I have one concern with the Prop. 8 decision.

[smalll]

First, let me say congratulations to our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters in California. I favor allowing gay marriages. Another OP found a good sign that sums it all up:



However, I would prefer it if we acheive legalized gay marriage across the country through political rather than judicial action. Again, I favor allowing gay marriages. The people, through their representatives, should, and over time WILL allow them. But I wonder if a can of worms is being opened up by today's ruling.

The ruling states that it is not constutional for something like Prop. 8 to enshrine the idea that opposite-sex couples are better than same-sex couples, and that both deserve equal rights to marry. But the ruling, most people, and even marriage law itself as it exists today in this country ASSUME that marriage must be of couples.

Here's my question, here's my concern.

What's to stop someone, for example, a devout Muslim man, from walking into court now and demanding the right to have four wives at once (which is explicitly allowed by the Koran.) Won't he win too?

The court, and most of us, ASSUME that marriage is about a couple. The fact is, monogamy - as opposed to polygamy - became such a strong tradtion in western civilization very much because of Christian ideas and principles. Many, many cultures, and some religions (again, Islam for example) have long recognized polygamy as valid. Can't our polygamous plaintiff convincingly argue that marriage laws as they exist enshrine the idea that couple-marriages are better than plural marriages?

---

I really am genuinely interested in responses people may have to my question. Any lawyers and/or constitutional scholars out there? What chances do you give my hypothetical polygamous plaintiff?

I expect I may hear as well from the "none of my business" head-in-the-sand brigade who would see nothing wrong with legalized polygamy. I see a lot wrong with it. Gay marriage doesn't "destroy" or even harm in any way any straight marriage. I'm convinced, however, that legalized polygamy WOULD harm couple-marriage, the already-shaky relations between the sexes, and even the fundamental belief in the equality of each human being upon which our modern western civilization is (or is at least supposed to be) based.

[BootinUp]

1. Is there a secular interest in allowing

polygamy? If not then this decision does not apply.

[smalll]

4. Interesting. I will take some time to read the entire decision at some point.

I guess the court found a secular interest in allowing same-sex couples to marry. What exactly was it? Simply that there is a secular interest in allowing people to marry if they wish to do so? If so, there would be a similar secular interest for a man with four wives who are willing to accept the sitution.

I'm NOT trying to claim - at all - that a polygamous plaintiff could simply cite this case and win automatically. I do worry a little however that by using many of the same arguments of plaintiffs in this case -- while at the same time directly attacking head on the unspoken assumption of the superiority of couple-marraige -- a polygamous plaintiff with a savvy legal team could force the courts to rule in his favor.

[BootinUp]

6. My understanding is that

the judge separated the secular issues from the religious ones and found there was no secular basis for the state to discriminate. I think polygamy would be a bit messier on this point, but I admit I haven't thought about it much. I am supposing that some studies may be able to show that polygamy is not a healthy arrangement in some significant number of cases. Again, that is my bias, haven't looked at it.

[smalll]

10. Thanks for your further response.

Again, I will get around to reading the case - probably tomorrow. The link I found to it was incredibly slow - I guess perhaps because so many people are attempting to access it today. Plus, it will be a long read! Over 100 pages.

[seattleblue]

18. It is just the opposite.

The question is 'Is there a secular interest in not allowing polygamy'? If none then it could be allowed. The first amendment is not a limitation on what the people can do, it is a limitation on what the government can not do.

[Kerrytravelers]

2. Let the polygmists fight their own battles. We're talking about who is in a marriage, not how many.

They are welcome to fight their own legal battles.

[JoePhilly]

45. Bingo ... let them make their case.

Who knows, I might support them.

[Milo_Bloom]

3. I don't have a problem with Polygamy or Polyandry

As long as it is with consenting adults and I don't see how either remotely harms "couple-marriage".

At the end of the day, "marriage" is a state recongized contract between individuals that comes with certain benefits (and detriments depedning upon certain factors)... whether it is between 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 consenting adults really shouldn't matter to other people who wish to be committed to one another.

"couple marriage" is only harmed by couples who probably shouldn't have gotten married in the first place.

[smalll]

8. Thanks for your response. Yes, I anticipated the "none of my business" responses, like yours.

I don't really want to fight in this thread over whether plural marriages would be harmless to society (as you seem to believe) or harmful (as I am convinced.)

I respect your opinion, but also respectfully suggest that one needs to think seriously, with a solid grounding in the history of human civilization, about the issue.

Leaving all that aside however, while you might be OK with gay-marriage being the thin end of the wedge that may lead to plural-marriages, society at large would NOT be OK with it.

[CreekDog]

41. are you willing to give up your civil rights until we vote on them?

if you aren't wiling to give up fundamental civil rights that you now have until a vote gives them to you, then you should not be saying that others should do what you would be unwilling to do.

[Milo_Bloom]

44. The point is I don't care what society at large is for or against.

I am not personally FOR polygamy or polyandry and I am not interested in getting involved in a gay relationship, since I am not gay.

The REALITY is that marriage is absolutely nothing more than a state recognized contract between inviduals.

[JoePhilly]

46. Total BS.

This is a right wing argument to deflect, and nothing more.

You claim you are against plural marriage ... and yet you use it as a reason to be against gay marriage.

You are against gay marriage, so just say that.

You are a person who is clearly against plural marriage, demanding that people who support gay marriage must also defend plural marriage.

No. The people who need to defend plural marriage are the people who support plural marriage.

As a straight person who now supports gay marriage, I know that my support for gay marriage came from meeting actual gay people who wanted to get married. As a straight guy, it was never a big issue for me. In fact, I did not know it was an big issue at all. The gay people I knew never mentioned it. It was, for me, a blind spot.

Now ... perhaps you can introduce me to some polygamist friends of yours.

[mkultra]

61. I have a problem with both as I think it harms the fabric of society

Considering only the heterosexual model, you would find the wealthy people would tend to have more spouses throwing the balance of available mates into chaos. The polygamist Mormons are a fine example of this problem. With more extraneous males than available females, they tend to shove the extra males out of the community. This works fine as long as size of the community doing this remains small. If the trend spreads to the wider society, you have the same type of circumstances that exist in the middle east.

In fact, some studies have linked the lack of purpose for large groups of wayward males with the susceptibility to recruitment to extreme organizations.

[Milo_Bloom]

62. It exists right now and doesn't harm society.

I really don't care about plural marriages, but the REALITY is that wealthy people often have multiple partners. Often they are married to one of them and just having "affairs" with the others. Many times they are supporting multiple affairs, renting them apartments, paying for their expenses, etc. This behavior is EXTREMELY common.. far more common that you probably suspect.

The joke on all of the victimless morality laws laws is that people do what they want to do anyway.

[mkultra]

63. Much like with other society based issues...The problem is with the degree

not with the existence. It is foolish to assume that because something exists on a small scale without problems, then the same is true of widespread participation. in fact, Many things in American society are allowed to exists beyond the "rules" as long as they stay limited.

theft will always exist, decriminalizing theft is not the solution.

[Milo_Bloom]

64. Theft has an actual victim

[mkultra]

65. Then drug use

Which can easily be construed as a boarder line crime in terms of victimless effect. much like drugs use, the indirect effects of polygamy are damaging. Im not even referring to the eventual tendency to betroth under age women which is an eventual reality of polygamy. I have no interest in turning America into dumbfuckistan.

This issue is very different from gay marriage which has absolutely no external effects on society or others.

[Milo_Bloom]

66. EXACT same connections if you want to make it.

The same type of nonsense as saying allowing gay marriage leads to immoral behavior and children "experimenting" is associated with this nonsense line "...not even referring to the eventual tendency to betroth under age women which is an eventual reality of polygamy"

Absolutely 0, none, ziltch, NADA effect on "broader society", since people are still doing it anyway and the fabric of the universe has not come undone.

There are no "indirect effects" of polygamy or polyandry (why people want to keep ignoring the other side of the coin is beyond me) and again, I really don't care, as I have no interest in having more than one partner... in fact one can be too much sometimes, but the way people twist and turn things to try and justify their own prejudices cracks me up.

If consenting adults want to get into a group relationship.. have at it.

[mkultra]

69. Sorry, there are facts that do not bare out your conclusions

First, your initial statement is flawed. gay marriage does not establish an environment which is conducive to "immoral" behavior or children experimenting any more than one could say those conditions already exist.

However, broader allowance of polygamy in a closed society has always shown to create intense competition for females amongst those males with wealth. The eventuality is that they seek younger and younger women to fulfill their interests causing greater betrothal due to what is seen by the parents as a necessity.

A recent study was done which seemed to implicate polygamy in the middle east with extremism. As marriage age males with little wealth became frustrated with lack of available mates, they became more easily swayed by extremists and thus where more likely to strap on a bomb or fight for lack of better life purpose.

As for ignoring polyandry, i would assume that is caused by lack of prevalent models in current existence that can be studied. There is nothing stopping people from getting into group relationships if polygamy is prohibited. They just have no means to form a legal partnership structure and obtain the partnership benefits often needed in relationships.

If you are ok with polygamy, then what is the limit to the number of people that can marry into a group? 50? 100? 1000? Is it confined to one male for several females and one female to several males or can it extend to several males with several females? Could the state of Alaska form a joint marriage?

[Milo_Bloom]

74. Your made up facts are not that impressive.

"First, your initial statement is flawed. gay marriage does not establish an environment which is conducive to "immoral" behavior or children experimenting any more than one could say those conditions already exist. "

People who claim to have facts state otherwise. Their facts are no more legitimate than the crazy ones you are purporting here.

"However, broader allowance of polygamy in a closed society has always shown to create intense competition for females amongst those males with wealth. The eventuality is that they seek younger and younger women to fulfill their interests causing greater betrothal due to what is seen by the parents as a necessity."

Yeah, because wealthy men never compete over women in non-polygamous societies and older wealthy men don't seek out younger women either. Like I said, it is fun to watch you twist and turn to justify your own prejudices.

"A recent study was done which seemed to implicate polygamy in the middle east with extremism"

Ignoring for a moment your lack of a link.. any conclusions with as many wiggle words as "seems to implicate..." is as valid as the studies in the 50's that showed no relation between smoking and cancer.

We can similarly dismiss, 'As for ignoring polyandry, i would assume..."

This is also untrue, "just have no means to form a legal partnership structure and obtain the partnership benefits often needed in relationships". They actually can if they know contract law well enough. Similar with gay marriage. If a gay couple wants to spend enough money on lawyers, they can replicate a marriage... it will only cost around 10->20K in up front legal costs and another 10->20K to enforce possible challenges later on. Obviously not EQUAL, but it can be done.

"If you are ok with polygamy, then what is the limit to the number of people that can marry into a group? 50? 100? 1000? Is it confined to one male for several females and one female to several males or can it extend to several males with several females? Could the state of Alaska form a joint marriage?"

As many as they want. 20 men and 20 women? have at it.

[mkultra]

75. Here is your starter education pack.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/03/books/03SEX.html
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0262083256/parapunditcom-20
http://www.amazon.com/Polygamy-Purdah-Women-Society-Rajputs/dp/8170332753/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1281120171&sr=8-1

Your logic is pretty poor. Despite the fact that those problems exist, the point is that polygamy exacerbates them. While wealthy men may compete for women and seek younger women today, the competition drives problems when they are allowed to absorb as many women as they want.


This is also untrue, "just have no means to form a legal partnership structure and obtain the partnership benefits often needed in relationships". They actually can if they know contract law well enough. Similar with gay marriage. If a gay couple wants to spend enough money on lawyers, they can replicate a marriage... it will only cost around 10->20K in up front legal costs and another 10->20K to enforce possible challenges later on. Obviously not EQUAL, but it can be done.

This is not true. The rights that gay couples can achieve through legal means is not equal to the automatic rights granted in marriage. They CANNOT achieve parity without equality. They are not, as you suggest, separate but equal.


There are many studies on polygamy, only a dumbass would believe otherwise.

[Milo_Bloom]

76. Any other nonsense you would like to share?

Your logic is non-existent. Let's forget that your sources have NOTHING to do with Polygamy, but instead the inherent VALUE of men vs women in these societies and how it has created a lopsided population model. You then have to, with no actual link, link this concept to the idea that allowing plural marriages automatically leads to a shortage of mates for one person or another. It only does so when you have the practice RESTRICTED to one side of the equation.

It is as if this entire wacky theory of yours is based on the idea that you are afraid that if it was allowed you may not be able to get any. Don't worry, I am sure there will be some woman left over who will find you interesting enough.


"This is not true. The rights that gay couples can achieve through legal means is not equal to the automatic rights granted in marriage. They CANNOT achieve parity without equality. They are not, as you suggest, separate but equal."

100% WRONG. You can absolutely create EXACTLY the same rights granted in marriage via a series of solid, expensive legal agreements and the means to enforce them. It is NOT EQUAL in that you have to spend tens of thousands of dollars to create it, where marriage is the cost of a marriage license, but they are, equal in ultimate effect.

And yes, there are many discussions on polygamy and some say it is beneficial to women: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200802/the-paradox-polygamy-ii-why-most-women-benefit-polygamy-an

[mkultra]

79. Well, we can start by correcting your terminology

Polygamy, even though it is often used in common discourse as a synonym for polygyny, refers simultaneously to both polygyny and polyandry.

Your premise, while being the first interesting thing you have said thus far, remains flawed. A 2008 survey of traditional societies in the world showed that 85% of them practice polygyny, 15% practice monogamy, and less than 1% practice polyandry. Most of the few polyandrous societies practice what anthropologists call fraternal polyandry, where a group of brothers share a wife, and is usually driven by some sort of necessity and usually takes place in herding cultures. Non-fraternal polyandry, where a group of unrelated men share a wife, is virtually nonexistent in human society.

The reason for the limited practice of polyandry in the world has something to do with paternal genetic certainty. When multiple men are married to one woman, the co-husbands have very little reason to believe that a given child is genetically his, and will therefore be less motivated to invest in that child. If the children receive insufficient paternal investment, they will not survive long enough to become adults and continue the society. Nonfraternal polyandry has therefore always contained the seeds of its own extinction.

nice try though.

[Milo_Bloom]

80. Still dipping it in wrong sauce, eh?

As usual, I see no actual facts that contradict anything said, just a bunch of unrelated babble and the continuation of your complete inability to show how plural marriages would hurt society.

As with most people on the losing end, you resort to being the grammar police and trying to prove unrelated topics. (Polyandry is extremely rare, thus proving... well, nothing.. but I am going to try and make it sound as if it proves something).

As I have said many times now, it is fun to watch people squirm to try and justify their prejudices and fears.

Let me know if you can find a single FACT to prove your theory that allowing plural marriages would have some negative effect on society. Until then, i will just delight in your squirming.

[mkultra]

81. You have my facts and none of your own

The only person running his mouth here is you. If you had any evidence to support your stance you would have posted it by now instead of your brainless blathering. As i have posted several facts, i return the challenge. As yet, you have not posted a single FACT to support your theory.

I guess you where to busy posting your treatise on pure speculation to bother having any evidence.

[Milo_Bloom]

82. What FACTS?

Are you joking or do you really believe you have posted a fact?

You have made vague references to studies that "kinda sorta show something might be connected" and then a bunch of opinions, such as "polygamy leads to shortages of women" and then link to articles and books that have NOTHING to do with Polygamy, but instead the inherent value a particular society places in certain types of offspring and the negative result of having highly lopsided populations... which we can file under... DUH.

The wacky theory of "polygamy leads to child molestation" you tried to expound several posts ago is about as valid as homosexuality leading to child molestation... in that there is no valid relationship. Either someone is a deranged fuck who wants to molest children or they are not.. their consensual adult relationships have no factual bearing on pedophilia.

My stance is simple. Polygamy would have no harmful effect on American society and much like people's objections to gay marriage, objections to polygamy are based on their own personal problems and not any REAL MEASURABLE NEGATIVE EFFECT and you have nothing, zilch, ZERO to contradict that stance.. with the exception of proving you have some personal objection to polygamy based obviously on your fear of not being able to find a mate.

Just like the religious nut jobs who think gay marraige is wrong BECAUSE IT IS WRONG, your objections are not based on any fact, but your own desire to want it to be wrong because of your prejudice.

If you decide to find a real fact, let me know.

[dsc]

5. so what if he does?

First, I think the restoration of religious freedom act probably gives him this case anyhow but again, so what. Also winning rights via the Courts is legitimate. If we don't win here I doubt it will happen in my lifetime or the lifetime of anyone who is 50 or older even if they live to be 100.

[dionysus]

7. jesus christ, RW talking points.

:rofl:

[seattleblue]

19. BS. An intellectually lazy reply.

This is an interesting legal question which is and has advocates by legal authorities of every political view.

[vaberella]

21. Actually that same argument was used by RW power plays to deny gay marriage. So yeah, it's RW. n/t

[seattleblue]

25. So if a RWer says the sun rises in the East

then that's a RW talking point? What is your LEGAL argument against that position? Or is that it is a "RW talking point" the only thing you could offer to the court?

[vaberella]

34. Actually in the argument used by Holder's people to defend DOMA or DADT

That was the argument used---all right wing talking points and polygamy was lumped into incest, and bestiality used by RWings to stop, derail, and make anything LGBT perverse. It was all over DU.

[seattleblue]

36. So you have no legal argument against the position?

Just that it is "RW" and Holder used it? That will impress any court I'm sure.

[vaberella]

53. I never suggested that I had a legal argument.

And the poster you were responding too was not saying that either. The entire context of it is to use polygamy as in some way evil in order to illegitimate gay marriage. I personally don't even see what one has to do with the other. Further more I never said Holder used it, as Holder was not the one defending the case.

[mkultra]

73. giving credence to RW talking points is a waste of intellectual energy

i have no interest in discussing Obama's birth stats, the moon landing, or the shape of planet. Openness to any and every idea is just as dangerous as being closed.

[caledesi]

29. Yep d, and the OP must mention BESTIALITY too!! nt

[LiberalFighter]

9. Clergy need permission from the states to marry someone.

States could in effect deny clergy the right to marry anyone.

[Starry Messenger]

11. Apples and Oranges: Polygamy and Gay Marriage

http://acandidworld.com/2008/11/07/apples-and-oranges-polygamy-and-gay-marriage/
November 7, 2008, 3:00 pm

Yesterday, Ames’ post on passage of California’s Prop. 8 generated discussion of polygamy as an equivalent to gay marriage when considering alternative unions. It isn’t. In the secular sense, marriage is a contractual agreement, recognized by the state, between two (consenting) adults wherein the parties agree to satisfy specific legal obligations to one another that are implicit until divorce or death makes them explicit. Those legal obligations are based on ideals of equity and, in many instances, equality. Arguably, there is no clear way (and maybe no way at all) to adjudicate equitable or equal distribution of property or obligation in any polygamous union.

Speaking to equality, in a case of polygyny (one husband, multiple wives), the husband has a 50% stake in the arrangement he makes with each wife, but each wife cannot have the same stake in her husband. As the number of wives increases, each woman’s stake diminishes proportionally. A wife’s interests in a polygynous union simply cannot be equal to that of her husband. This is true, too, if we consider next-of-kin responsibilities: There has to be a pecking order among wives as only one can be named the agent in living wills or advanced-health-care directives. Necessarily, one wife’s power outweighs that of the others.

Similar difficulties in assigning equity also exist. How is the state to insure each wife’s standard of living in the event of divorce? Islam allows a man to take four wives, but the message is clear: If that man cannot afford four wives, he does not need four wives. If one wife were to leave a polygynous union, how — under a system of equitable distribution — is she to adequately protect her interest? How is the state supposed to assign value to her contribution to the union, and how is the husband’s contribution to the entire arrangement supposed to support both the exiting wife and those who remain? (I’m not even going to touch the issue of child custody and support.)

These issues do not arise in the instance of gay marriage. The only difficulty in gay marriage remains American society’s distaste for homosexuality.

I won’t deny that polygamous unions have been very important to the development of civilization and continue to be in remaining agrarian societies. Polygamous (again, usually polygynous) unions through time promoted cohesion among extended families (i.e., when brothers absorbed widowed sisters-in-law and their children). Polygyny was an instrument to measure power and wealth, thereby acting to maintain social hierarchies among men. Economic development, though, necessarily reduces the benefits and affordability of polygynous unions. Further, in industrialized and, certainly, post-industrial societies, the acknowledgment of the individual and property rights of women makes polygyny impossible to adjudicate in the same way as monogamous unions.

[David Zephyr]

12. Thank you.

More like apples and tires.

[Starry Messenger]

17. My pleasure.

:D Good to see you David!

[smalll]

14. Thank you for your posting and link! This makes a lot of sense.

At the same time, many of the comments to the posting at the link attempt to pull apart this logic - in favor of polygamy.

[Starry Messenger]

16. I didn't read the comments.

I think under our current laws if a group of people wished to enter into a contract, they would have to become a corporation. The point is, this is our current set-up: two adults enter into a contract. If polygamists wish to have secular marriage rights they are going to have to start their own process. I don't think it's imminent.

[COLGATE4]

49. Why on earth would you assume (or state) that

"of a group of people wished to enter into a contract, they would have to become a corporation"? Just word salad - there is nothing in the Law of Contracts that would require any such thing.

[Starry Messenger]

52. You're right, I'm an asshole.

Welcome to the internet. That's why the phrase "I think" was put there. I didn't state "I know" for just that reason. I might be totally wrong. It's just like, my opinion man. Start an OP about it. Get on with your bad self. The whole internet waits with bated breath.

[JI7]

13. Civil Rights for Blacks and other minorities were moslty won through Courts

it's very difficult to win politically since there are so many bigoted people. to win politically you just have to wait for older generations to die off .

[ruggerson]

15. The courts are there specifically to protect minorities

from the tyranny of the majority.

The biggest travesty about Prop 8 is that it went to the voters in the first place.

[vaberella]

20. I don't care if it's the other parties are consent. n/t

[LittleBlue]

22. If he wants to have four wives, and his four wives him, who are we to stop them?

Christ, we need to stop trying to legislate morality. That's what got us into this mess in the first place.

[smalll]

24. As I said to someone else upthread,

I don't really want to use this thread to debate whether plural marriage would be harmful or harmless to society. But I do want to throw one (or two) points out to you:

One of the reason Republicans and Democrats alike are willing to accept economic inequality is that we all understand that, while inequality is a bad thing, the nature of the market economy requires us to accept a lot of inequality for the good of production and growth itself. Yes, Democrats don't go as far in this as the other side, but we generally accept the idea that millionaires and billionaires can be permitted because their accumulation of money, at least to some extent, produces more wealth at large -- or rather, the other way around -- people who are fortunate enough to find a way to produce more wealth for society at large are rewarded in the market system through personal riches.

But the "marriage economy" is entirely different -- it IS a zero-sum game. As nature in her wisdom sees to it that there are generally equal amounts of men and women born, any man with four wives means there will be three men who will have no-one to marry (and sorry, one-woman, many-men marriages have been incredibly rare throughout history, and I am convinced will always remain so.)

If there was an unchanging, un-growing amount of wealth in our society, it would make sense for us to dis-allow people to be millionaires. Because of the zero-sum nature of the marriage economy, I think it makes eminent sense to dis-allow polygamy.

Second point: let me suggest that western civilization by making couple-marrige (monogamy) the norm very much helped get us OUT of "this mess in the first place" -- the "mess" in this case refering to the feudal, tribal, slave-based societies of antiquity.

[LittleBlue]

26. You're bringing in the philosophy of "nature"? You serious?

You're not different than a Bible-toting Christian saying "it's meant to be this way."

I'm not even bringing up plural marriage, gay marriage, etc. This is about people who make value judgments on the domestic arrangement of others.

I didn't even read most of the stuff you wrote, I don't care about your interpretation of what you think nature demands. Irrelevant. You're just another person imposing their beliefs on others. Period.

[smalll]

27. I only brought up "nature" to say that there is a 1 to 1 ratio of men to women in the population --

And that therefore one man with four wives equals three men with no wives.

I'm surprised you take the time to respond to posts you don't read.

[LittleBlue]

28. So what? That's genetics, not a female entity named "nature."

Genetics also dictates that some people suffer from multiple sclerosis, leukemia, and cystic fibrosis. That doesn't mean we can't deviate from what nature seemingly wants.

Some men will be without wives, some polygamist wives will get better offers from single men, etc. It would work out fine.

[Ignis]

38. Ugh, read a little anthropology before you make sweeping statements, please.

Marriage arrangements are strongly influenced by environmental factors. That's why polygamy is the norm among pastoral/nomadic cultures, while polyandry is often practiced in environments that can only support a limited population (like pre-invasion Tibet).

[smalll]

54. I was already half aware of what you mention --

Polygamy is the norm amongst pastoral/nomadic cultures. I would even go so far as to say that polygamy was even the norm in most ancient civilizations. I was not aware that polyandry was common in places like pre-invasion Tibet. I would guess that polyandry has, compared to polygamy and monogamy, been much more rare -- which fits in with what you know - that polyandry was practiced in environments that could only support a limited population.

I worry that perhaps polygamy, for lack of a better word at this point, is perhaps more "natural" for human society than monogamy. I certainly see this in the dating world of younger people these days - it's kind of a world of de-facto polygamy. The so called "alpha males" end up with many women, a lot of other males end up in unwilling celibacy. It has always been the case that womanizers have done well - that's why they're called womanizers I guess - but I get the impression that most of the time they used to have to pretend that each of their women was their one-and-only, while these days I see that they don't hide their harems -- many young women in fact seem to WANT to be with men who have a lot of women.

[Ignis]

56. No, pair-bonding remains the norm, outside societal pressures to the contrary.

I don't mean to be snarky, but these questions can easily be answered by a basic anthropology course/textbook. Making sweeping generalizations about "ancient civilizations" without understanding the frameworks involved isn't doing yourself any favors.

The vast bulk of all humans who have ever existed have been hunter-gatherers in tribal societies. If you want to make sweeping generalizations about "human nature," you might want to start your research there.

Best of luck. :hi:

[smalll]

57. Well, that's good news then!

And you're right, the vast bulk of people at most times have been hunter-gatherers in tribal societies -- which tended to be polygamous, am I correct, similar to nomads with domesticated animals?

I guess for me two examples come to mind of major civilizations where polygamy was standard for the higher-ups -- Islamic societies (of course, Islam was formed specifically for Arabs of the Arabian Penninsula who were by and large nomads -- but Mohammed himself came from a town-based trading people -- and it didn't take long for Islam to take over the more established areas of civilization, but polygamy was never set aside) and perhaps ancient China? The emperors certainly had many concubines who had almost the status of wives. I admit I'm not aware of how common that kind of polygamy was amongst the rest of the Chinese upper classes, although I get the impression it may have been quite common amongst them as well.

On edit: I also have developed doubts about pair-bonding being the norm amongst human beings because I have seen that amongst younger people today, de-facto polygamy is increasingly becoming the norm -- "alpha" males with many women, and quite open about their many women, and many other males with none at all.

[Ignis]

58. No, you are incorrect. Again, Anthro 101 here.

Hunter-gatherers are not pastoralists. :banghead:

I can lead the horse to water, but honestly, you have to pick up the damn book yourself. :D

[smalll]

59. LOL - sorry to be a difficult student!

I know hunter-gatherers are not pastoralists! I just suggested that pastoralists were "similar" to hunter-gatherers -- as I said above, the main difference is that pastoralists had domesticated animals, hunter-gatheres did not. But beyond that, there were many similarities - the one that comes immediately to mind is that both hunter-gatherers and pastoralists travelled in nomadic circuits, to be at the best places to aquire food (or feed their herds) in each season.

[Ignis]

77. Actually, I should apologize.

In my rush to criticize, I made an error: Hunter-gatherers live in smaller societal structures called "bands," rather than in the larger societal structures we call "tribes."

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

Back to Anthro 101 for me, I fear. :blush:

[KingFlorez]

23. I wouldn't think that it would be the same precedent

The issue of taxation would be a problem, multiple marriages could be use as a way of usurping taxes by claiming multiple dependents. Besides that, I don't necessarily see it as a civil right and no court is ridiculous enough to see it like that.

[Hosnon]

30. Good topic. I see the eventual result of all this

as the recognition of marriage as simply a bundle of contracts (perhaps generations from now).

Any number of consenting adults will be free to enter into some or all of those contracts.

[Drunken Irishman]

31. There probably is no legal ground to stop it. But it goes beyond the marriage aspect.

The biggest issue with polygamy isn't necessarily the plural aspect of the marriage. It's the abuse and incest and non-consent that goes along with it. This is both a problem with Mormon polygamy and Islamic polygamy.

Unlike with gay marriage, where you're dealing with two consenting adults, the line is blurred a bit more with polygamy.

Often it isn't between two consenting adults. It's often between either a child or someone forced into that marriage. This automatically should legally void the marriage because you must consent to be married.

Then there is sexual and regular abuse that occurs within a great deal of polygamist compounds out here in Utah, Arizona and Colorado.

Beyond that, many are forced against their own will to live that lifestyle on the compound.

Of course, then you deal with a lot of incest. Cousins marrying cousins and in some instances, brothers marrying sisters. It happens a lot because the families get so large (often 40 kids to a father), they overlap. That is another problem because incest is illegal.

Those concerns and the fact most polygamy marriages suffer from those issues will almost certainly keep it illegal because, ultimately, there is no assurance that it can be done without the problems I mentioned above - unless there was total and radical change.

That means wiping out compounds and splitting up incest families to ensure that type of lifestyle doesn't continue.

[msanthrope]

32. I think you've now touched on exactly why the LDS is fighting so hard on this.

IMHO, the LDS knows that if gay marriage goes through, then plural marriage isn't far behind.

And, absent a showing of harm to the vulnerable (children of such unions, women who may not be able to consent fully) or a general systemic harm (inability of said unions to support themselves), then you are not going to stop plural marriage.

Which means that every crazy ass in the Mormon Church is gonna come out of the woodwork, and demand their seat at the table.

And the very careful century of fomenting LDS respectability and prosperity will be swept aside, as the rest of the country points, stares, and demands that Mormons in public life pick a side.

the LDS knows their own....

[shimmergal]

33. Arghhh!

Why does everyone discussing this assume that polygamy would mean one man with several wives! There's no logical reason (outside of male possessivenesss) that it couldn't equally be one woman with several husbands. Many women are capable of providing emotional support to several men, just as they do with several children. Hardly any men can do so satisfactorily.

However, I don't think a Muslim would stand a chance in hell of winning a court judgment legalizing his four wives arrangement. The likeliest scenario for would-be polygamists to win recognition, I think, is the suggestion that they'd need to incorporate. And even then...

On a practical level, I think the only argument against legalizing polygamy is that it would be a real mess to enforce. But since we allow divorce and remarriage, and now also give some recognition to non-marital bonds, esp. when children are involved, we're already dealing with similar problems. What the govt. does is, at least for social security etc., is divide up the person's "credits" according to various factors, like length of marriage, etc. As far as I know, if a man who's had four wives dies, the four DON'T each get the whole payment that a sole surviving widow would.

BTW, it wasn't Christianity as such that established monogamy as the pattern for Western marriage. It was the Roman influence. The Romans only had monogamy, or at least only one spouse at a time. There's some evidence that in early Christianity monogamy was optional. At least one of the requirements of a bishop was that he be "the husband of one wife." Now I'm not enough of a scholar to know which way this should be interpreted, but IMO it's at least possible that it means "not a polygamist." And of course even today, polygamy is as much of a dilemma for some of the African churches as gay issues are on the American church scene.

Not sure what you're worried about in thinking legalized polygamy would be a real threat to couple-marriage. I guess it's possible that some unhappily married people might think they'd be happier in a polygamous menage, but IMO it'd be damned few. There's already the option of becoming a rich man's mistress, or many other off-legal relationships which we really don't prosecute people for.

The real threat, IMO, would be to the capitalist system -- if you put more people in an average household, the amount they have to spend on durable goods shrinks proportionately. Who knows, they might even share cars and laundry facilities. For much the same reason, we discourage extended family households. (If I had a dollar for every time I've seen even liberals bad-mouth the grown-up son or daughter living in their parents basement, I'd be rich!) Hell, if you live with and share with several other adults, your boss doesn't have quite the same stranglehold over your resources for survival. Think about it.

End of rant. Interesting question; thanks for raising it.

[potone]

37. The requirement that a bishop be the husband of one wife was not about polygamy.

It was about divorce. This is still the case in the Eastern Orthodox Church. Priests are allowed to be married, provided that they marry before they become deacons, which is a prerequisite to becoming a priest. Once ordained, however, a priest cannot divorce or remarry if his wife dies without quitting the priesthood. The latter case is a lively topic of debate within Orthodox circles, since it sometimes happens that a priest's wife may die at a young age. At any rate, bishops have to be celibate (although it is my understanding that this is simply a tradition, not a canon of the Church, but I may be wrong about that) so that some of them are widowers. I'm not trying to be pedantic here; I am just giving some historical context.

[smalll]

55. Thanks for your thoughtful response!

I was also enlightened by the poster who first responded to you on the bishop question. Yes, Roman law was a key element in the development of monogamy as the western norm. I think also, if we can trust Tacitus, that the marriage traditions of the German barbarians was another key element -- he wrote that, surprisingly for "barbarians" (nomadic or semi-nomadic peoples) the Germans were largely monogamous.

As I see it, monogamy became the western norm because of the happy coincidence that, around the fall of Rome and the start of the Dark Ages, these three influences came together at the same time: Christianity, Roman law, and the marriage traditions of the German barbarians.

You also write, "There's no logical reason (outside of male possessivenesss) that it couldn't equally be one woman with several husbands." Well, I understand your point, but I do doubt it. Male possessiveness, or male jealousy is strong. I'm a single, unattached male, not wanting to be so, but I couldn't see myself ever being able to deal with having to share a woman with other men on a regular basis. Another poster down-thread tells us, which I was not aware, that one woman, many husbands (polyandry) has existed in history in places where the environment couldn't support substantial populations -- in old Tibet, he tells us. This likely is correct, but that's not how we live these days -- yes, the economy is dreadful, but it's not THAT kind of scarcity we are facing right now.

I have read about the modern "polyamory" movement where yes, there are situations where one woman ends up with many men. I think even in modern polyamory though, that the one man many women situtation is more common. We men have our issues -- we can be a little possessive and/or jealous. And the more successful amongst us love to show off success -- I don't doubt that for a certain type like that, an extra wife or two would be at least a desirable a status symbol as an over-sized house, over-sized TV, or Hummer.

[Yavin4]

35. The State Has A Real Interest In Stopping Polygamy or Polyandry

Simply because of tax and other benefits would become too difficult to distribute, and such arrangements would abuse these benefits.

Also, it would be to onerous to track paternity in cases of property disputes.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

43. That's an identifiable interest but not a compelling one or a narrowly tailored fix

[Spazito]

39. Well, I can only say that when Canada grew up and recognized equal marriage...

5 years ago, there has been NO attempt to challenge the current status regarding polygamy, polyandry (sp?) or anything else and even more, gasp, equal marriage is a non-issue except for the tiniest fringe of rabid right wingers who have NO effect.

I don't see why you would expect it to be different in the U.S. whether the final national recognition of equal marriage (and it WILL happen I have NO doubt)is via the courts (the most likely catalyst) or all States individually (don't see that as viable at all).

[CreekDog]

40. let's vote on your civil rights

you don't mind giving them up until they pass do you?

wouldn't want to create more problems while you are out enjoying your rights.

:eyes:

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

42. Brown v. Board of Education stirred up trouble, I tell you...

I do understand the OP's concern but if political action was likely to support human rights we wouldn't have added the bill of rights to the constitution.

It would have been unnecessary.

[CBR]

47. Who cares? There is my intellectually lazy response because

I really don't give a shit if someone wants to be a consenting plural marriage.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

48. I have many concerns with your mental well-being.

Should we have put desegregation up to a popular vote? The Civil Rights Act? As for the rest of your OP, it's just full of RW bullshit that has no place here.

[grantcart]

50. If you took the time to read the judge's opinion then you would see that

your concerns have no basis.

[Odin2005]

51. I hate the notion of people voting on the rights of others.

Do you think people in 1950 would have voted in favor of desegregation?

[Bluenorthwest]

72. When Loving v Virginia made inter racial marriages legal

The overwhelming majority of Americans were highly opposed to it.

[NMMNG]

60. Slippery slope fallacy

What's to stop someone, for example, a devout Muslim man, from walking into court now and demanding the right to have four wives at once (which is explicitly allowed by the Koran.) Won't he win too?

There's nothing to stop a Muslim, an FLDS Mormon or anybody else from filing a lawsuit to demand their right to marry as many men (or women) as they desire. But that has nothing whatsoever to do with legal same-sex marriage. The notion that legal same-sex marriage would "open the doors" to legalizing polygamy, bestiality, etc, is no more valid than claiming legal opposite-sex marriage opened the door to legal same-sex marriage. They're completely different entities and if anybody goes to court asking for their polygamy rights their case will be judged on its individual merits.

[TrogL]

68. Well done

[JustAnotherGen]

67. A different take

I see a lot wrong with it. Gay marriage doesn't "destroy" or even harm in any way any straight marriage. I'm convinced, however, that legalized polygamy WOULD harm couple-marriage, the already-shaky relations between the sexes, and even the fundamental belief in the equality of each human being upon which our modern western civilization is (or is at least supposed to be) based.

I truly. Deeply. Wholey believe. That the number one cause of divorce is marriage.

I don't think anyone but the two individuals involved in it can make or break a marriage. I truly don't. Not multiple partner, not already shay relations in between the sexes, etc. etc. People use that stuff for a smoke screen only.

My greatest fear is that my belief that most marriages are a joke will be shattered by same sex couples marrying lasting forever, and ever, ever, and ever, and ever . . . ;-)

[Bluenorthwest]

70. Karl? Grover?

Is that you?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

71. Not this shit again...

[onenote]

78. I recommend you read the decision.

If you still are unclear as to why your concern is unfounded, post again.

[jberryhill]

83. He's welcome to try

Anyone can file whatever they'd like with a federal court.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

84. I don't believe that equal rights should be subject to a vote period

Although I understand the reality that, because of the historical bigotry and discrimination towards GLBT individuals, the law needs to be changed to specifically protect them as it protects other people for other reasons (i.e. race, sex, religion, disability, etc.).
However, while we're waiting until there enough enlightened and courageous individuals able and willing to overcome the prejudices of a determined and vocal minority to actually codify anti-discrimination measures into law/repeal discriminatory already existing measures, using any and all other legitimate tools at our disposal such as the courts to advance the cause of equal rights for ALL individuals in our country should be considered entirely appropriate. Like with other landmark civil rights rulings in the past, sometimes the courts will have to step up and take the lead on controversial social change and attitudes will have to follow that change.
It will be awhile before gay marriage is fully accepted by most people in this country but the more states legalize it and the more people see that they're lives aren't being affected by it (although how people are actually affected by gay marriage I have absolutely NO idea :eyes:), the more accepting people will become of it. Until then, however, the courts seem to be serving- correctly IMHO- an important role as both a bulwark against attempts to fight progress (like Prop 8) as well as helping wipe away existing barriers to gay marriage and full equality for GLBT individuals.

[TheKentuckian]

85. Please put me in the "who cares/none of my business camp"

I also find the entire tact to be fairly wrongheaded.

People should be free to arrange their lives as they please among consenting adults that best allows for their own pursuit of happiness.

If 182 women, 201 men, and 25 cross gendered folk want to build a life together it is none of or bees wax and should be celebrated if it brings joy and community to the people involved.

[Warren Stupidity]

86. as long as blacks can't marry whites and christians can't marry jews

I am fine with gays marrying penguins.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

fundamental rights are not and should not be subject to popular vote.