Why should polygamy be illegal?

[luchog]

Can you expand on that? I find this sentence to be vague.

I already have. Read the rest of my posts in this thread. Others have as well, read their posts.

 

[toddjh]

No, they're not, which you admit to.

I love how my statement that their rights are being respected is taken as an admission that they're not.

Point one out. All I've seen so far is appeal to authority, non-sequitor, argumentum ad consequentiam, argumentum ad baculum, and unproven assertions.

There have been many posts on this topic in this thread. If you don't agree with them, that's fine, but I don't think it would do anyone any good to repeat things that have already been said and which I'm sure you've read.

What? That's like saying that black people are allowed to eat at white establishments, as long as they're white. Like saying homosexuals have the right to marry anyone they want, as long as it's a person of the opposite sex (like others here, namely tyr_13, are saying).

Not at all. There are no rational reasons to distinguish between "regular" marriages and interracial marriages or same-sex marriages. There are rational reasons to distinguish between monogamous and polygamous relationships. You obviously disagree; that's fine. But you haven't really made much headway if your goal is to persuade me. I'm content to let the arguments made by myself and other stand on their own for any undecideds still reading this thread.

1) An unsupported assertion. Explain how they're differnet socially and practically. The legal issue is irrelevant, since laws can be changed, which is what this entire thread is about.

The legal issue is relevant, because laws were made to formalize the existing social structure in this case. The fact that so many laws would need to be changed demonstrates that there are actual differences between monogamy and polygamy. By contrast, the legal difficulties in legalizing interracial marriage, or same-sex marriage, were/would be minimal.

Anyway, everybody's talking in circles at this point, so I'm bowing out. Enjoy the last word!

 

[luchog]

Because lord knows there's nothing wrong with generalizing entire continents in a pejorative manner.

Seriously.

And polygamy was hardly unique to those continents; it was simply less common elsewhere.

Many of the Celtic peoples of Europe practices limited forms of polygamy, both polygynous and polyandrous. And their culture was far more liberal in many ways than the vast majority of the cultures which followed it, clear up into modern times. Women were allowed to live independent lives, own and inherit propery, hold political power and maintained a status that was far closer to true equality than was common in later European and derivative cultures. They certainly maintained far more equality than their Roman and Greek contemporaries. And it wasn't until the 20th Century that women achieved anything resembling that level of equality in Euro-American culture.

Likewise, the Asian cultures that practices polyandrous polygamy maintained (and still do) equality between the sexes (some are matriarchal or semi-matriarchal).

 

[Uncayimmy]

This is absolute and complete bullcrap.

Take it up with the Supreme Court. I'm not just making this up.

First, by that argument, segregation is not discrimination.

It didn't fall under that argument in the first place. It was a somewhat twisted interpretation of equal protection, but those laws were aimed at and only applied to specific groups. The idea was you could have separate laws with the net effect being equal protection, which was later found to be unequal protection.

Second, it's a flat-out, bigotted LIE that anti-gay-marriage affects everyone equally. It doesn't. Not even slightly. Because it only affects homosexuals..

You need to define your group as having something more in common than a desire. If the government says you can't marry on a Tuesday, it is clearly not an equal protection issue simply because some people want to marry on a Tuesday. "People who want to do the something" doesn't constitute a group.

If you say nobody can marry the same sex, that discriminates against no group in particular. If you say homosexuals cannot marry, that discriminates against homosexuals. Your refusal to see the difference doesn't mean there isn't one.

If you grant sexual orientation a protected status, things change a bit, just like with the laws against interracial marriage. While I agree with the notions of allowing gay marriage and polygamy, I don't necessarily agree it is a constitutional issue.

I think the gay marriage issue has a leg to stand on. Polygamy, not so much.

Heterosexuals are granted special privileges that are denied to homosexuals; a clear violation of the Constitutional guarantee to equal status under the law. The same applies to polygamists.

Is it unconstitutional to say that nobody can smoke pot or sacrifice dogs even though some religions may want to do it? There's a rational basis to outlawing those practices.

Explain how this is rational. Explain how this is not merely the result of religious domination of government.

They will fall back on the history of common law marriage in the West and say that they are upholding what society has done historically. Congress could also end this argument quite easily.

For true equality, all must be granted the same status under the law. Either all have the privilege of marriage, or none do. That is the only way it can possibly be equal.

We all have the privilege to marry. Some just want to do it differently.

 

[Darth Rotor]

There are a number of NBA stars who have multiple children by different women, and are not married to any of them.

Is this better or worse than polygamy?

Or, is it a form of underground polygamy?

The irony here is that of all people, most NBA stars can afford to have multiple wives and raise whole gaggles of kids.

Strange, this world is.

 

[plumjam]

But NBA stars are already accustomed to lots of dribbling.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Going to have to correct that. It wasn't a response to the death of the extended family; but rather, a concurrent phenomenon resulting from industrialization, and the migration of individuals from rural "homestead" environments to atomized urban environments.

I disagree. I think it was that the emphasis shifted, as there were nuclear families before, it was just that they were considered part of the larger extended family. It is also improvements in travel that effected this as well by making it more common for people to move significant distances. When most people don't ever travel more than 20 miles from where they are born it creates a different dynamic than when people move 700 miles to get a job.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Why not? What objective reason can you propose that would validate the first two but invalidate the last? No one has yet provided a single valid reason for this position.

Because people are not makeing absolute arguements against it. If the proponents had suggestions for hot to resolve the legal problems that this would create it could be dealt with in a much more dirrect fashion. As the proponents here have not been proposing ways of resolving the specific issues raised by opponents, how can you consider that a valid position?

I haven't seen any valid ones. Point them out.

How do you define valid? Most of the opponents are not against it for abstract moral reasons, but dirrect practical reasons. I think that the bundeling of rights into a special status for married makes a lot of sense, because many of those rights make no sense by themselves and open up many potential abuses.

If govermnent must be in the business of recognizing marriages and assigning privileges (which, as I and others have said numerous times, it shouldn't); then it must recognize all marriages between competent consenting adults, or it must recognize none of them. By selecting which marriages it will approve of, it creates a privileged class that receive benefits that are not accorded to those of lower status. It essentially creates an population of second-class citizens who are deprived of equality of treatment under the law.

Ok if you believe that, start your own test case.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Because many of them are unwarranted privileges that can be easily granted with a civil contract.

If they can be granted by civil contract, why is the current system discrimatory? Poly groups can spend the extra to get a personalized contract set up for them now just like you want.

Semantic nonsense. It's still a contract, it's merely a single, standardized contract enforced by government. And it's not even entirely standardized; since marriage laws vary by state.

No it is not. Legaly it is a status, it migth be one of the few status's left but that does not mean that it is just a contract. No matter how many times you state that it is.

 

[tyr_13]

I haven't seen any valid ones. Point them out.

Other have already done a pretty damn good job of that.

Your reading comprehension is failing, since that is precisely what I and others have been arguing.

No, my reading comprehension is fine. The problem is that in your hysterics you fail to realize that you found your position on recognition of marriage being a civil right, and that it is why the government should recognize both homosexual and polygamous marriages. You then say that you don't think the government has any place recognizing marriage. Thus, you have advocated that the government deny people their civil rights. You can see how I think this line of reasoning has holes in it.

Point out where someone made that claim, otherwise it's a complete non-sequitor.

I quoted you making that claim.

Nope, sorry, you're wrong again. Freedom of association is a Constitutionally-guaranteed right. Freedom of conscience is a Constitutionally-guaranteed right. Marriage is a civil right. Marital privileges are not. Our current laws infringe the aforementioned rights in order to maintain special privileges for a particular class of people. A violation of Constitutional protections on equality under the law.

Marriage is not a civil right. Saying it over and over doesn't make it true.

If govermnent must be in the business of recognizing marriages and assigning privileges (which, as I and others have said numerous times, it shouldn't); then it must recognize all marriages between competent consenting adults, or it must recognize none of them. By selecting which marriages it will approve of, it creates a privileged class that receive benefits that are not accorded to those of lower status. It essentially creates an population of second-class citizens who are deprived of equality of treatment under the law.

It creates a different status that has both benefits and drawbacks. If marriage is so great as a 'privileged class' as you claim, then why do so many end in divorce? Why do people spend so much to not only get married, but end it?

I understand, you want to see 'your fight' as the same as segregation, voting rights, and slavery. It isn't. You don't help yourself by claiming things like...

Like saying homosexuals have the right to marry anyone they want, as long as it's a person of the opposite sex (like others here, namely tyr_13, are saying).

...which isn't what I've said at all. I support gay marriage as an equal protection issue. I want homosexuals to be able to marry if they wish. I want them to marry in my state, I want to own the ****ing chapel they do it in. If you just want to see everyone who disagrees with your point as a bigot, and make them out as a racists, gay-hating bigot, you're not going to make much headway.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Seperate but Equal, is not equality.

Good we need to abolish sex discriminatory bathrooms. No more mens rooms and ladies rooms, just bathrooms.

They do, except that they don't. Why are you and toddjh so evasive about admitting that there is a distinct restriction here.

I don't understand what your point here is.

Why are you so insistent on creating hierarchies?

Because it is a quick and easy to legaly settle disputes. Say you have a thousand people who all marry eachother(sure only likely in a cult, but why discriminate against cults?) who has say in any issue? Saying that I want this person to decide and then this person and so on is perfectly clear.

Why can't you accept equality, or admit the lack thereof? Not all polyamourous relationships are hierarchical, no reason why polygamous ones would need to be.

And why do they need force of law and legal recognition?

I have to wonder what Z would say now about how is break up with the two women he used to consider spouces and the differences between the one he was married to and the other one.

Non sequitor. No one has made that claim.

Actualy they are, by not extending all married rights to anyone someone wants to you are discriminating against non sexual relationships. Of course people are confortable with this discrimination in things like immagration, giving spouces privilage, and say employees not having that privilage. BUt if it is all contract they should be able to get that privilage equally right?

Sex is not a protected class. Homosexuals are denied the same rights as heterosexuals.

No sex is a protected class, just try to say No Women or some such thing. Sexuality is not a protected class nationaly. Gay marriage bans are sex based discrimination, as it is the sex alone that is being used to make the decernment.

Provide evidence that polygamy would create a significant hardship for non-polygamists.

Provide some framework for how the laws will be rewritten.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Marriage is not a civil right. Saying it over and over doesn't make it true.

Nor does repeating the opposite make it true. The Supreme Court wrote in Love v Virginia:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

 

[AWPrime]

luchog: Why is everyone assuming "polygamy" automatically equals "polygyny"?
AWPrime: History has shown that that it tends to be that way.
luchog: But far from invariably, and modern Euro-American culture has demonstrated otherwise.
AWPrime: Can you expand on that? I find this sentence to be vague.
luchog: I already have. Read the rest of my posts in this thread. Others have as well, read their posts.

I have read the rest of your posts, that sentence of yours is still babble.

The general thrend of your posts seem to pound upon the existence of the exceptions. But I see nothing to actually make it work in the now and here. I especially see a lot of unbased downplaying of problems that such a complexer relationship brings. For me it sounds like, wishing upon a star, but that doesn't make it workable in modern society.


In a equal heterosexual relationship the female and male sides have equal value. Split one of these sides into two so you can have three people into a relationship also splits the value. This can lead to competition between the two for the other side. Or the competition can end when one is dumped, when the two others find their bond to be on a higher level.

 

[AWPrime]

Many of the Celtic peoples of Europe practices limited forms of polygamy, both polygynous and polyandrous.
---------
And their culture was far more liberal in many ways than the vast majority of the cultures which followed it, clear up into modern times. Women were allowed to live independent lives, own and inherit propery, hold political power and maintained a status that was far closer to true equality than was common in later European and derivative cultures.

This is called a non sequitor. Also limited forms can also be called exceptions.

 

[politas]

You need to define your group as having something more in common than a desire. If the government says you can't marry on a Tuesday, it is clearly not an equal protection issue simply because some people want to marry on a Tuesday. "People who want to do the something" doesn't constitute a group.

And you ned to stop thinking about this discussion in terms of what people are allowed to do. Polygamous relationships exist. That's a fact. There are people living together as spouses in groups larger than two. The question is whether the government should recognise that status. Currently there are people living as part of a "marriage" that are not legally recognised as such. What that means is that all of the laws created to protect people in a relationship with less power (due to lack of earning capability and official property) do not apply to them.

For example, a second wife cannot sue for divorce and be guaranteed a fair share of the common property, even though she may have been raising children and maintaining the household, limiting her earning capacity, leaving other members of the family free to earn more and build a career. This means that a person in such a situation is rendered powerless. She cannot leave the "marriage" if it has become distasteful to her in some way, as she would have no property to speak of, no income, and very little earning capacity.

We all have the privilege to marry. Some just want to do it differently.

Some already do it differently; but the government doesn't recognise it. So those that manage to convince undereducated women to pretend they are a wife under religious grounds get to effectively treat them like chattel.

By not recognising polygamous marriage, you allow many of the worst aspects of religious polygyny to flourish.

 

[politas]

Good we need to abolish sex discriminatory bathrooms. No more mens rooms and ladies rooms, just bathrooms.

That's almost worth opening a new thread.

 

[politas]

In a equal heterosexual relationship the female and male sides have equal value. Split one of these sides into two so you can have three people into a relationship also splits the value. This can lead to competition between the two for the other side. Or the competition can end when one is dumped, when the two others find their bond to be on a higher level.

This is a simplistic view of human emotion that does not bear true under experiment. People are not interchangeable in this way. People are more than their gender.

 

[Uncayimmy]

And you ned to stop thinking about this discussion in terms of what people are allowed to do. Polygamous relationships exist. That's a fact.

Now you are redefining polygamy. It's defined as having more than one spouse. A spouse in the USA is defined by the government. Therefore, since polygamy is not legal, then those "extra" spouses really aren't spouses. They are something, but they are not spouses as defined by law.

I also pointed out how "extra" spiritual marriages were used as the basis for polygamy charges (and convictions). So in that sense the government has prohibited it.

For example, a second wife cannot sue for divorce and be guaranteed a fair share of the common property

That's not exactly true. A civil case could certainly be made. In fact it happens all the time when non-married persons split up. I agree that the second tier of spouses have no special rights by statute in community property states, but what about states without community property statutes?

By not recognising polygamous marriage, you allow many of the worst aspects of religious polygyny to flourish.

No argument there.

 

[arthwollipot]

I wish I'd noticed this thread earlier.

I am a part of a family that consists of four adults (two male, two female, if you must know, only one of whom is bisexual) and our three collective children (one of whom is now also an adult, the other two early teenage). We all have equal status under the law. We are all covered equally in all of our wills. We have a joint bank account, we are co-signatories on our mortgage, and we have all the legal rights (as far as I know) that a married couple has. We're just a married foursome. We're extremely stable, and our kids are growing up smart and well-adjusted.

Each of us also maintains at least one relationship outside the family, which does not involve the same legal rights.

I am happy to elaborate on request.

 

[arthwollipot]

Hopefully, this isn't too much of a derail:

I'm somewhat surprised that 4-some marriages aren't a happening movement.
Two men/two women. Commited to sharing their lives/car/house/kids.
The 2 couples could be gay; or 1/2 and 1/2; or all bi-sexuals; whatever.

Is there a name for two couples teaming up, or is it polygamy?

I posted my last before I read this. You have described my family almost perfectly, except that as I mentioned, only one of the four is bi.