Why should polygamy be illegal?

[luchog]

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.

And, in fact, many suffragettes and similar reformers have championed just such an abolition of marriage, due to the second-class citizenship and marital ownership issues prevalent throughout history. Women have very often not even been allowed to own property or maintain an income apart from her birth family or husband. In fact, cultures which considered women as equal partners, and not in some way owned by their husbands, have been far less common in history; and even in the modern world they are far from uncommon in the Third World.

 

[luchog]

Actually, I think it is a slippery slope. Marriage is traditionally defined as between one man and one woman. If we are going make one change to the definition, how can you argue against another (again, assuming that everyone involved is a consenting human adult)?

Whose tradition? Not mine, if I go back far enough. And I'm willing to bet not that of a lot of people on the board. Close to half the world cultures have practices some form of polygamy; and a number of them have also practiced same-sex marriage (eg. some First Nations and Pacific Islander peoples).

 

[luchog]

History has shown that that it tends to be that way.

But far from invariably, and modern Euro-American culture has demonstrated otherwise.

 

[luchog]

Really? So there's a lot of sex slaves in the developed countries, such as Germany, Italy, France, the U.S., the UK, etc? It's a standard practice in many of these countries?

Yes, in fact, it is practiced in a large segment of Eastern Europe and the Far East; as well as the US and the Commonwealth to a lesser degree.

The legality or otherwise is completely irrelevant to the fact that it is fairly widely practiced; and the practice appears to be increasing, rather than decreasing. Japan in particular is a major center of sexual slavery and trafficking; and has one of the world's strongest economies; as has been noted in another thread.

 

[luchog]

Well, yes and no. First, not many people are emotionally equipped to be happy with that kind of relationship. And second, even with multiple partners, there's no guarantee that sexual incompatibility won't be a problem. Or maybe two of the partners are too compatible, and the third feels left out. It can create compatibility problems as well as solve them.

So, no different than monogamous relationships, then.

There are no problems, aside from time and scheduling issues, that are unique to polyamourous relationships. Both polyamourous and monogamous relationships fail for almost exactly the same reasons; the most common of which is money, the second most common of which is sexual (which is less of an issue among polyamourous groups than monogamous ones).

Neglect is just as common, if not moreso, in monogamous relationships as it is iin polyamourous ones. Maybe the reasons for the neglect are different; but it's really no different to the victims if they're neglected because of another partner, an illicit affair, or a time-consuming obsession with a job or hobby.

 

[luchog]

This isn't a civil rights issue. The civil rights of polyamorous people are being fully respected (or, if they're not, I share your outrage). Their freedom of expression is intact. Their freedom of association is intact.

Yes it is. No they aren't (yes you should). No, it isn't. Not entirely, no.

Polyamourous relationships, like same-sex relationships, are denied the familial status and rights, and government-granted privileges, accorded to monogamous heterosexual couples. They can be legally barred from many places (such as hospitals) and from making many decisions (such as medical care) where blood relatives, even undesirable blood relatives, are granted access and powers.

 

[toddjh]

Polyamourous relationships, like same-sex relationships, are denied the familial status and rights, and government-granted privileges, accorded to monogamous heterosexual couples.

Obtaining "familial status and rights" for your relationship type of choice is not a civil right. The government doesn't have to grant "familial status and rights" to anything at all if it doesn't want to, and in fact quite a few people in this thread have proposed exactly that.

The only civil right at issue here is equal protection under the law, and there is no case to be made for that. Polygamists are not being unduly denied anything. There are qualitative differences between monogamous and polyamorous relationships, enough that they can't be regarded as equivalent in any meaningful sense of the word. With all its other trappings in our society, sometimes it's difficult to remember that the "official" purpose of marriage is to promote the stability of families. Until it can be demonstrated that polygamy serves the same purpose, there is no equivalence and thus no claim of equal protection applies.

And even if it did, legally there's still no civil rights issue: unlike sexual preference in California, "polyamorosity" is not a suspect classification under the law, and so the government is under no obligation to bend over backwards to grant it special status.

 

[luchog]

Yes yes yes, in the past marriage between classes and/or races was looked down upon. Therefore, obviously, ALL restrictions on marriage are bad.

And in the past, black men killing white men were punished more severly than white men killing black men. Therefore, obviously, ALL restrictions on killing people are bad.

NON SEQUITOR

Marriage between classes/ethnic groups was not "looked down on", it was abhorred as "unnatural". There was no valid reason for it, and all objections were religio-cultural or based on religious-influenced pseudo-science. What is your argument based on? Oh that's right, religion!

I fail to see the parallel with your murder example. Inequality of punishment does not invalidate the severity of the crime, it merely meant that the law needed to stop taking race into account when sentencing criminals. The ethnicity of the murder never had any effect on whether a particular murder would be considered a crime (excpet, perhaps, for lynchings in certain areas, just like those areas don't consider gay bashing to be a crime today). Just like the law needed to stop taking race into account for any other issue.

What stopped that? Oh yeah, Full Equality Under The Law. The same full equality that's being denied to homosexuals and polygamous/polyamourous groups. Why is it being denied? Is it a rational judgement based on a reasoned chain of logical thought? Or, perhaps, could the prohibition be strictly based on religion. Gee, I wonder which one it is. Hrm... that's a poser, that is.

It's simple logic! If one type of behavior X was in the past unjustly banned, clearly all types of behavior X whatever must now be allowed.

Sorry, you're missing some steps in your logic. Please show your work, and avoid non-sequitors.

This obviously logical fallacy wouldn't worry me that much, if it wasn't used as one of the main arguments, if not the main argument, of the pro-gay-marriage side. As the Hebrew expression has it, do these people's ears hear what their mouth is saying?

Sorry, what fallacy again? The non-sequitor and false-equivalency fallacies you're using? How about your argument from religious beliefs? After all, we all know that religion is completely and purely rational.

Now, naturally, of the pro-polygamy side, too, despite the pro-gay-marriage folks saying there is no way recognizing gay marriage would lead to recognizing polygamy. They were simply lying on that one, weren't they?

Concept of an honest misunderstanding doesn't exist in your world, does it? Or the idea that there's no logical connection between polygamy and homosexuality? No, your religious fanaticism pretty much requires you to hate both equally, and treat both as if they're filthy subhuman perverts not deserving of the same rights as "proper" citizens.

Oh, and here's another little hint; people are irrational, and just because they believe that something is true, doesn't make it so. And people who have been discriminated against are perfectly capable of failing to learn the obvious lesson, and discriminate against others they consider less worthwhile, which you are so ably demonstrating in this thread.

 

[luchog]

Wait until your rich husband decides to take a "trophy wife" when you're not as young and good-looking as you used to be... without bothering with divorce or alimony or giving you anything at all.

It would be fun to see both of you begging for his attention -- you claiming the right for the prime place due to your age and the bearing of his children, she because she's younger and more beautiful and besides, he loves her more now, anyway.

Because, obviously, she'd have no recourse to demand a divorce and support. Nope, not a single law in the entire US has ever allowed women that option. Not a chance they ever will, either. Nope. Amazing to see how some people still refuse to advance as far as the 20th century, let alone the 21st.

 

[luchog]

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?

No, because what a government believes is in the public's best interest, is not necessarily what is in the public's best interest.

Jim Crow laws existed because the goverment believed it was in the public's best interest to keep the races safely segregated.

Governments are not rational, and are not run by people who are rational. Thus, they should have their powers limited to only what is absolutely necessary to protect the equal rights of all it's citizens, and ensure public safety. Anything beyond that is far too prone to abuse, as we've seen numerous times in the past.

 

[luchog]

Obtaining "familial status and rights" for your relationship type of choice is not a civil right.

Obtaining anything is not a civil right. However, having it recognized is a civil right; just like recognition of the right to equal treatment under the law is a civil right. Why do homosexuals deserve less recognition of their rights than heterosexuals? Why do polygamists deserve less recognition than monogamists? Why do Black, Hispanic, and Asian people deserve less recognition of their rights than good white folks?

Do Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians have their right to marry who and when they wish recognized?

Do homosexuals have their right to marry who and when they wish recognized?

Do polygamists have their right to marry who and when they wish recognized?

Why do some deserve recognition, while others do not? Answer that question. Why should the government be allowed to say that one arbitrarily decided group of people is allowed to have all if their rights recognized, and another is not? Are homosexuals and polygamists subhuman, like Blacks were once thought to be?

The government doesn't have to grant "familial status and rights" to anything at all if it doesn't want to, and in fact quite a few people in this thread have proposed exactly that.

That is almost exactly what I'm saying. Not only does it not have to, it has absolutely no business doing so for anyone. Furthermore, rights are not granted, rights are inherent or they don't exist at all. Only privileges can be granted; and granting privileges to one group that are denied to another is de facto discrimination.

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.

A good idea, as long as it's accompanied with an equivalent overall reduction in income tax and government spending.

 

[tyr_13]

Do Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians have their right to marry who and when they wish recognized?

Do homosexuals have their right to marry who and when they wish recognized?

Do polygamists have their right to marry who and when they wish recognized?

Yes, yes, and yes, but only once. Why is that so hard? It's equally applied. Can a straight man marry a gay man? Sure, but obviously he shouldn't be able to also marry a woman he loves. There are several examples of huge obvious problems with recognizing multiple marriages all through this thread.

If you believe that the government has no place recognizing marriage, argue that. It's a perfectly reasonable stance. To argue both it and that polygamous marriage should be recognized is odd to say the least.

To say that what the government believes is in the best interest of the people isn't always in the best interest of the people is true. That is not to say that it is always wrong!

Why do some deserve recognized and others don't? Have you skipped all the absolutely practical reasons? Those being things like medical decisions, inheritance, gift taxes, insurance allocation, witness immunity, etc.

Having a marriage recognized is not a civil right. Equal protection under the law is. That is why the examples you listed are essentially a list of non-sequitors.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Why do some deserve recognition, while others do not? Answer that question. Why should the government be allowed to say that one arbitrarily decided group of people is allowed to have all if their rights recognized, and another is not? Are homosexuals and polygamists subhuman, like Blacks were once thought to be?

Sounds good except for one thing: the anti-polygamy and anti-gay-marriage laws affect everyone equally. Everyone of legal age is allowed be married to one person of the opposite sex at a time. It's not discriminating against a group because they want to do something and can't so long as everyone is equally prohibited.

It's a important legal distinction. The local laws where I am say you can't slice a dog's neck and let it bleed to death. It's not discriminating against the religions that want to do it because nobody is allowed to do it.

I think the policy should be changed, but I'm not convinced it is a constitutional issue. It's really a policy issue that is flawed. From my perspective the mistake was ever involving government in the marriage thing anyway. Simple partnership contracts would have accomplished the same thing.

 

[toddjh]

Obtaining anything is not a civil right. However, having it recognized is a civil right; just like recognition of the right to equal treatment under the law is a civil right.

Legally speaking, no. Equal protection under the law is guaranteed by the Constitution and a lot of case law. Demanding legal recognition and special privileges for any particular type of relationship you want is not. It's a public policy decision, which is the prerogative of the government (or not, if you're a strict libertarian).

Why do polygamists deserve less recognition than monogamists?

They don't, and, unlike gays, their rights are already being respected.

If you're asking why polygamous relationships deserve less recognition than monogamous ones, this thread is filled to the brim with excellent reasons.

Do polygamists have their right to marry who and when they wish recognized?

Yes, as long as its to one person at a time, the same as everybody else. You're attempting to draw false equivalence between gay marriage and polygamy. The difference is that gay marriage and straight marriage are fundamentally the same; there are no reasons to regard them as different except for irrational ones based mostly on religion. Monogamous marriage and polygamy are fundamentally different: socially, legally, and practically. Just think about everything we've talked about in this thread, all the money, all the legal and regulatory nightmares we'd have to endure to even begin to reconcile our current government and social system with polygamy. It would fundamentally redefine American family life. It is not equivalent.

That is almost exactly what I'm saying. Not only does it not have to, it has absolutely no business doing so for anyone. Furthermore, rights are not granted, rights are inherent or they don't exist at all.

A semantic distinction that's never made sense to me. People have what rights they can defend.

 

[Rasmus]

Sounds good except for one thing: the anti-polygamy and anti-gay-marriage laws affect everyone equally. Everyone of legal age is allowed be married to one person of the opposite sex at a time. It's not discriminating against a group because they want to do something and can't so long as everyone is equally prohibited.

It's a important legal distinction. The local laws where I am say you can't slice a dog's neck and let it bleed to death. It's not discriminating against the religions that want to do it because nobody is allowed to do it.

I think the policy should be changed, but I'm not convinced it is a constitutional issue. It's really a policy issue that is flawed. From my perspective the mistake was ever involving government in the marriage thing anyway. Simple partnership contracts would have accomplished the same thing.

Since I never tire of repeating it:

You are right.

"Everyone of legal age is allowed be married to one person of the opposite sex at a time."

it's no different than

"Everyone of legal age is allowed be married to one person of the same race at a time."

You only have a problem if you think there's something wrong with making interracial marriages illegal.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Nor is there any need to.

The vast majority of which are completely irrelevant.

So you are now for getting rid of many things that treat married people as a couple instead of two room mates? You seem to be dismissing many of those effects.

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.

The problem is not that it is civil, it is that it is a contract, and not a status. As a status marriage is a bundle of effects that taken together make sense, when you break up the effects and permit them to be worked into any contract, there is all kinds of potential for abuse.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Why do polygamists deserve less recognition than monogamists?

They can get the same amount of recognition, that of one partner as primary.

Do polygamists have their right to marry who and when they wish recognized?

They do, it is that they do not have the number they wish to marry recognized. Because marriage as it stands does not fit multiple partner relationships well.

What about recognition for non equal realtionships, in that person A has a primary partner of B and a secondary partner of C. Why does C need to be recognised.

Why do some deserve recognition, while others do not?

Why do sexual relationships deserve recognition and others not?

There will always be arbitrary dividing lines between what relationships get legal recognition and what ones don't.

Again the only thing you seem to have proposed in a positive sense is opening up all marriage rights to any contract that wants to invoke that right.

Answer that question. Why should the government be allowed to say that one arbitrarily decided group of people is allowed to have all if their rights recognized, and another is not? Are homosexuals and polygamists subhuman, like Blacks were once thought to be?

The problems here is that race and sex are protected classes, number of people is not. It is perfectly OK to discriminate based on the number of people, see things like fire code and the like.

That is almost exactly what I'm saying. Not only does it not have to, it has absolutely no business doing so for anyone. Furthermore, rights are not granted, rights are inherent or they don't exist at all. Only privileges can be granted; and granting privileges to one group that are denied to another is de facto discrimination.

Then there are no rights. They also apparently have the right to make things harder and more expensive for everyone else as well.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Sounds good except for one thing: the anti-polygamy and anti-gay-marriage laws affect everyone equally. Everyone of legal age is allowed be married to one person of the opposite sex at a time. It's not discriminating against a group because they want to do something and can't so long as everyone is equally prohibited.

That was also the finding of anti miscegenation laws before loving vs virginia. As they effected blacks and whites equally they were not discriminatory.

It must have been those activist judges who found otherwise.

It's a important legal distinction. The local laws where I am say you can't slice a dog's neck and let it bleed to death. It's not discriminating against the religions that want to do it because nobody is allowed to do it.

It could be though, if you are allowed to slice a cows neck open to kill it ritually to make meat you can eat. It just seems that the jews have a better lobby than the dog sacrifice religion.

 

[tyr_13]

Since I never tire of repeating it:

You are right.

"Everyone of legal age is allowed be married to one person of the opposite sex at a time."

it's no different than

"Everyone of legal age is allowed be married to one person of the same race at a time."

You only have a problem if you think there's something wrong with making interracial marriages illegal.

No, it's very different. One is based on race, the other is not.

 

[Rasmus]

No, it's very different. One is based on race, the other is not.

No, the other is based on biological gender which is equally protected from discrimination by the law.