Plural marriage versus gay marriage

[Lady Dragonfly]

On 'legalizing polygamy', is there even an actual law prohibiting polygamy? What does that law argument?

There is an answer:

The Law: Polygamy and Litigation

About goats, both young and old:

I predict that is going to be one of the next 'legalize-it' step downhill.

[Heksefatter]

Why? Many laws distinguish between secular organizations and "sacred" ones. Why couldn't laws be used to regulate behavior in a religious sub-culture? Restrictions on the ages of all those to be married might help. For example, a friend of mine, a Craft high priest of a Welsh tradition, has two partners, a man and a woman; but they're all over the age of 40, and nobody else has been hurt by this. (Though his college age son is rather squicked by it all. ) Surely stating that polygamy isn't legal if any of the participants are under the age of X would help matters, true?

Ok, let us suppose Denmark (my country) legalizes polygamy. There is only one religious group of any size where polygamy would be practised on a religious basis, that group being muslims. It would proably very rare among Danish muslims, but I do think it would happen in some smallish number.

Are we supposed to deal with that by giving all citizens, except muslims, the right to take multiple spouses? That would be an insult to Danish muslims. And what if a group of muslims who weren't from a conservative background wanted a polygamous marriage?

The age-proposal is politically untenable. If the law states that you have to be 40 years of age in order to enter a polygamous marriage, people 39 years of age could rightly complain. The age-clausule would eventually be watered down.

No one's saying it should be. I'm not either, but who cares? The most amazing thing about the world is how different each of us is. You couldn't ask for a better learning experience.

I beg to differ. People would stand a lot to gain from being more like me, especially the ones who are very different. Also, diversity gives me headache sometimes. These days, I hear there are even people around who use the word "classic" about NEW things! :speech:

[Silur]

True, but if the question is whether to legalize polygamy, you will have to consider them both. In my case, I got nothing against what you call "personal choice" polygamy (though I am quite certain it isn't for me), but I am strongly opposed to what you call religiously enshrined polygamy, for the reasons I gave above.

There are any number of wrong doings being done behind closed doors in the name of religion, but I don't believe in maintaining laws limiting everybody's freedom for the sake of avoiding the possibilities of misuse. I could argue that martial law is a good way of keeping the streets safe at night, and that letting people walk freely encourages crime.

I think the basic thinking is not too different from the Burka law suggested in the Netherlands, except it's been embedded in our culture for so long nobody questions it. In my view, laws should aim at giving people protection from harm, abuse, deceit, fraud, and whatever else is apparently harmful, and make it possible to prosecute those who cause them. They should not be used as a unspecific protection against the unknown, the unusual or the unconventional - or inconvenient.

[fable]

Are we supposed to deal with that by giving all citizens, except muslims, the right to take multiple spouses? That would be an insult to Danish muslims.

No, because your law wouldn't address Muslims, Christians, or any religion. It would simply impose an age requirement. If it was considered discriminatory, I assume Danish Muslims would take it to the EU for a ruling. But I don't see how this could be seen as attacking any religion, since its basis lies in the common practice of requiring contract signatories to be of an age of informed consent, and an age of reason.

The age-proposal is politically untenable. If the law states that you have to be 40 years of age in order to enter a polygamous marriage, people 39 years of age could rightly complain. The age-clausule would eventually be watered down.

You mean, just like polygamists have now managed to get the law watered down to allow them to marry in Denmark (or any other EU nation), because they could complain that defining marriage as beteween two people discriminates against them?

[Heksefatter]

There are any number of wrong doings being done behind closed doors in the name of religion, but I don't believe in maintaining laws limiting everybody's freedom for the sake of avoiding the possibilities of misuse. I could argue that martial law is a good way of keeping the streets safe at night, and that letting people walk freely encourages crime.

I think the basic thinking is not too different from the Burka law suggested in the Netherlands, except it's been embedded in our culture for so long nobody questions it. In my view, laws should aim at giving people protection from harm, abuse, deceit, fraud, and whatever else is apparently harmful, and make it possible to prosecute those who cause them. They should not be used as a unspecific protection against the unknown, the unusual or the unconventional - or inconvenient.

Many laws exist to protect the weak or the social order, even though there is no direct assault on any one.

One law, which is an example of both is the Danish law against inciting ethnic hatred. It exists both to protect those who have little influence in public discourse and to prevent escalation of ethnic tensions.

In this way, freedom of expression has been balanced against protecting the weak and the public order. In many ways, it isn't a pretty sight from an ideological view. There really are no fundamental principles from which we can derive the particular result. Libertarian policies regarding freedom of speech, as well as police states are much more consistent, but that does not mean that they are preferable or even that they take human nature into a greater account.

You are right about your burka-example, but I think the main difference is that with regards to the burka-case, you remove a right, whereas in the question about polygamy, you add one. Thus, people do not end up feeling oppresed by current marriage laws.

[Heksefatter]

No, because your law wouldn't address Muslims, Christians, or any religion. It would simply impose an age requirement. If it was considered discriminatory, I assume Danish Muslims would take it to the EU for a ruling. But I don't see how this could be seen as attacking any religion, since its basis lies in the common practice of requiring contract signatories to be of an age of informed consent, and an age of reason.

Ok, then I misunderstood your example where you said: "Many laws distinguish between secular organizations and "sacred" ones. Why couldn't laws be used to regulate behavior in a religious sub-culture?" I read it as you proposing two ways of solving the problem of oppresive polygamous marriages, ie. seperate laws for different religious groups or a law restricting polygamous marriage to people over 40.

You mean, just like polygamists have now managed to get the law watered down to allow them to marry in Denmark (or any other EU nation), because they could complain that defining marriage as beteween two people discriminates against them?

Not at all. Just consider the fact that when you have already made polygamy legal and the age of majority is 18, it becomes extremely difficult to restrict the right of polygamy to people over 40. There is a basis for a quick and easy watering-down which is simply not present when you have not "conceded the point of polygamy".

[fable]

Not at all. Just consider the fact that when you have already made polygamy legal and the age of majority is 18, it becomes extremely difficult to restrict the right of polygamy to people over 40. There is a basis for a quick and easy watering-down which is simply not present when you have not "conceded the point of polygamy".

I don't see this. Many laws have been on the books for centuries that set arbitrary age limits, without problems. Have people risen in huge numbers to change the voting age in your country? The driving age? The age of marriage? It's all what the majority will accept.

By the way, I don't have any problems with Muslim polygamy. But I was curious in pursuing this point of the discussion--the use of law as a method of allowing polygamy, while curbing its abuse--since you seemed to find it impossible.

[Silur]

Are we supposed to deal with that by giving all citizens, except muslims, the right to take multiple spouses? That would be an insult to Danish muslims. And what if a group of muslims who weren't from a conservative background wanted a polygamous marriage?

Now, again there is a problem and the first notion is to outlaw the practice and ignore the core issue. I have no problem with muslims having multiple spouses, as long as they acknowledge equal rights. There are any number of laws being violated by some parts of the muslim community (same as parts of all other communities mind you!), and the one against polygamy is one just of them. Now, I would personally prefer if the legal hunt was on equality issues, oppressive practices and deprivation of freedom, and that resources be focused on educating and assisting those in a position to be taken advantage of, but pointing fingers is always so much easier and cheaper. Truth is, I'm doubtful my society really is interested in integrating anyone, considering there seem to be unknown conveniences in keeping immigrants in the outskirts of society.

[Silur]

One law, which is an example of both is the Danish law against inciting ethnic hatred. It exists both to protect those who have little influence in public discourse and to prevent escalation of ethnic tensions.

How is this not included in my definition? Discrimination against people based on religion, creed, etc is actually made illegal by the declaration of human rights, and the law is simply an extension of that. I would also argue that discrimination is severely harmful...

[Heksefatter]

I don't see this. Many laws have been on the books for centuries that set arbitrary age limits, without problems. Have people risen in huge numbers to change the voting age in your country? The driving age? The age of marriage? It's all what the majority will accept.

Heh, for me it is the other way around: it is patently obvious that a situation where you enjoy every civil right when you reach 18, except the right to a polygamous marriage is untenable.

And in fact, there once were such difference in your rights according to age in Danish law. You recieved the right to vote to one of the parliamentary chambers at a much younger age than you did for the other one (21 vs. 35, if I recall correctly). Voting rights at muncipal election were obtained at 21. You were drafted and authorized to sign binding contracts at 18. It should come as no surprise that this did not survive modern society for a long time, culminating in people recieving all political and legal rights at 18. (The second chamber of parliament was abolished before the voting ages became identical, but had it survived, they would, without a doubt, be identical to each other today).

So the tendency has been to approach the different age of majority in different areas to each other.

And your proposal has other problems. You are introducing a legal age-restriction on after it has been near-universally agreed that people are being considered adults in all respects at 18. Secondly, whereas people below 18 has little clout in the political discourse, people under 40 do. It would be more difficult to deny the last group a legal right than doing the same to the first group.

[fable]

Heh, for me it is the other way around: it is patently obvious that a situation where you enjoy every civil right when you reach 18, except the right to a polygamous marriage is untenable.

At 18, you can suddenly vote, enter the army, own property, inherit, run for any political office, get married, sponsor someone for citizenship--all of this, and more? Because you're building your case on the basis of 18 being a magical "do-all" age, in order to say that polygamy, by being limited to a higher age group, is untenable. If there are any distinctions in age within your culture that aren't magically removed at age 18, this particular argument falls kinda flat.

And your proposal has other problems. You are introducing a legal age-restriction on after it has been near-universally agreed that people are being considered adults in all respects at 18.

That "other" problem is identical to your first one.

Secondly, whereas people below 18 has little clout in the political discourse, people under 40 do. It would be more difficult to deny the last group a legal right than doing the same to the first group.

I used 40 arbitrarily. Any age will do. How does 25 suit you? Or--18? Since the abuses of polygamy are being linked to people who are, to all intents and purposes, in early pubescence, without any other rights of their own, it sounds like you have a readymade case for linking polygamy to age 18. Hey! Solves that problem right away, doesn't it?

[Heksefatter]

How is this not included in my definition? Discrimination against people based on religion, creed, etc is actually made illegal by the declaration of human rights, and the law is simply an extension of that. I would also argue that discrimination is severely harmful...

If you limit the example of racism to verbal declaration, ie. "The XX-people are a bunch of YY", no one is actually harmed by the saying of that. Furthermore, it limits everyone's freedom. One reason for the law is to prevent people who can do little to defend themself from verbal harassment because they have little clout in public discourse. Similarly, a law against polygamy limits the freedom of everyone, but may be in the interest of those who will be oppressed in polygamous marriages.

Of course, whether no one is actually harmed by the saying of some racist statement is a matter of perspective. Verbal harassment can be the equal of the physical, regarding sorrow and anguish. But the same goes for those being oppressed in a polygamous marriage.

[Heksefatter]

At 18, you can suddenly vote, enter the army, own property, inherit, run for any political office, get married, sponsor someone for citizenship--all of this, and more? Because you're building your case on the basis of 18 being a magical "do-all" age, in order to say that polygamy, by being limited to a higher age group, is untenable. If there are any distinctions in age within your culture that aren't magically removed at age 18, this particular argument falls kinda flat.

I am not building my case on 18 being a magical "do-all" age. I am observing that:

1) in a situation, like our own, where 18 is accepted as an age of majority in all cases, suddenly introducing a different age of majority for one single instance, would be untenable, most of all from a psychological point of view.

2) that there is a tendency to bring different ages of majority in accord.


Of course, both arguments fails if we consider a culture very different from our own. However, the argument was not supposed to cover such situations.

That "other" problem is identical to your first one.

True. (Casts polymorph other on Fable, transforming him into a chess knight.).

I used 40 arbitrarily. Any age will do. How does 25 suit you? Or--18? Since the abuses of polygamy are being linked to people who are, to all intents and purposes, in early pubescence, without any other rights of their own, it sounds like you have a readymade case for linking polygamy to age 18. Hey! Solves that problem right away, doesn't it?

Sorry, I don't understand this. Could you clarify your point?

[fable]

I am not building my case on 18 being a magical "do-all" age. I am observing that:

1) in a situation, like our own, where 18 is accepted as an age of majority in all cases, suddenly introducing a different age of majority for one single instance, would be untenable, most of all from a psychological point of view.

2) that there is a tendency to bring different ages of majority in accord.

Sorry if I wasn't completely clear in my last post, but this was the point I as trying to make in its final paragraph. Since the main problem (for at least some people) is that polygamy can be forced on people who are to all intents and purposes children, by using Denmark's "18 legal" age and applying it to polygamic marriages, you'd eliminate that problem. At 18, most people are about as informed and logical as they're ever going to be, barring a very few late developers. So we could use your cultural consensus around 18 to remove some of the abuses associated with polygamy.

[Heksefatter]

Now, again there is a problem and the first notion is to outlaw the practice and ignore the core issue. I have no problem with muslims having multiple spouses, as long as they acknowledge equal rights. There are any number of laws being violated by some parts of the muslim community (same as parts of all other communities mind you!), and the one against polygamy is one just of them. Now, I would personally prefer if the legal hunt was on equality issues, oppressive practices and deprivation of freedom, and that resources be focused on educating and assisting those in a position to be taken advantage of, but pointing fingers is always so much easier and cheaper. Truth is, I'm doubtful my society really is interested in integrating anyone, considering there seem to be unknown conveniences in keeping immigrants in the outskirts of society.

Let me stress that the example with muslims was only because I made my own country an example, and in there muslims would be the only large group where there even exists traditions for polygamy, and that they would suffer unreasonable discrimination as I (mis)understood Fable's proposals. Regarding polygamy, I would not oppose it, if I wasn't concerned about how it could end up contributing to oppresion of women.

Immigration is another issue, but suffice to say that I do not condone the way muslims sometimes are vilified in much political discourse.

[Heksefatter]

Sorry if I wasn't completely clear in my last post, but this was the point I as trying to make in its final paragraph. Since the main problem (for at least some people) is that polygamy can be forced on people who are to all intents and purposes children, by using Denmark's "18 legal" age and applying it to polygamic marriages, you'd eliminate that problem. At 18, most people are about as informed and logical as they're ever going to be, barring a very few late developers. So we could use your cultural consensus around 18 to remove some of the abuses associated with polygamy.

It may be my fault - it has been too long since I practised my debating skills in an English-speaking forum. I am afraid I've gotten a little rusty.

But I fear that you are not right. If I thought you were, I would support legalizing polygamy. I am afraid that in those very religiously conservative families where polygamy could be a problem, women would still be very vulnerable at 18.

[Silur]

I think you underestimate the confines of society. Have a look at these numbers...

22 percent of married men have strayed at least once during their married lives.
14 percent of married women have had affairs at least once during their married lives.
Younger people are more likely candidates; in fact, younger women are as likely as younger men to be unfaithful.
70 percent of married women and 54 percent of married men did not know of their spouses' extramarital activity.
5 percent of married men and 3 percent of married women reported having sex with someone other than their spouse in the year1997.
22 percent of men and 14 percent of women admitted to having sexual relations outside their marriage sometime in their past.

These numbers are for the US and are from 1997. Does this sound like an inherently monogamous society to you?

[Silur]

More recent (2002) statistics, also from the US, not source verified mind you - taken off some marital counseling site, so it might be inflated.

• 55% to 75% of men (married and single) cheat on their mates.
• female infidelity has increased 50% in the past 10 years
• 45-55% of married women and 50-60% of married men engage in extramarital sex at some time or another during their marriage
• 60% of husbands and 40% of wives will have an affair at some point.
• 60% of the people who admitted to cheating, said their partner did not know about their affair.

[Heksefatter]

I think you underestimate the confines of society. Have a look at these numbers...

22 percent of married men have strayed at least once during their married lives.
14 percent of married women have had affairs at least once during their married lives.
Younger people are more likely candidates; in fact, younger women are as likely as younger men to be unfaithful.
70 percent of married women and 54 percent of married men did not know of their spouses' extramarital activity.
5 percent of married men and 3 percent of married women reported having sex with someone other than their spouse in the year1997.
22 percent of men and 14 percent of women admitted to having sexual relations outside their marriage sometime in their past.

These numbers are for the US and are from 1997. Does this sound like an inherently monogamous society to you?

Sorry, I think you misunderstand my position, if it is indeed me you are adressing. I do not glorify the monogamic marriage, but rather I am concerned about possible consequences regarding oppression of women, if polygamic marriages were legalized.

I do not fear a breakdown of the traditional marriage resulting from the legalization of polygamy, nor am I really concerned about any "family values"-stuff. Polygamic marriages would affect very few people, and that goes for both happy and unhappy polygamic marriages.

[Lady Dragonfly]

I will give you a few scenarios:

Polygamy has become legal in a Western society (the Constitution is amended).

A) A husband tells his wife that he wants to marry another woman (maybe even with children from the previous marriage), but instead of filing for divorce he proposes a plural marriage because he claims that he still cares for his current wife blah-blah-blah. The couple has small children.
The wife does not like the idea but she cannot blame her husband for her unhappiness because he has a right to bring another wife into the family.

Now, the wife is facing dilemma:

1. ‘Ruin the family’ by choosing a divorce
2. ‘Save the family’ by consenting to a plural marriage

The woman is made responsible for the consequences.
Both decisions are devastating for the woman but please note that now there is no legal or moral blame on the husband for ruining the family. He exercises his constitutional right to marry several women. If the woman decides to stay, that will technically amount to the “informed consent”.

B) A wife tells her husband (a straight guy) that she wants to marry another man blah-blah-blah and proposes the plural marriage. The couple has small children and the wife is planning to have more from her other husband.
What is the probability that the husband would accept another man under his roof?

C) A man keeps marrying women to prove his sexual prowess. He cannot support all his multiple wives and children so he expects the government to pay for all this.