Why should polygamy be illegal?

[tyr_13]

If you're married to your wife, and you marry a husband, is that husband married to your wife too? Which one makes the medical decisions? Is your wife your 'main spouse' or a 'secondary spouse'?

The first question would be the important one in my head. I can just imagine being married to a bi woman who wanted a lesbian wife as well. Then there would be two women, one of which I couldn't have sex with, and both of which I have to keep happy (or at least on good terms with). That doesn't sound too great to me at all, even if they let me watch.

 

[ponderingturtle]

If we're restricting ourselves to what the government is likely to go for, we'd have to stop discussing most issues. I'm not writing a bill to take to Congress; I'm just pontificating on what would be more reasonable.

As someone brought up before, address how this system will work for the calculation of financial aid, and please make things clear about how family court laws would be rewritten.

It seems that this effect is going to be restricting the rights and benefits that marriage currently gives to the wealthy and legally savvy.

 

[ponderingturtle]

If you're married to your wife, and you marry a husband, is that husband married to your wife too? Which one makes the medical decisions? Is your wife your 'main spouse' or a 'secondary spouse'?

This is what I have been calling the model of marriage that no one is putting forward.

In one a marriage is something any number of people can be a part of, in the other it is between two people and they can have such an agreement with more than one other person.

Of course in the interests of freedom we would need to have both forms be written into law. To do otherwise would be discrimination against some of those who want poly marriage.


These are the sorts of details that none of those arguing that not having such laws in place is discriminatory is not dealing with here.

 

[tyr_13]

That's not a sexual preference issue; that's a "people are horndogs and monogamy is often an unrealistic expectation for any relationship" issue.

Also, people just always want more. They want someone or something else to 'make' them happy and fulfilled. Some of us can't get one wife, and here these other people want to take two or three, or eight.

 

[quarky]

That's a tempting position, but it's also a little more complicated than it might seem. The underlying issue is, should the government be permitted to encourage individuals to do things which it believes are in the public's best interests?

Because lifestyle choices aren't the only thing here. If you want to eliminate tax breaks for having children, then the same principle would also require you to eliminate tax breaks for, say, charitable donations, or going to college, or buying a house.

The question of whether the government should be empowered to make any public policy decisions at all is a difficult one, and yes, I can definitely see the appeal of a libertarian point of view. But I'm not convinced that system would produce anything close to the best results in the real world.

I worry about what the government thinks are 'best interests' sometimes.
I see no reason for government to be involved in this particular issue.
This isn't to say I don't feel it should be involved in other matters.

If anything, we should be subsidizing experiments to replace the faltering nuclear family model.

 

[tyr_13]

If anything, we should be subsidizing experiments to replace the faltering nuclear family model.

I'm going with clans.

 

[Z]

If you're married to your wife, and you marry a husband, is that husband married to your wife too? Which one makes the medical decisions? Is your wife your 'main spouse' or a 'secondary spouse'?

The first question would be the important one in my head. I can just imagine being married to a bi woman who wanted a lesbian wife as well. Then there would be two women, one of which I couldn't have sex with, and both of which I have to keep happy (or at least on good terms with). That doesn't sound too great to me at all, even if they let me watch.

I guarantee, it's not.

I've been there. It's not the picnic it appears to be. Of course, it wasn't a 'legal' marriage situation, but for all practical purposes, everything was set up through back door situations that made it all but identical to extended marriage.

In this case, I was the pivot point. The two women came to hate each other, the bickering was constant, and I was the poor sap in-between. Then their periods synchronized, and it was hell.

I'm working on single now, and thinking of lobbying against marriage altogether...

That's my answer to the whole 'how would YOU define legal issues of poly marriage'? I wouldn't. I'd abolish marriage from the legal system altogether. Bloody bad idea, from the get-go.

 

[Z]

I'm going with clans.

Clans separated by at least a week's travel across open wilderness for spring and fall mating rituals? Mmmm... sounds good to me.

The 'nuclear family' was definitely a mistake. The happiest families I've ever known have been single-mother families. Marriage sucks. And it definitely doesn't work.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I'm going with clans.

Unlikely look at the rise of the nuclear family, it was a response to the death of the extended family.

 

[Skeptic]

This whole discussion shows the failure of progressive thinking. Since being progressive means, when society supports X, to claim it must support Y because allowing only X is "opressive", once society supports Y the "progressive" must support Z, then W, then... and so on.

Since the difference between extreme "progressive" and extreme reactionary positions is merely theoretical, the "progressive" finds himself -- by way of support of gay marriage -- forced to support polygamy, the most opressive anti-woman institution in history.

(That some people know some polygamy that works is no contrary evidence since, first, this hardly disproves what polygamy does in general to women's rights, and second, it ignores that the reason some polygamy in western society works is precisely because there is an assumption of female equality -- which polygamous societies despise. It is the same sort of "logic" as having an internet web page claiming science and technology never did anyone any good).

 

[ponderingturtle]

(That some people know some polygamy that works is no contrary evidence since, first, this hardly disproves what polygamy does in general to women's rights, and second, it ignores that the reason some polygamy in western society works is precisely because there is an assumption of female equality -- which polygamous societies despise. It is the same sort of "logic" as having an internet web page claiming science and technology never did anyone any good).

So we are back that marriage is degrading to women. Marriage hurts womens right, sure there have been some recent cases where people might claim to know that was not the case but when looked at history it can be seen as the minority view.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Oh for the contract marriage people.

How would you deal with the immigration effect of marriage? If you can give such an effect to an arbitrary number of people through contract, then we might as well remove all ideas at immigration laws.

 

[Skeptic]

So we are back that marriage is degrading to women. .

Marriage, no.

Polygamy, yes.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Marriage, no.

Why do you say that? Looking at the history of marriage, especialy if you were doing it 100 years ago, it would look like marriage should have been abolished to promote womens rights.

Why are you willing to give marriage a break to change with modern ideas of womens rights and not polygamy?

 

[luchog]

It is workable, it just adds even more laywers fees, especialy at the begining of marriage.

No moreso than any other pre-nuptial agreement process.

So marriage and the rights that one gets from it become a thing that only some people can afford.

Non sequitor. There is no reason that there can't be a selection of standardized forms and processes; just like we already have for wills and power of attorney.

This is why I am against this sort of individualized marriage. Marriage has over a thousand individual effect, all those laws will need to be evaluated and possibly rewritten, and then made optional so that people choose what fits them.

Why? Aside from the fact that governments have no business being involved in marriage?

Do you want people to be able to freely choose if they count as a family for finanical aid and such as well?

That's a completely different and fundamentally unrelated issue that requires an entirely different thread.

 

[luchog]

And look at polygynous religious subcultures. Not all those who want poly marriage want it in the same fashion, and are they all part of the polyamoury subculture? Is there a strong muslim presence?

Too many logical fallacies to list here. Muslims are not the only ones practicing polygamy. If you're going to cherry pick your data like that, then there's no point even trying to discuss the issue. What about the polyandrous Asian cultures? What about subcultures that practice both, de facto if not de novo, like the polyamourous subcultures? Why does everyone assume that legal polygamy invariably and exclusively means oppressive religious polygyny? There is no evidence to support such an assumption, and plenty to refute it.

 

[luchog]

And if you move all of those into contract law think of the possibilities for abuse.

The potential for contract abuse is far less serious of an issue, and one more simply remedied through family law courts like any other marriage issue, than the current abuse of government regulation of marriage by intolerant religious polititians and organizations

 

[ponderingturtle]

No moreso than any other pre-nuptial agreement process.

Prenups don't have lists of which of thousands of laws apply or not.

Non sequitor. There is no reason that there can't be a selection of standardized forms and processes; just like we already have for wills and power of attorney.

And marriage licensees oddly enough.

Of course those are small parts of the many many rules of marriage.

How much should I charge for the immigration effects of marriage to bring people into the country as a individual contract?

The government has no business being involved in marriage, so marriage shouldn't effect immigration status. We need to get rid of the ideas that just loving someone should change how immigration works right? Anyone should be willing to wait the number of years to get a visa if they truly love someone right?

 

[luchog]

It's not only the Muslim world. It's the status of women in EVERY society where polygamy is practiced. The Muslim world is simply the most common example.

Is it? I would think that the Pahari, Ladhaki, and other Nepali would disagree strongly with this; as well as the Maasai; the Mosuo, and various Mongolian peoples; various Burmese peoples; the Nair, Theeya and Nishi people of India; and various Polynesian peoples. Not to mention all of the historical examples throughout Asia and the Middle East.

It really helps to have a bloodly clue what the hell yo'ure talking about, before spouting off. While polyandrous polygamy is not as common, historically, as polygyny, that's an accident of culture that is not directly applicable to the modern, developed world. It's an artifact of societies which have a greater female to male ratio, typically resulting from depletion of available males through warfare or monasticism. In some areas where the male to female ratio is typically higher, polyandry has often resulted. In a few societies (such as the previously mentioned Indian peoples), both polygynous and polyandrous polygamy was practiced roughly equally.

It's extremely rare that polygamy is exclusively religious in origin. In fact, when it is so, it is almost invariably among a fringe sect or cult, and limited to a charismatic leader, or small group of hierarchical "elites" playing out their harem fantasies in a religious context. It is almost invariably limited to a handful of people, and rarely persists long (and is often a bone of contention within the group). The Mormon practice of religiously mandated polygyny is a historical anomaly resulting entirely from the self-indulgences of such an elite leadership. Other religious examples, such as those in Judaism or Islam, are merely a recognition and codification of issues involved with existing population ratios, rather than any desire on the part of the leadership or practitioners.

In modern polyamourous subcultures, polygynous and polyandrous relationships are practiced more or less equally as well; although these often ivolve far more complex relationship groups than traditional polygamous marriage practices.

Your insistence on repeating something that is provably and obviously completely wrong makes you look like an idiot, which you clearly are not from your other posts; and a bigot, which I'm disappointed to see you demonstrating yourself to be.

 

[luchog]

Prenups don't have lists of which of thousands of laws apply or not.

Nor is there any need to.

Of course those are small parts of the many many rules of marriage.

The vast majority of which are completely irrelevant.

How much should I charge for the immigration effects of marriage to bring people into the country as a individual contract?

Non sequitor. Why should this even be an issue?

The government has no business being involved in marriage, so marriage shouldn't effect immigration status. We need to get rid of the ideas that just loving someone should change how immigration works right? Anyone should be willing to wait the number of years to get a visa if they truly love someone right?

I don't really see how that would be more of a problem with a purely civil contract. It's an unnecessarily over-complicated issue derived entirely from the fact that American immigration laws are excessively complex and restrictive, and long overdue for a massive reform; but again, that's an entirely different issue requiring a different thread.