygamists are not equal adults -- plenty of their victims are teen-age girls trapped in these societies lifelong and never given any taste of freedom or choice. I don't see decent people becoming polygamists. I see extremist Mormons, extremists like Osama bin Laden, and so on.

If people want to live in the 12th century, they should not receive government sanction.

The conservation movement is a breeding ground of communists
and other subversives. We intend to clean them out,
even if it means rounding up every birdwatcher in the country.
--John Mitchell, US Attorney General 1969-72

[bowens43]

36. So your financial well being

is more important then the rights of others to marry as the see fit?

[amazona]

51. look, dude, a harem isn't marriage

I was just answering the argument that "no harm" is done by allowing LDS polygamist extremists to legally marry and breed like rabbits. A lot of harm will be done.

And not just to everyone who relies on a spouse for health insurance coverage for themselves and their children.

You cannot have a free and fair society when one gender is just a score-keeping device on the scoreboard of life.

I am a woman. I know what polygamy is -- it is an old, powerful creep collecting young, powerless women at a time when they are too young to have any choices. Why are we even kidding ourselves about this?

If you want to screw multiple women, fine. If you want orgies every night, FINE. But don't tell me that it's marriage and that it should receive the imprint of law. No one is putting men in jail for screwing everything they can catch. No freedom is being impinged on by current laws against bigamy.

There is nothing to gain and everything to lose by supporting what is, in the end, completely theocratic trash.

As I said in the other post, this is a CONSERVATIVE issue. It is CONSERVATIVES who commit bigamy and who participate in multiple marriage.

Let the CONSERVATIVES fight for it if they want it so bad. Let them have the negative consequences of the publicity.

Sheesh. How can people not be getting it?

If the CONSERVATIVES won't fight for their own cause, why should we fight for it at great harm to our pocketbooks and publicity?

What's next? The box turtles start to look not so ridiculous.

<head in hands>

I give up. Just how many progressives out there are "black ops" supporting these stupid issues of no benefit whatever to real progressives? You really want to fight for effin' POLYGAMY, dude? No decent woman who has decent choices is going to tolerate being part of a harem. So you are fighting...for who exactly? Pond scum?

The conservation movement is a breeding ground of communists
and other subversives. We intend to clean them out,
even if it means rounding up every birdwatcher in the country.
--John Mitchell, US Attorney General 1969-72

[bowens43]

57. Personal freedom is NOT just a conservative issue.

[Dufaeth]

59. Isn't it our responsibility to fight for freedom regardless of whose

"issue" it is?

[sadiesworld]

98. This is the best post I've read on this issue at DU..

(I've also wondered about a potential black ops aspect to this)

Thanks.

[IdaBriggs]

149. Well Said! nt

[Ravenseye]

52. Disagree

You say yourself that insurance companies are already making noises. The problem I have with your first paragraph is that you are allowing the insurance companies to define our own existance. THe problem isn't multiple marriages, the problem is with the insurance companies. If we were in a single payer system, it wouldn't be an issue.

As far as legalizing the activities of groups whose goal is to out breed us? They also all probably own guns. And they might use the internet to have website to further their goals? Should we make those illegal too?

You also bring up the abuse factor. Nobody is arguing for the abuse of women, that should be, is, and will remain illegal. We're talking about allowing consenting ADULTS to be in a social contract that is their choice.

It's not the 12th century to allow people the freedom to do something that doesn't hurt anyone else. It's the 12th century to prevent people from doing something that won't hurt anyone, based on a moral judgement that might not be shared by everyone.

[amazona]

8. No Way

There can be no peaceful or free society where women are chattels to be collected by the man who can afford the most.

The conservation movement is a breeding ground of communists
and other subversives. We intend to clean them out,
even if it means rounding up every birdwatcher in the country.
--John Mitchell, US Attorney General 1969-72

[bowens43]

13. Why do you think that it would always be one man

and multiple women? Perhaps one woman and several men or a combination of men and women. If we are not allowed to wed who we chose (of those legally able to consent), then we are not living in a free society.

[Bridget Burke]

21. This is not "Stranger in a Strange Land"

The specific polygamists here are old men who forcibly "marry" young girls. Incest is an issue in many cases. And they can't support all their "wives" or children, so they end up getting welfare.

[sportndandy]

29. What you describe should be illegal

I don't think any normal consenting adult would want to be in a polygamous relationship, but that doesn't mean it should be illegal. Pedophilia should be illegal whether they are married or not.

[bowens43]

30. So you're saying that a law legalizing polygamy

would specify that only men can have multiple spouses and they have to be women?

I doubt that very much.

Young girls, incest and welfare are irrelevant. They are separate issues.

[Ravenseye]

33. You're not talking about Polygamy then

your issue is with incest, rape, and taking away an individual's freedom of choice. Not polygamy.

Legal Polygamy would be either more than 2 adults legally entering into a social contract, or allowing one person to enter into multiple social contracts. If consenting adults are willing to do it, and they're not related....you still have a problem with it?

[RaleighNCDUer]

101. That's just the thing. You are basing your objection on a single

type of very bad polygamy -- it is abusive, controlling and often incestuous.

But other forms of polygamy exist. By Islamic law a man can have up to four wives, providing he can prove he can support them. Underage marriage is forbidden.

And what could your objection be to the above referenced Stranger in a Strange Land? Several men and women in a group marriage. All consenting adults, all free to leave at any time.

The current polygamy practiced by the FLDS is already illegal, but little is done about it because they own the political structure. Legalize polygamy, with clearly spelled out perameters, rights and obligations, and that abusive form will be done away with. Those who choose polygamy on religious grounds will have that option -- those who choose it because they are sick fuck child rapists will be exposed, marginalized and criminalized, and outside the protection of their religion.

[Clark2008]

26. I was going to ask if this would be allowed for both genders.

If men can have more than one wife, what's stopping a woman from having more than one husband?
One could rightly make the argument that, since it takes more than one income to survive and men make 22 cents more on the dollar than women, why can't a woman have two husbands to go out and earn the living while she stays home and raises the children?

Just an argument, mind you.

[RagingInMiami]

32. It will always be one man and a multitude of women

The more wives they have, the better chance of them getting into heaven.

[bowens43]

48. What makes you think that it would always be for religious reasons??

[RagingInMiami]

56. I'm talking about this case

where these communities are trying to get Utah and Arizona to decriminalize polygamy. I seriously doubt that if they get their wish, polygamous marriages will be popping up throughout the two states for non-religious reasons.

[bowens43]

61. Even if it is for religous reasons

if there is no incest or child abuse, why shouldn't they be allowed to marry?

[RagingInMiami]

69. in theory, I would agree with you

But there have been several women who've ran away from these communities and claimed they were married off at the age of 13 and subjected to sexual abuse.

[bowens43]

79. again , the problem isn't polygamy

it's child abuse and incest. Not the same issues.

[amazona]

38. because I have eyes and I see who is doing this

Freedom seekers like extremist Mormons and Osama bin Laden are the ones who have multiple wives. Give me a break. Any progressive who fights for these people is fighting for the enemy. Our energy is better put elsewhere. If extremist conservatives want polygamy so bad, let them fight for it themselves, since they are the only ones using this dubious "freedom."

Why is it necessary for progressives to shoot themselves in the foot over worthless trash? Just when I get mad at bartcop and think he is too negative, a thread like this comes up to prove that there is no end to the self-defeating strain of the progressive movement.

Sigh.

The conservation movement is a breeding ground of communists
and other subversives. We intend to clean them out,
even if it means rounding up every birdwatcher in the country.
--John Mitchell, US Attorney General 1969-72

[Ravenseye]

42. Ah ok....Defend Rights....Become a Terrorist

You're implying that defending polygamy is defending Al Qaeda. Nice Republican tactic.

As far as you saying progressives are self defeating. Whats the point of being progressive if you don't fucking progress?

[bowens43]

53. You really can't see beyond your bias.

You keep wanting to make this about incest and child abuse. Progressives believe in individual freedom. Your stand is decidedly anti-freedom.

[Ravenseye]

19. Polygamy != Polygyny

If we allow polygamy it should obviously allow both Polygyny (1 man multiple women) and Polyandry (1 woman, multiple men).

What if you had 3 consenting adults, lets take a common example of Polyandry, 1 man and 2 women. If they have no problem with this relationship, and are treated equally, say they all have jobs and work in Manhattan, what's the problem? How are they chattels?

The problem is equating polygamy with sombody living in a trailer in southern Utah. They may be for polygamy, and some may be essentially holding women as chattels, but that doesn't make them one and the same.

What about a Polyandrous situation where some female movie star takes on two husbands, who are both willing to share her. Are they chattels?

I don't understand the objection to people entering into a binding contract of their own free will. The argument against it seems to be saying that women, or men, would only enter this type of situation against their will. What's illegal there is forcing someone into such a situation against their will, not the situation itself.

[bowens43]

34. I didn't realize that polygamy didn't cover all the bases.

thanks for the info.....

[Withywindle]

161. Actually, technically it does

Polygamy = multiple marriage (gamos = marriage)

Polyandry = multiple husbands (andros = man)

Polygyny = multiple wives (gynos = woman)

What these people are practicing is exclusively polygyny. But "polygamy" could be either multiple wives or multiple husbands or some of each.

[Dufaeth]

31. Thinking all polygamists are like those in Utah is like thinking

all Gays are like those in Deliverance.

[amazona]

67. yeah some are like the ones in Saudi Arabia

Sorry, folks, it just doesn't wash.

THis is not a liberal cause. Let the conservatives fight for it if they want it so bad. No society that recognizes polygamy recognizes the rights of women. Fighting for polygamists' rights is fighting for the rights of our enemies. Why don't we allow them to fight their own battles? And if they get some bad publicity, too bad so sad.

I have seen no good reason to take on this battle. But I'm starting to repeat myself, so I'm bowing out.

The conservation movement is a breeding ground of communists
and other subversives. We intend to clean them out,
even if it means rounding up every birdwatcher in the country.
--John Mitchell, US Attorney General 1969-72

[Dufaeth]

71. I ask again, who cares who the cause belongs to?

It is our duty to fight for freedom, not bow out.

[Ravenseye]

78. What about the polyandrous relationships in Nepal

There is a group of people in Nepal where women have multiple husbands. They live peacefully, I think they're tibettan buddhists...how bout them? What if a family of them wanted to move to the U.S., where would their rights be?

[ultraist]

108. This is not Nepal, this UTAH, land of Mormons

Why should the state sanction their institution that permits them to abuse women and children?

They can cloak it in whatever they'd like, the fact is, it is a very sexist arrangement that fosters abuse of children and women.

Should we legalize their beliefs about Gays too because it is part of their religion?

I'm with the radical feminists on this issue. See it for what it REALLY is. I'm opposed to it.

If those men want to produce dozens of children that they cannot afford to care for, imprison handfuls of women at a time, the state should not support them in it.

[Ravenseye]

111. The state sanctions regular marriage

and that permits people to abuse women and children too, by your logic. Should we not allow anyone to get married?

Polygamy CAN be a sexist arrangement that fosters the abuse of children and women, just as owning a dog CAN be an arrangement that fosters the abuse of animals. Participating in polygamy, or dog ownership, does not make one abusive of women, children, or dogs.

We shouldn't legalize belief, period. Legalizing polygamy isn't legalizing belief, it's legalizing a form of a consensual social contract. The fact that there are people who abuse women and children within the confines of polygamy says nothing of that arrangement, and everything about those people.

The state should enforce existing rules in the situations described, keeping people against their will, kidnapping, statutory and non-statutory rape, welfare abuse....there are plenty of things these people are doing illegally.

Equating polygamy with specific groups who practice it has the same logical foundation as equating animal ownership with animal abuse.

Polygamy:Abuse/Rape/Hate::Animal Ownership:Animal Abuse does not jive.

[Nikia]

135. The husbands are usually brothers

There is a lack of growable land there so sometimes brothers will marry a single woman so their father's land is not broken up. The oldest brother is considered part of the household and he is considered the father of all the children even if he obviously is not biologically (like if he was away during the time period that conception must have occurred). Since they are brothers, all the children are gentically related to all the husbands.

[w4rma]

11. no. (nt)

[sportndandy]

14. Sure, as many husbands and/or wives as a person can stand

as long as they are a consenting adult of sound mind.

[autorank]

20. Those communities are hot beds of deviance!

Good Lard! We are on the edge of total insanity in this country when people like this think they can come out in public and ask for legitimacy.

[New Democrat]

23. Yes it should

I do not belive the government has the right to tell people who they can marry. People should be allowed to get into any type of relationship they want to, whether polygamous, homosexual, or even incest. Marriage is a religous ceremony in my opinion and in this country we have the first admentment. Therefore people should have the freedom to marry whoever the hell they want to.

[barbaraann]

81. What does the First Amendment have to do with marriage?

And are you stating that you are in favor of allowing incest?

[New Democrat]

86. It has everything to do with marrige

Marriage is a religious ceremony therefore government has no right to tell people who they can marry. And yes I am in favor of making incest legal between consenting adults. If some guy wants to fuck his sister, who am I to tell him he can't?

[Mallifica]

109. I cannot believe

that you would support a marriage in which incest is involved. That's CRIMINAL and usually ends up scarring those involved for life. I'm all about the government staying out of my and everyone else's business, but come on - you have to draw a line SOMEWHERE.

[Ravenseye]

115. Polygamy should be legal, not incest

I have no problem with polygamy as long as it involves consenting adults. There is a reason that one of the biggest human taboos is incest. It's dangerous. Emotionally and Mentally dangerous to the people involved, and directly physically dangerous to any offspring.

It's ok to love your sister. Just don't LOVE your sister.

The key to freedom is consensual activity with no harm being done to others. Polygamy meets this criteria, incest does not.

To those who would respond that the people in Utah are abusing their families, I again say this is illogical. They are abusive, and they are polygamists, these are separate issues.

[Mallifica]

119. self-delete . . . wrong place

[New Democrat]

122. I'm not justifying incest.

I'm just saying it should be legal between consenting adults. I don't support a father raping his underage daughter and I support laws against that. But if two of age relatives wanna fuck each other, who am I to tell them they can't?

[Radical Activist]

25. Why just talk about renegade Mormons?

Fringe Mormon groups aren't the only religion or culture that practices polygamy. Other groups may start making demands for their rights as well.

[redqueen]

49. No. n/t

[madmark]

63. Adults marrying each other as much as they want who cares.

The State should not be involved. Coercive marrying of children and welfare fraud, that's a problem and that's what these fundamentalist mormon communities are all about. Throw in coercive land trusts, the kicking out of young males seen as competition to the old patriarchs, church control of local governmental organs, and the skimming off public school tax procceds and you have a bigger problem which is what this fundamentalist church does. If these fundamentalist mormons wanted to marry each other as adults and not involve the State I probably would have no problem with them but that's not what they are really doing.

[devilgrrl]

74. Did you know Utah leads the nation dolling out welfare benefits?

Interesting considering how "conservative" the state is don't you think? Polygamy will just mean more tax payers money to the "welfare queens" of mormon country.

[bowens43]

82. This is exactly

the same kind of argument the conservatives used against single mothers when arguing for welfare reform.

Do you have any evidence showing that Utah leads the nation in 'dolling out' welfare because of polygamy?

[devilgrrl]

87. Utah gets 'F' on welfare

Utah gets 'F' on welfare

State officials stand by policies despite low rating

By Jerry D. Spangler and Amy Joi Bryson
Deseret Morning News

WASHINGTON — Eight years after Congress handed over to the states the responsibility for getting people off welfare and back to work, Utah's welfare reform performance has been given a resounding "F," according to a state-by-state report card discussed Tuesday at a forum sponsored by the Cato Institute, a public policy research foundation in Washington, D.C., that is nonprofit, libertarian and seeks to limit the role of government.

"What is surprising is that Utah would fail both on the policy side of the equation and the results side," said Jennifer Zeigler, a welfare policy analyst with the institute and author of the study.

"It is unfortunate Utah is lacking important programs needed before it will ever see the results," she added.

Utah was one of eight states and the District of Columbia to receive failing grades. Overall, the state ranked 45th.

Utah's neighbor to the north, Idaho, received the highest ranking of all states.

more: http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,595110876,00.html

[bowens43]

94. This says nothing about polygamy.

Forgive me if I misunderstood but you seemed to be saying that polygamy would make things worse. How? Would a woman she be ineligible to collect welfare if she was a single mother?

[devilgrrl]

95. Fine, let's use the honorable Tom Green as an example...

Green heads to Utah prison 
Bigamist gets a warning; wives say they'll wait

By Geoffrey Fattah

PROVO — After Tom Green was given a five-year prison sentence Friday, Juab County Attorney David Leavitt warned the avowed polygamist that if he returned to live with his wives in Juab County, he would be prosecuted again.

Friday's sentence in 4th District Court immediately affected five women and 28 children from the polygamous family in Juab's remote west desert. Green has two adult children from a previous marriage. Yet all of Green's wives pledged to wait faithfully for his return.

"We'll function as a matriarchal family until our patriarch comes back," said wife Linda Kunz Green. "It's going to be a tremendous challenge, but I guess we don't have a choice."

After three hours of testimony in a Provo court room, Utah's most outspoken polygamist was sentenced Friday to five terms in prison, which will be served concurrently. He also was ordered by Judge Guy Burningham to pay $78,000 in restitution to the state for welfare assistance his family fraudulently collected.

<snip>

In an emotional speech before Judge Guy Burningham, in which he directed terse comments toward Leavitt, Green said he is sorry he turned to the state for public assistance. In total, Leavitt estimated the Green family has received some $647,263 in state welfare assistance.

Much of that was given by the state for free — but prosecutors say Green owes the state about $64,000 in child support.

In court, Green's attorney, John Bucher, presented the court with a cashier's check for $20,000. The money is for Green's child
support.

more: http://www.polygamyinfo.com/plygmedia%2001%20105des.htm

==============

I'll bet my pay check that there are more Tom Green's in Utah - he just got caught.

Also, why are you defending these miscreants?

[bowens43]

100. Again, show that poligamy

is responsible for the horrible mess that is Utah's welfare system. You point out one case. Even if there are a dozen cases just like this one, do you think that Utah's welfare system would get an 'A' if these cases went away?

In fact this argument does NOTHING to support your view because these people are NOT legally married so polygamy has nothing to do with it.

[devilgrrl]

114. Utahans gladly suck from the government teat...

and that's all there is to it.

I'm not spending all day on google trying to prove my point. However, if you're so concerned with facts, then why don't you prove me wrong?

[madmark]

117. Actually its also state child support issue

The male has say 18 children, he either generates no income or not more than enough to pay for one child's support. 17+ children receive no child support from the father and instead look to the state for support. I am not up on all the federal welfare rules but I believe there are prohibitions to misrepresenting the existence of fathers to jack up the amount of welfare payments received by the mothers.

I agree that I would have no problem with Adults having plural marriages without state involvement. The problem, and the reality is, these fundamentalist mormon communities are all about coercive marriages to children and living off the government dole. Throw in coercive land trusts, the driving out of young men from their insular communities because they are seen as competition to the old patriarchs, church control of local governmental organs, and the skimming of public school board funds, and you will have a clear picture of what they actually do in Colorado City/Hilldale.

[bowens43]

121. Has the fact that thier relationships are not state sanctioned

stopped the practice? If the problem is money, change the welfare laws. That can be done with out infringing on someones religious beliefs.

[madmark]

152. Do you have any knowledge about the activities of the

FLDS Colorado City/Hilldale Church and if you do, do you have any views on them? I already know you want polygamy legalized and in an 18 year marriage state I got know problem with that.

[LynnTheDem]

83. I wouldn't be part of a polyamous marriage, but as long as it's consenting

adults I really don't care.

I don't care if it's 2 men getting married.

I don't care if it's 2 women getting maried.

And I don't care if more than 2 get married...

as long as it's consenting adults.

[ultraist]

110. Polygamy has nothing to do with Gay marriage

It isn't TWO people getting married, it's several people.

The FACT is, the people who are pushing for this, are child rapists and women abusers. Why deny the FACTS?

Gay marriage is NOT harmful to society in any way. We do not end up supporting DOZENS of children produced by Gay marriage, nor do we overburden Child Protective Services because it encourages massive child abuse.

The fact is, overall consequences to society, the greater good, have to be considered. People are not free to do whatever the fuck they want in society if it poses a great cost to the rest of us.

[bowens43]

118. You see a couple of cases and sassume that they are

all like that. They are not. Haven't you heard? It's already illegal to abuse woman and children. Legalizing the marriages of those who chose that life style will not change this.

The greater good? exactly what 'great cost' will there be to society if these relationships are legalized.

[LynnTheDem]

133. Ummm...I know that.

What I said, and perhaps I didn't make my OP clear;

I don't care if 2 men get married.

I don't care if 2 women get married.

And I don't care if MORE THAN ANY TWO PEOPLE marry each other. (polygamy).

In short; I don't care about gay marriages, and I don't care about polygamous marriages, as long as they're all marriages of consenting adults. ;)

[Withywindle]

85. Yes, and...

As a polyamorist myself (non-practicing at the moment but I have in the past) I say certainly.

And the already existing laws against spousal and child abuse, unlawful confinement, trafficking, and sexual abuse of minors (which practices have nothing to do with polygamy per se and happen in monogamous marriages as well) should be more strictly enforced than they are.

[mcscajun]

92. That pretty much sums it up, IMO

Polyamory is the friendlier term for what many practice who are Not Mormons, nor (necessarily) live in the Southwest, nor are fundies of any persuasion.

I've known a few such relationships: one was a woman with one legal husband and another 'husband' that lived with them, the other a man of the clearly 'high-maintenance' type that had his legal wife and a one or two 'secondaries' as the term goes.

No children were involved in either case; no minors were involved ever in any way, and yet because these relationships are not only illegal but widely condemned, had to maintain secrecy.

I don't in the least support the abuses of the polygamous communities in the recent press reports, yet I don't think we can judge all polygamous arrangements by these hierarchical, patriarchal fundamentalist arrangements that constrict women's lives and abuse young girls and women.

I'm up in the air on decriminalizing/legalizing polygamy, even though I wish polyamory could come out of its closet and not be compared to the fundie cults engaging in polygamy. This thread has given me something to think about.

[Withywindle]

96. Yeah, it's a big difference..

..Pretty much every polyamorist I've ever met has been a highly educated, very intelligent Leftist or Libertarian--very much consenting adults acting of their own very strong free wills! Women have a lot of power in that movement, and NO WAY would a man who wanted a string of 14-year-old child brides to use as breeding machines for more babies than he can support be tolerated. And religion doesn't really have anything to do with it for most (and the ones for whom it does tend to be Pagan). It's simply about seeing, feeling, and making the case that monogamous dyads are just NOT the only form that loving relationships can take--which is something that seems screamingly obvious to me, though of course it doesn't to everyone.

Yet if I'm going to argue for that for myself, I have to defend it for people whose politics and philosophies are disgusting to me--as long as it doesn't involve actual criminal abuse, and I'll fight it inasmuch as it does.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

107. I also knew a household that consisted of

a husband and wife and the wife's lesbian partner.

It takes all kinds.

[devilgrrl]

89. Polygamy is just an excuse to f*** around with other people.

End of story.

BTW, would we be having this conversation if it concerned women wanting 8 husbands?

[Locut0s]

102. Well if two consenting adults each agree that each is allowed to...

f*** around with other people far be it from me to say otherwise.

[bowens43]

103. sure we would be having this conversation if the rolls

were reversed.

What business is it of the states how consenting adults want to live their lives? If marriage between two consenting can be sanctioned by the state then marriage between any and all combinations of consenting adults should also be able to be sanctioned by the state.

The state needs to get out of the marriage business or stop discriminating.

[ultraist]

91. Why should the State sanction and legalize one religion's practice?

Why should we chose ONE particular religion and legitimize their practice of polygamy?

It's a well known fact, that they use this practice to abuse women and young girls. I think it would be a mistake for the State to legitimize that.

Fuck their religious beliefs. If they want to live with multiple partners, fine. No one is stopping them. But we do NOT base our LAWS on ONE particular religion. Seperation of church and state.

Make a case that shows, a marriage contract between more than just 2 is beneficial to society WITHOUT using any RELIGIOUS beliefs. What is the best interest of society, economically, without infringing in any LEGAL civil liberties?

We need structures that encourage people to provide for their families, not systems that discourage or make it impossible.

Again, fuck their religion.

[bowens43]

97. Religion is irrelevent.

But we do NOT base our LAWS on ONE particular religion.

YOU are the one supporting a law based on one single religion. You are supporting a law that that is based on one particular view of biblical law.

Make a case that shows, a marriage contract between more than just 2 is beneficial to society


You also seem to be trying to make a case that personal freedom and choice has to benefit society. Not the case. Rights are not determined by whether or not they benefit society.

Do you oppose interracial marriages? How about gay marriage? Can you show that they are beneficial society?


without infringing in any LEGAL civil liberties

What is your definition of 'LEGAL civil liberties'. Are you in favor of slavery? It was LEGAL until the 13th Amendment was ratified in 1865.

How about segregation? It was legal until the passing of the CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964.

We need structures that encourage people to provide for their families

again, do you oppose gay marriage? How about marriage for those incapable or unwilling to reproduce?




BTW , child abuse and incest are already illegal and they are synonymous with polygamy.

[ultraist]

105. Racism has nothing to do with this

Apples and oranges. My definition of civil liberties is the BILL OF RIGHTS. What's yours?

Of course I don't think someone should be discriminated against based on race or sexual orientation. Gay marriage SHOULD BE LEGAL.

My point is, that when laws are created, both economic stability of the society as WELL AS civil liberties need to be considered. Someone's rights end where they begin to infringe on another's.

Often times, civil liberties are curtailed to ensure economic interests. For instance, someone's right to live wherever they'd like, ends at the point of my economic interests/property investments. Squatter laws exemplify this. If someone took up residence in one of my properties, I could have them removed as the owner.

Polygamy has proven that men will produce more children than they can afford to support. Why set up a system that discourages proper care for children and over burdens the state?

Polygamy has also been proven to be a haven for abusing women and children. We DO have laws that protect women and children from abuse, why create another law that contradicts this?

Marriage is a State's issue and marriage laws are state laws, so this state could legalize it. But if it were my state, I'd oppose it, knowing the negative consequences it produces

[bowens43]

113. well...

My definition of civil liberties is the BILL OF RIGHTS. What's yours?

Where in the bill of rights does it outlaw polygamy?
In fact , the 1st Amendment protects freedom of religion.

Maybe YOUR version is missing that amendment.

Of course I don't think someone should be discriminated against based on race or sexual orientation. Gay marriage SHOULD BE LEGAL.

Why? How is it beneficial to society? That was your litmus test.

Someone's rights end where they begin to infringe on another's.

How does polygamy infringe on anyones rights?

Often times, civil liberties are curtailed to ensure economic interests. For instance, someone's right to live wherever they'd like, ends at the point of my economic interests/property investments. Squatter laws exemplify this. If someone took up residence in one of my properties, I could have them removed as the owner.

Here your rights are being infringed. Polygamy does NOT infringe on your rights.

Polygamy has proven that men will produce more children than they can afford to support. Why set up a system that discourages proper care for children and over burdens the state?

This happens outside of marriage all the time. In fact , it is happening with some , but by no means all , of the polygamists right now. How does keeping their version of marriage illegal prevent this? What makes you think that polygamy discourages proper care of children? How does it overburden the state? If these children are born out of wedlock does the state refuse to help them?

Polygamy has also been proven to be a haven for abusing women and children. We DO have laws that protect women and children from abuse, why create another law that contradicts this?


polygamy doesn't do this, some polygamists do. But guess what , these same activities are widespread in traditional families.

[ultraist]

125. Freedom of religion does not mean legislating beliefs

Should we also make it legal to sacrifice animals?

Where in the bill of rights does it outlaw polygamy?
In fact , the 1st Amendment protects freedom of religion.

Freedom of religion does not mean the Government should create LAWS to sanction ONE PARTICULAR religious belief: SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE & NO NATIONALIZING ONE RELIGION. You are confused on what freedom of religion means.

Why? How is it beneficial to society? That was your litmus test.

My litmus test for Gay marriage is they are being denied their EQUAL rights. They do NOT have the same rights as hetereos with regard to marriage. Equal rights for ALL is beneficial to society. Denying someone their rights based on race, sexual orientation is detrimental.

Polygamy is NOT the same argument as Gay marriage.

How does polygamy infringe on anyones rights?

Yes, it infringes on those abused women and children. This is why we DON'T legalize one backwards misogynist religious belief.

polygamy doesn't do this, some polygamists do. But guess what , these same activities are widespread in traditional families.

Yes, polygamy DOES foster excessive abuse of children and women. MUCH MORE so than does monogamy. Do you have any clue what their beliefs are on this? Have you read any of the cases on these polygamous families? There IS a disproportionately HIGH number of abuse cases because that is rooted in their religious belief that women are property.

That religious group, who is pushing for this, is a very sick cult, much like the Jim Jones cult. Should we have legalized Jim Jones' beliefs too?

[bowens43]

132. again....

Should we also make it legal to sacrifice animals?

It IS legal. Goggle Santeria.

Freedom of religion does not mean the Government should create LAWS to sanction ONE PARTICULAR religious belief: SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE & NO NATIONALIZING ONE RELIGION. You are confused on what freedom of religion means.

No, you're confused. We have already done that. The EXISTING law discriminates against any religion that claims that polygamy is part of their religion. That violates the first amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;


My litmus test for Gay marriage is they are being denied their EQUAL rights. They do NOT have the same rights as hetereos with regard to marriage. Equal rights for ALL is beneficial to society. Denying someone their rights based on race, sexual orientation is detrimental.

But denying someone equal rights based on religious beliefs is not detrimental? BTW , rights are not determined by whether or not they are beneficial to society.

Yes, it infringes on those abused women and children. This is why we DON'T legalize one backwards misogynist religious belief.

The abuse has nothing to do with polygamy. The abuse, where it exists, is already illegal.


Yes, polygamy DOES foster excessive abuse of children and women. MUCH MORE so than does monogamy.

Cite?

That religious group, who is pushing for this, is a very sick cult, much like the Jim Jones cult. Should we have legalized Jim Jones' beliefs too?

Jim Jones beliefs were legal. The suicide wasn't , but his beliefs certainly were.

[ultraist]

143. google laws that PROHIBIT abuse against animals

Hiding behind a religious belief does not give someone free reign to break the laws. Some religious beliefs say that Gays should be killed. Should that religious belief be made law too?

NO ONE is stopping them from living together or having "church" marriages.

I'm opposed to legislating this churches beliefs. If we do this, NEXT, their belief that abortion is murder will be legislated. NO ONE forces anyone to have an abortion. But, legislating religious beliefs RESTRICTS others rights and INFRINGES on SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.

[bowens43]

145. Of course there are laws against animal cruelty

but animal sacrifice for religious purposes is LEGAL. It was legalized by a supreme court ruling in 1993.

I'm opposed to legislating this churches beliefs.

You keep saying this. This is exactly what we have done. We have passed legislation that legalizes the Christian version of marriage. We have also passed legislation that makes polygamy illegal. That is a violation of the 1st Amendment. It is a violation of their right to practice their religion.

doing away with the illegal law that prohibits polygamy is not a violation of the separation of church and state. In fact it's the opposite.

You keep thinking that this is 'making religious belief a law' , it isn't, it would be doing away with a law that violates the Bill of Rights.

[LeftyMom]

150. Animal sacrifice is legal

The usual laws relating to confinement, animal cruelty and animals permitted in city limits apply. However, there's no legal distinction between raising your chickens to eat or to sacrifice to great Cthulhu in the hope that he will eat you last.

Who knew watching Animal Cops would prove so useful?

[ultraist]

160. Correct. The usual Animal Welfare laws apply, no one is exempt

Religious beliefs do not supersede the law. Cruelty to animals laws apply TO EVERYONE regardless of their religious beliefs.

Religious beliefs do not put someone above the law. If that were the case, certain religious freaks could legally murder Gays.

[LeftyMom]

166. Why're you so worked up about the animal sacrifice angle?

Some religious beliefs result in relaxation of existing laws already. Megachurches get around zoning ordinances, some native americans get to use peyote, communion wine was still legal during the probibition, etc.

In the case of animal sacrifice, the Supremes invalidated laws forbidding animal sacrifice. The reason the animal is raised and slaughtered is legally irrelavent, but the animal must be raised in humane conditions (room to move, ample food,) in a space where raising said animal isn't a zoning violation. The usual restrictions on slaughter may not apply since the anamal isn't eaten.

[auburngrad82]

93. I thought the definition of marriage was one man and one woman

How will the Right take this?

Won't this destroy the "institution of marriage as we know it?"

[Locut0s]

99. Depends on what your definition of polygamy is?

As others have commented there are a lot of people who practice "polyamory" or a "swinging" life style and for any couples who are comfortable doing this and want to actually cement a permanent relationship between more than two people I say power to them. However if you mean polygamy in terms of religious Mormon polygamy where women are little more than property to be collected then definitely no.

[ultraist]

112. That's EXACTLY what these Mormons are pushing for

They don't give a fuck about women's rights. They want THEIR RELIGIOUS belief LEGALIZIED, SANCTIONED BY THE STATE.

Their religious belief is abusive to women and children and creates a HUGE BURDEN on the welfare system.

[Niccolo_Macchiavelli]

106. interesting idea

leaving the abuse stuff out a a separate problem to be dealt with...why not?

i could imagine having two decent wives or sharing a decent woman with a(nother?) decent guy. in a time when the little folks get screwed one must band togheter. So why not strenghten the smalles community cell - the family? it would allow job sharing in the family. One doing housework 2 working, one doing homeschooling, one beeing active in local politics as an example.

As the corporations are crushing down more or less hard and fast anywhere, this could be some sort of countermovement to solid up families. When one has a hard time having 2 "family" might be better than one overworked one. I think there's much potential in such arangements. I'd be for finite marriage contracts as well for that matter..

[ultraist]

116. don't be fooled, they want their religious belief legalized

Read up on their religious beliefs. They are extremely misogynist and homophobic. If they get this, next they will want to outlaw Gays living together.

I dont' think the State should give them an inch. Fuck legalizing their religious beliefs. If they want to live with several women, no law stops them for doing so. If some man wants to have dozens of children, no law stops him. But WHY shuold the state sanction their religious belief? There is no point.

[bowens43]

123. F*ck the 1st Amendment?

It shouldn't apply to those with whom you disagree?

[ultraist]

128. Freedom of religion does NOT mean making religious beliefs LAW

You are confused about freedom of religion. They are FREE to practice their beliefs, including one man llving with and impregnanting several women. NO ONE IS STOPPING them.

But we do not LEGISLATE ONE PARTICULAR religious belief and VIOLATE SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE to suit the needs of one fanatic, homophobic, misogynist CULT.

[bowens43]

130. The law outlaws their religious practice.

They can be and have been jailed for practicing their beliefs.

You keep saying we don't LEGISLATE ONE PARTICULAR religious belief. That is EXACTLY what we have done. The mainstream Christian version of marriage is legal, all others are illegal. The law discriminates against those who believe that polygamy is part of their religious heritage.

There are other religions that allow polygamy but they too face discrimination.

[Niccolo_Macchiavelli]

155. i was talking about the form of marriage

i was talking about the form of marriage not mormon or any other belief. so don't change the subject. maybe they are the most interested group in this and perhaps they abuse such arrangements legal or not. If they have to register a marriage incest, childmarriage etc would still be illegal (which would - my guess- not registering anyway because its not between consenting adults) the child abuse and forced marriage are covered by other laws (how bad they are enforced doesn't touch subject)

if you read again it was about OPTIONAL forms between any number of consenting adults of any gender. Don't want it - don't do it.

It's like the frigging abortion issue... don't want one don't have one, but don't tell the next woman what she should do or not. There are bad apples in america (as anywhere) should i go hunting US tourist just because their leader is a jerk? i don't think so. i don't drive a car because its beeing part of the polluting problem. should thus everyone be banned from driving? again no. would i marry a man? no. do i want to prevent gay marriage? - guess my answer (it begins with n)

I think there's potential for positive use of those arrangements.

[Cleita]

126. I don't have any problem with it between consenting adults, however,

the way these guys do it often amounts to child molestation and abuse of women, not to mention incest, like marrying the younger sisters of a wife or nieces. These families also are often unable to support themselves and must rely on welfare to get by. Even in Islamic nations where a man may have up to four wives, it's the rich men who practice polygamy. The working class gob has one wife like everyone else. I think there would have to be laws that address these other problems first.

[Walt Starr]

127. As long as they aren't raping minors and forcing taxpayers to pay

for their 37 kids, I have no problem with it.

Of course, that precludes just about every polygamist society on the border of Arizona and Utah from participation.

[Johonny]

129. Got to say

I'm siding with the decriminalize people on this.

[potatoe]

154. Then the State might as well

withdraw from sanctioning marriage, and treat everyone as an individual. There would be a price to be paid for this, and the people who would pay it would be children. Children benefit when the law of the land supports and encourages marriage. The law can have a bolstering effect on the institution. The law encourages marriage by helping to normalize it. Children benefit from being born into a society where marriage before childbearing is seen as the normal thing to do. Marriage takes the needs of adults and the needs of children and lines them up to serve each other.

[Johonny]

159. Don't get your point

Is 1 man to 1 women the only possible marriage? It would seem that if you like laws that encourage marriage, you'd law a law that encourages men and women living in multipartner relationships to get married. I see nothing in a multipartner relationship that could not take the needs of adults and the needs of children and lines them up to serve each other.

[potatoe]

167. Multipartner relationships have instabilty

built in to them. They are fine in theory, but not in real life. One of the functions of law is to strengthen institutions that promote the welfare of children. If we broaden the definition of marriage, we change the shared public meaning of the word, and weaken it's power. Children have a stake in the keeping the definition of the word "married" as it is.

[Baconfoot]

172. I think you meant to say RELATIONSHIPS have instability built into them.

Unless you meant to say something false that is. *wink*

[Johonny]

173. Have any proof of this?

Given that most families contain not only a mom a dad but grandparents, uncle, aunts... I really can't see how a Multipartner relationship has more instability in them. You have to put some data up to support this is it's just talk...

[potatoe]

177. I've no proof or data,

so this is all just an uninformed observation on my part. It seems to me that, although there may be a few who have the extraordinarly high level of interpersonal skills and preternatural lack of jealousy needed to sustain a multiple adult partner household, most of us are just average in these areas. Creating and sustaining the stable households that children need is hard enough just for a couple. It takes a lot of dedication, self-sacrifice, skill, and attention. Adding one or more needy adults to the equation would seem to lessen the odds of success.

Our laws should gently guide citizens into cultural norms that have been shown over time to produce the best results for the raising of children.

By the way, I think our male ego causes us to imagine ourselves as a "winner" in a society that accepted polygamy. Just as the laissez faire approach to economic policy favors those with above average talents and abilities, polygamy's "take all you can get" approach to the market for marriage partners favors those with above average earning power and personal magnetism. For every guy with 4 wives, that would leave 3 of us average guys without one.

[Johonny]

180. Not sure it changes anything

Right now you have men who go through several marriages leaving several single mothers. And you have lots of men who are unmarried and never been married. So the social winners/losers could in fact not really change. Polygamy really only changes the group dynamics of a practice that is already going on.

The problem I have with your scenario is that group dynamics today show that families are already big. You have two parent families in which both of them work to make enough money to survive. The raising of kids then passes down to either a third parent (either a nanny, a day care worker or a relative) or other siblings. Thus in reality modern society (and this was true in the past when larger families dictated larger child care from siblings) dictates for most couples do include at least a third adult into their child raising.

The real problem I see is not child raising, but in actual adult dynamics. Can 4 adults behave in non-jealous mutual beneficial behavior? Sure. But can they do it when you include sexual activity. I have my doubts. But if adults choose this life style and can cope with the problems I see not way I can tell them they can’t.

[potatoe]

186. We don't tell them they can't

choose that lifestyle, but government can and should deny them the right to use the word "married" to describe themselves and claim the benefits society rightfully bestows on those who play by the time tested rule "one to a customer". Marriage is not only a personal relationship, it is a public status. The fact that our society publicly honors it can help to strengthen the personal bond.

I agree that there are limits to the extent to which government should intrude on private lives, but I do not believe that our government has no interest at all in guiding the kinds of "Habits of the Heart" that are developing in our communities.

Our traditional attitudes toward marriage, rooted in our nation's Judeo-Christian heritage, have pointed adults toward a willingness to sacrifice some of their own personal fulfillment for the sake of children's welfare. Marriage laws are one way for society to say to individuals "We have high expectations for you." These traditional attitudes are a patrimony from our ancestors. If we fail to appreciate them, preserve them in our generation and pass them on, children will pay the price.

[killbotfactory]

131. it's endorsed by the bible and God

So it can't be bad for our society, right?

[Baconfoot]

134. Actually, let's REQUIRE polyandry.

Women are shorter and weaker than men and harder to please sexually. If we required women to take more than one husband, competition between women would result in a more vigorous, taller strain of woman with better odds of getting off due to the wider variety of skills possessed by the multiple husbands. Just think about it girls, relaxing in the sun while your second husband does the dishes and washing, and your third husband, young and firm, massages your shoulders. Husbands four through twelve can work the farm. THe adults have more important things to do.

We just do this for few a thousand years or so and we'll never have to worry about working for less pay, or about our husbands not inviting us into heavan again. In fact... in FACT let's have a religion where WE have to invite THEM into heavan or they don't get in. Huh? Contingent on number of orgasms given...perhaps with an option to substitute income for orgasms?

Polygyny is just what we DON'T need. What we need is to keep the MEN down for, like I said, about a few thousand years or so.

[Niccolo_Macchiavelli]

157. yeah

as if one abusive husband wouldn't be enough ;-) Beeing beat up in shifts. evil folks will always find a way to abuse the system and break the law..

The talk is about Polygamy not Polygynie (or Polyandry...
for that matter)
and no one is (should be) forced to marry

[Baconfoot]

170. We can keep the husbands in line withTASERS. No problemo nt

[Baconfoot]

171. Polygyny is a form of polygamy. I am advocating a different form.

(Hence the relevance)
Just think of the cash the TASER companies will rake in.
Plus the younger husbands can beat on the older ones if they get out of line. They won't get their allowance unless they do.

[VelmaD]

136. Just to be pedantic let's define our terms...

what these people are practicing is NOT polygamy. They are practicing polygyny - having more than one wife. Having more than one husband is polyandry. Polygamy is having more than one spouse - it is gender neutral.

[Nikia]

137. We don't have a good legal model for this

Polygamy, involving legal marriage, as practiced in other countries assumes a dominate husband with subservient wives. The wives have few legal rights. Their rights in the marriage are not equivalent to the man's. There isn't egalitarian polygamy.
Polyandry as practiced in Tibet involves borthers with the oldest brother as head of household and legal father of all the children.
There are people in various societies, including are own, who do and have practiced egalitarian polyamory. These relationships are usually not "official" marriages. I don't know of any socieities where such relationships have legal standing except specific arrangements which such people have entered into, like buying a house together. Do people in these types of relationships want to be legally married or are most people in these relationsips happy to have informal relationships to varying degrees?
What about rights for non marriage partners? Where I work, as at most businesses, I get paid time off if my spouse, sibling, parent, grandparent, child, aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, or grandchild dies. I do not get paid time off if my best friend dies. My best friend is not considered family for hospital visitation either. Maybe there are other "marriage" type rights that I want for my best friend (s) but maybe I would not want to be legally married to them.
Polygamy differs from gay marriage. We have a good legal model for gay marriage. We just eliminate the gender requirements of the marriage partners. Everything else can be exactly the same.

[Cleita]

140. Maybe we really need to redefine legal marriage.

This way those adults committed to a legal relationship defined as marriage by the law could include less common arrangements than the traditional heterosexual, male/female marriage.

[Swamp Rat]

138. Doesn't bother me as long as women can have multiple husbands and/or

wives, and men can have multiple husbands and/or wives, etc., all with equal protection under the law. :)

[Warren DeMontague]

139. I think those people should get in line behind the cancer grannies

who need to smoke pot to make it through chemo... and have to worry about DEA agents kicking down their doors at 3 am.

There are plenty of things in this country that need legitimately to be decriminalized before we worry about allowing large groups of people to marry.

Other than that, though, I'm kind of of the opinion that if consenting adults are all involved, it's not any of the government's business. Tax breaks and other special considerations are another story, and should be addressed. Maybe the government shouldn't be in the marriage business at all, which is something that has been floated with regards to gay marriage also.

[roguevalley]

141. no. its sex abuse of minors and women and kids ALWAYS lose.

these fuckers should have one wife and go see hookers for the rest.

[bowens43]

146. ridiculous.

There are already laws against abuse. The abuse has nothing to do with polygamy. The ban on polygamy violates their 1st Amendment right to practice their religion.

[Blue_Tires]

142. oh, man

if decriminalized, half of the uber-fundies would switch to mormon overnight!

[ultraist]

144. Those mormons also believe it's ok for father & daughter to marry

Should we legalize that RELIGIOUS belief of theirs too?

What other religious beliefs should we legislate? Killing Gays? Beating women? Torturing and killing animals?

Keep the RELIGION OUT of the State.

Redefining marriage is NOT something that should be done around a fanatic cult belief.

I'm so sick of these religious FREAKS crossing the line of seperation of church and state.

[bowens43]

147. well

"Those mormons also believe it's ok for father & daughter to marry"

Should we legalize that RELIGIOUS belief of theirs too?

If they are consenting adults, sure.

What other religious beliefs should we legislate? Killing Gays? Beating women?

No. Killing gays and beating women violates their rights .

Torturing and killing animals?

Sacrificing animals in religious ceremonies is legal. You can not pass a law against it. All existing laws prohibiting it were struck down by a supreme court decision in 1993.

Keep the RELIGION OUT of the State.

Huh? You've been arguing for the opposite. You have been arguing for the state to regulate religion in direct violation of the 1st Amendment.

Redefining marriage is NOT something that should be done around a fanatic cult belief.

That's the same argument the fundis use to argue against gay marriage.

I'm so sick of these religious FREAKS crossing the line of separation of church and state.

LOL! you're the one crossing the line. You're the one arguing that the state should regulate religion.

[LDS Jock]

151. where did you get that?

Father and daughter marriages are not allowed.

[Momgonepostal]

185. Pulled it right out of his rear

I've heard lots of false things about the LDS Church on DU, but that one takes the cake.

[King Coal]

153. They also have a community by Mancos Colorado.

[porphyrian]

162. Sure, for men and women.

Who gives a fuck what consenting adults do, as long as it doesn't interfere with the rights of others?

[blondeatlast]

163. Moot point; the citizens of Arizona and Utah despise the polygamous

communities for their abuses of women and chhildren, abuse of entitlement programs at taxpayer expense, and their "Branch Davidian" like isolation, complete with known weapons stockpiles. It comes with WAY too much baggage.

State legislators who vote for it would be ridden out on a cart.

As long as the baggage is attached, it'll never happen. It's political suicide in the Southwest... and rightly so.

[POAS]

164. Polygami is its own punishment.............n/t

[applegrove]

168. No - I think that it is against the values & the means of our nations.

It would encourage welfare kids. No. We do not encourage slash & burn agriculture in Canada because it does not renew the land or the forests in an economically good way. We all used to do that too. People still do that in other countries. Not here.

[Mari333]

174. only if polyandry is also n/t

[xilet]

175. Thoughts

As an active participant of polyamory I have some views on the issue. The first one is logistically honestly this is something that needs to come up, however it needs to be not bundled with the gay marriage issue, and honestly that needs to come first, the public needs to be able to at least somewhat handle the concept of a loving couple that are the same gender before handling 2 guys marrying a woman. And a fight for the legalization of alternative family units should come later.

As for my personal beliefs , I personally don't feel a single person could (emotionally/mentally/physically) compliment me totally, by having several partners it allows different needs to be met in different ways without pushing a single partner into places where they want to go.
Most people that practice alternative lifestyles such as this are really very normal, tax paying, loving people. Some are quite closeted about it, especially the ones that are legally married to one partner since it , event consensually, is illegal to have extra-marital affairs. The people that make poly work often have households that are not that different from the older extended family models, I know a number that have children and have very normal and happy households. And as the comment was made earlier, yes it does in fact work that when someone gets on someone else's nerve, they have another to go vent to, or de-stress with. Some of the dynamics are very interesting.

As far as making it legal, I would love to see the notion of traditional marriage on a legal level be removed from this country and have in a civil marriage put into place that would be there for a real commitment between consenting adults. I also would like to see the concept of religious marriage/commitment ceremonies continue to thrive and have there not be a problem with a religious ceremony having the legal aspect. But I want to see the religious aspect removed, totally, from the civil marriage.

[Nikia]

176. What sort of marriage would you want legally?

If you wanted to marry two people, for example.
It seems that traditional polygamy as well the people in this case follow a religious patriarchal model in their marriage.
What would the proper legal relationship be in a country where marriage partners are equal for you as a polyamorous person and a person who knows other polyamorous people?
I have no problems with people who choose that sort of relationship willingly. I just have a hard time envisioning how it would work legally to adequately protect all partners but not necessarily give polygamous groups big economic advantages over people who just marry one partner. I don't mean from the more people giving in one house economic advantages. I mean things like insurance and tax breaks.

[opihimoimoi]

178. Is this a FREE Nation or is it BULL DOO??? Of course we should

be able to live with as many Husbands/Wives/Partners as we wish.

It is a Free Nation the last time I looked.

[aaronnyc]

179. It's an issue of personal freedom

I find it outrageous that the government puts people in jail who engage in a polygomous lifestyle. Consenting adults should be able to choose any kind of sexual lifestyle which they like.

I can't believe so many people here actually think that polygamy should remain a criminal offense, because they deem it an unhealthy lifestyle. How can one adult tell another what kind of sexual lifestyle is healthy and what is unhealthy?

Personally, I wouldn't never want to be in a polygomous relationship , but it is not my position to tell other people that they can't be in one.
Personally, I wouldn't want to be in a gay relationship either, but I 100% support the rights of those who do.
There are a lot of sexual habits I find highly unappealing, but I don't think that the government should people in jail who feel otherwise.

I am surprised that more people here, aren't troubled by this government intrusion on people private lives. Almost everybody here supports the rights of homosexuals to marry, yet, there is no outrage that the government jails polygamists?
I would suspect that this is partially because mormons are the ones usually associated with polygamy, and mormons are not a group who generally agree with liberal ideals. IMO liberals should extend their support of individual rights to all groups, instead of stereotyping against certain non-traditional minorities and lifestyles.

[Nikia]

181. I don't care if people live that way

It is an issue of protecting all parties involved as equals and not giving groups special rights. By special rights, I don't mean like how some people talk about gay marriage. In that case, everyone has the right to marry one other person. By special rights, I mean that you would get a tax advantage by being married to many people or be able to put an infinite number of people on your insurance by legally marrying them. Although on the surface these special rights might seem like human rights, they may be taken advantage of by people who don't have a "marriage" type relationship in mind. I know that some people do legally marry for such reasons, but by only being able to marry one person at a time, it limits such behavior. By protecting all parties as equals, I mean that, like in the the case of many Arab polygamists (and socially for many of these Mormon polygamists), that the husband doesn't have ultimate authority in the household legally and the right to marry or divorce without women's consent and leave her literally out in the cold.

[aaronnyc]

183. I agree on marriage benefits

I understand that that from a legal perspective allowing people to marry countless numbers of people could cause problems. I was speaking more about how polygamy is considered a crime. I would have no problem with the government simply not extending benefits to polygamous marriages, or even not recognizing them; just don't punish them.

When a mormon in Utah was recently jailed for having a handful wives, I found that outrageous. I saw that as a situation where the government was punishing someone for not prescribing to social norms, which should never be done IMO.

I acknowledge that women are often treated poorly in these relationships, but, if they are happy being subservant to their husband then that is their right. As long as they are allowed to leave a polygamous relationship, they should also be allowed to enter one.

[DU_ONE]

184. In a word . . .

Yes, the government should stay out of people's mating. As long as the relationship(s) are consensual, government should but out.