• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Polygamy

pgwenthold said:
Huh? Marriage status is ultimately important. Otherwise, my mother could have just applied for welfare, on the grounds that she had six children and no job.
Click to expand...

Right, but the deal in Utah, as I heard, is that the old man doesn't work. I meant that marriage, per se, is not a bar to welfare.
 
Ed said:
Right, but the deal in Utah, as I heard, is that the old man doesn't work. I meant that marriage, per se, is not a bar to welfare.
Click to expand...

But this has nothing to do with polygamy. You can get lazy welfare bums in monogamous marriage as well.
 
pgwenthold said:
But this has nothing to do with polygamy. You can get lazy welfare bums in monogamous marriage as well.
Click to expand...

I am really being unclear on this.

A guy can father dozens of children (as happened with the guy in Utah) and the state took care of them.
 
pgwenthold said:
But this has nothing to do with polygamy. You can get lazy welfare bums in monogamous marriage as well.
Click to expand...

In a sense this is true, but the culture of polygamists (at least, the ones in UT, ID, AZ, Canada etc.) is that the "husband" does not work, the wives support him. Since they are bearing and raising a lot of children (polygamous men consider lots and lots of kids to be a sign of their success and therefore father as many as possible) the only way the wives can do this is to be on welfare.

Seriously - read that book I mentioned. Or you could try reading "Polygamist's Wife" by Melissa Merrill. Or just plain learn more about the culture behind the polygamy. It is pretty scary.
 
Ed said:
I am really being unclear on this.

A guy can father dozens of children (as happened with the guy in Utah) and the state took care of them.
Click to expand...


Yes, because they were all classified as being the children of unwed mothers. The government could not claim that he was responsible for providing for them, any more than they would if it were any child support case. Thus, they look at the income of the mother, and the child support the father can provide, and determine that it is not enough.

However, if they are legally married, then the mother and father are considered as a married couple, and they are evaluated as a married couple. As I said, there has to be regulation of the eligible dependents, but the state would no longer consider each wife to be a separate entity requiring single mother welfare support, and therefore the welfare payout wouldn't be a means to prosper, any more than any other married couple on welfare.
 
Amapola said:
In a sense this is true, but the culture of polygamists (at least, the ones in UT, ID, AZ, Canada etc.) is that the "husband" does not work, the wives support him. Since they are bearing and raising a lot of children (polygamous men consider lots and lots of kids to be a sign of their success and therefore father as many as possible) the only way the wives can do this is to be on welfare.

Seriously - read that book I mentioned. Or you could try reading "Polygamist's Wife" by Melissa Merrill. Or just plain learn more about the culture behind the polygamy. It is pretty scary.
Click to expand...

Of course, all this is tainted under the pretext of _illegal_ polygamy.

If this is the problem, it can be addressed through regulation. But you can't regulate something if you don't acknowledge that it exists.

As I have said, the reason the wives are eligible for welfare is because they are considered unwed mothers. Call them married, and then let it be known that the state will not support the family beyond that of a monogamous marriage.

As with prostitution and drug use, we need to separate the problems of the activity from the problems that result from prohibition of the activity.
 
pgwenthold said:
Yes, because they were all classified as being the children of unwed mothers. The government could not claim that he was responsible for providing for them, any more than they would if it were any child support case. Thus, they look at the income of the mother, and the child support the father can provide, and determine that it is not enough.

However, if they are legally married, then the mother and father are considered as a married couple, and they are evaluated as a married couple. As I said, there has to be regulation of the eligible dependents, but the state would no longer consider each wife to be a separate entity requiring single mother welfare support, and therefore the welfare payout wouldn't be a means to prosper, any more than any other married couple on welfare.
Click to expand...

I don't see how, unless every time a man gets a woman pregnant they become married.
 
Cleon said:
Further muddying the waters is the fact that where polygamy is practiced, particularly in fundamentalist strains of Mormonism and Islam, it tends to be very hard on women and children. Specifically, women are treated like chattel slaves and married off at a very young age (often before they're legally considered women).
Click to expand...

The Islamic rule is that the husband has to have consent from the wife before taking another wife, and after doing so, must promise and fulfill the requirement that both will be treated equally.

Pretty much across the board in Islamic countries where polygamy is practiced, women are expected to consent to their husband's wishes, or they're considered "disrespectful". So the first wife's real wishers are tossed out the door on that.

And since the Prophet took a wife that was anywhere from 8 to 12 years old, a standard was established where marrying off children is okay.

Personally, as a man, I like to idea of polygamy. My wife, does not and made it clear to me that there will be no second wife. So, I'll be hoping for the 70 virgins in heaven, though my wife has some thoughts on that as well.
 
SuperCoolGuy said:
The Islamic rule is that the husband has to have consent from the wife before taking another wife, and after doing so, must promise and fulfill the requirement that both will be treated equally.

Pretty much across the board in Islamic countries where polygamy is practiced, women are expected to consent to their husband's wishes, or they're considered "disrespectful". So the first wife's real wishers are tossed out the door on that.
Click to expand...

Exactly. At the time Islam arrived on the scene, it was fairly progressive in that regard--not only did a man have to seek his wife's consent to get a second wife, but for the first time a woman could initiate divorce.

Unfortunately, time has whittled away what little gain that was.

And since the Prophet took a wife that was anywhere from 8 to 12 years old, a standard was established where marrying off children is okay.
Click to expand...

Well, a lot of times marriage wasn't about sex or love as it was about family alliances, property, and politics--which, in a way, is worse, as it reduces women to commodities to be traded.
 
Amapola said:
In a sense this is true, but the culture of polygamists (at least, the ones in UT, ID, AZ, Canada etc.) is that the "husband" does not work, the wives support him. Since they are bearing and raising a lot of children (polygamous men consider lots and lots of kids to be a sign of their success and therefore father as many as possible) the only way the wives can do this is to be on welfare.
Click to expand...

This is not what I have seen.

What I have seen is that one husband and one wife do the work. The remaining wives "bleed the beast" by taking money from welfare.
 
Amapola said:
In a sense this is true, but the culture of polygamists (at least, the ones in UT, ID, AZ, Canada etc.) is that the "husband" does not work, the wives support him. Since they are bearing and raising a lot of children (polygamous men consider lots and lots of kids to be a sign of their success and therefore father as many as possible) the only way the wives can do this is to be on welfare.

Seriously - read that book I mentioned. Or you could try reading "Polygamist's Wife" by Melissa Merrill. Or just plain learn more about the culture behind the polygamy. It is pretty scary.
Click to expand...

Do you know where the polygamist compounds in Idaho are? I was under the impression the FLDS compounds are in the SLC area and further south.
 
Morally and ethically there is no reason for the government to forbid polygamy.

However, marriage between two people and between five people have quite different legal constructs. If you take an example of an person incapacitated due to injure. The spouse in a two person marriage has well defined legal rights and responisibilities. If there are 4 competent spouses, who make the medical decisions? If two spouses have a child, what parental rights and responsibilities do the "extra" spouses have?

I have absolutely no issue with multiple people living together in an intimate, sexual relationship. However, the legal issues are quite complex.

CBL
 
money said:
Do you know where the polygamist compounds in Idaho are? I was under the impression the FLDS compounds are in the SLC area and further south.
Click to expand...

Here's a story about Idaho polygamists: Bonner's Ferry I am sure there are more, that was just the first one that came up on my Google search. Of course I have read of Bonner's Ferry; it was started by John D. Lee, the man who was ultimately the only one to be punished for the Mountain Meadows massacre. Sadly I think they punished the wrong guy, but that is, as they say, water under the bridge now.
 
CBL4 said:
I have absolutely no issue with multiple people living together in an intimate, sexual relationship. However, the legal issues are quite complex.
Click to expand...

Indeed they are. I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels this way.

As a person in a non-monogamous marriage myself, I think legalizing polygamy would be a huge mistake. For those who have said that marriage is a contract and the government shouldn't interfere, remember that marriage is not simply a contract between two individuals. It's a contract between two individuals and the state. The government is a party to the agreement; in some ways it's similar to a landlord/tenant agreement. Marriage imposes certain legal responsibilities on the state, and so marriage is very definitely the government's business. It has not only a right but a duty to make sure the institution is practical and executed fairly. Polygamy would be a legal and logistical nightmare, and so it fails on the first count.

Jeremy
 
Hmmmmmm.

Ok.

No one is denying that legalizing polygamy would constitute the passing of many other laws, as well. I, personally, wouldn't be opposed to people writing their own contracts, thus a lot of the legal issues could be sidestepped. May I also remind people that in European society, women were also, at one time, bartered to seal contracts and alliances. Where do you think the concept of dowry came from?

People can and will abuse any system. We can't stop that. What we can do is step in as a society and say 'OK, if you're going to do this, let's be fair about it.' Turning a blind eye is as good as condoning the abuses that we deplore.

Personally, I see this as much of a non-issue as gay marriage. I fail to see why people get so up-in-arms about such things(so far as opposing them). If you aren't gay, why would you care about gay marriage. Keep your nose in your own damned business.

I see polygamy much the same. Or Polyandry..(Multiple husbands, I think..I may have the wrong term.)
 
clarsct said:
I see polygamy much the same. Or Polyandry..(Multiple husbands, I think..I may have the wrong term.)
Click to expand...
Polygamy is having more than one spouse. Polygyny is one dude, lots of chicks. Polyandry is one chick, lots of dudes.

I wonder though, for it to be consider'd group marriage, would there necessarily have to be more than one of each sex, or would it qualify if a traditional polygamy marriage included homosexual relations as well...
 
Thanks.

I looked all that up a while ago, but it's a bit fuzzy now.

What about multiple men and women, of various orientations? Combined incomes, more stable family unit, and if one person divorces, the family is still together.

Yeah, I read Heinlein, too. But I was just throwing it out there.
 
Damn. I though this was going to be a math question.

One is enough for me. You can do whatever you like as long as I don't have to pay for it.

However; the minors being forced into marriages with relatives (or any marriage) is just plain wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom