Plural marriage versus gay marriage

[Magrus]

I find the last post interesting in the sense I got of absolutely no faith in the males interest in holding up a family unit in instance 1. On the other hand, the firm sense of family unity being the prime issue to consider in instance 2. Biased anyone?

[Heksefatter]

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.

I am not too worried about these scenarios. In the cases A and B, people would understand why someone left such a spouse. Legally, it could be handled by making it grounds for a quick and easy divorce.

As for the case of C, it worries me even less. If the women cannot support themselves, it would be very unlikely that they were willing to marry him. It wouldn't be attractive to be the third wife of an impoverished man.

[Silur]

Strawmen and slipery slopes, people. I can find any number of examples where polygamy, taxation laws, social services, the weather, etc will cause problems in conjunction with the phenomenon I'm arguing against. In most of the examples given, it is not polygamy that is at the root of the problem - it is the lack of gender equality. In others, it is simply out of the good intention of protecting the weaker party. To misquote Samuel Jackson, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions", and I'm living on the expressway - my country has more "good intentions bureaucracy" than any other place on the planet, and you know what? The weak are still being taken advantage of, gender equality isn't and most of the laws aimed at protecting people from themselves are misused, very often by those they aim to protect.

@LD: Marriage, multiple or otherwise isn't about exercising your rights. If you have to start swinging lawbooks to get what you want, against the will of your spouse(s), that marriage is over. Irreconcilable differences. You can have those over toothpaste, so I suggest you make a law that requires everyone to recap the tube (man, that is so annoying!)

[fable]

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.

No offense meant, but I don't see any way in which women (or children, or men, for that matter) can be abused in a polygamous relationship that cannot occur in a monogamous one. Unless you're going to tell me that jealousy enters into it more often, and there's absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support that.

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.

Agreed; no reason polygamous relationships should affect monogamous ones. It's not as though people in polygamous relationships are advertising that fact, and looking for additional partners. So I fail to see what's that terrible about legalizing polygamy with all participants above a certain age of consent, much as monogamous weddings require.

[dragon wench]

[QUOTE=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.[/QUOTE]



I think the potential scenarios you outline are indeed possible (with either a man or a woman initiating them). But, I would also think that were multiple spouses to become legal and thus a reality within society, it would be something couples would agree to (or not) before actually getting married.
Of course, I can see all kinds of complications arising as well. The "You promised/said" accusations would likely run rampant, and it could be legally messy as well. But, conventional, monogamous marriage is hardly a smooth sail either.
Silur is right, what is at issue, in the cases you depict, is gender inequality; if a person is with somebody who can't handle equality in a relationship it doesn't matter whether that relationship is monoganous or involves multiple partners, the problem will still exist regardless.

Were I in a situation where I was marrying somebody under that sort of a system it would certainly be up for discussion. We would be talking about how we each felt about inviting people into our relationship, and we would also be discussing how comfortable we would each be if either of us took on an additional partner.
I think the key prerequisites here, as should be the ideal in any relationship from the outset, are honesty and mutual understanding.

Nonetheless, we are discussing a purely hypothetical situation here, and when you make big questions (especially those involving human relationships) hypothetical they are also quite intangible. I do think, however, that eventually the thorny issues and complications would work themselves out (as much as is ever possible among humans anyway).

[Lady Dragonfly]

I am not too worried about these scenarios. In the cases A and B, people would understand why someone left such a spouse. Legally, it could be handled by making it grounds for a quick and easy divorce.

You've missed my point. I can easily envision a woman deciding on salvaging her own marriage (by consenting) for various reasons. Women live with alcoholics and abusers in monogamous marriages for the same reasons. That is just one more cause for the abuse. Psychological abuse is not much better than physical. Should I elaborate? I don't think so. But I will if you want me to.
Quick and easy divorce? That must be defined by the marital law whether the wife's objection to her LOVING husband's CONSTITUTIONAL right to marry another woman is a ground for divorce. Anyway, we are talking about a divorce that would not happen if the husband did not want another wife.

As for the case of C, it worries me even less. If the women cannot support themselves, it would be very unlikely that they were willing to marry him. It wouldn't be attractive to be the third wife of an impoverished man.

Ah, but you are wrong here. There are plenty of girls who would marry a loser. Look around. Another little scenario: a bunch of 18 years old kids decided to get married for the fun of it. In one-two years you will have a legal mess.
And, by the way, the Mormon fundamentalists' polygamous communities are very poor. There is a lot of welfare fraud involved too.

@Silur

@LD: Marriage, multiple or otherwise isn't about exercising your rights. If you have to start swinging lawbooks to get what you want, against the will of your spouse(s), that marriage is over. Irreconcilable differences. You can have those over toothpaste, so I suggest you make a law that requires everyone to recap the tube (man, that is so annoying!)

Actually, the marriage is a contract protected by law. A man and a woman accept certain responsibilities. And I am not referring to the sentimental "for better or for worse" vows the bride and groom exchange in front of the tearful relatives. The 'swinging of law books' starts with the signing of the prenuptial agreement.

Prenuptial Marriage Agreements

The marital law is a rich pasture for the divorce lawyers’ crowds as it is.
In a monogamous marriage a wife at least can sue her husband’s pants off if he is unfaithful and she can prove it. In a polygamous marriage she is the initiator of a divorce and her husband might not even agree to it to begin with. And he might even win. And feel deeply offended by his wife's selfishness and refusal to understand his needs etc.

You guys stated that it is perfectly normal and fine to be in love with several persons simultaneously, so the husband's reasoning is right in sync with it. He loves two women. Two women love him. Two women hate each other. Here we go. According to what I’ve read in different articles, jealousy is a common thing in the plural marriage.

Would that be such a terrible thing? If someone has two, three, or six spouses of either sex, they are presumably all consenting adults; if they are harming anyone, it is only themselves. My own belief is that polygamous relationships are likely to involve imbalances of power and even psychological abuse, and that they carry a high risk of instability and stress. "Polyamory" advocates talk a lot about transcending sexual jealousy, but plural marriages are rife with jealousy and tension even in cultures where polygamy is a longstanding tradition. (One reason plural marriage may prove far harder to legalize than same-sex marriage is that people who have been personally hurt by polygamy will be available to speak out against it.) But if that's what some people want, should the state restrict their choices for their own good?
On the other hand, legalizing polygamy would alter the state of marriage in general far more than gay marriage could. Allowing Jane to marry Ann does not in any tangible way change Sally's marriage to Bill; allowing Sally and Bill to marry other people while remaining married to each other changes it drastically. Even if they never exercise this option, the mere possibility of it could cause enough anxiety to destabilize a marriage subtly.

Reason Magazine - Opening Marriage

The last paragraph explains a significant difference between the gay marriage and the plural marriage.

Just to be done with the laws (for now): in 1996 Bill Clinton signed "Defense of Marriage Act" referred to as DOMA.

"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."

"Defense Of Marriage Act" 5/96 H.R. 3396 Summary/Analysis

[dragon wench]

You guys stated that it is perfectly normal and fine to be in love with a several persons simultaneously, so the husband's reasoning is right in sync with it. He loves two women. Two women love him. Two women hate each other. Here we go. According to what I’ve read in different articles, jealousy is a common thing in the plural marriage.

Which is why I said that any arrangement like this should be by prior agreement.
Jealousy is a common thing, period. The only real difference an open/plural relationship makes is that it places jealousy in high relief.
I know of couples where neither person is "allowed" to have friends (platonic) of the opposite gender. Call me an idealist if you like, but in my view love is not about possession, and it never should be. If somebody wants to dictate who I spend time with, or even with whom I share my body, that is not love, it is the presumption of ownership.

[Silur]

@Lady Dragonfly: I wasn't aware that the US still had the antiquated view that you actually need a reason to be granted a divorce. I can divorce my wife this instant (well, besides the paperwork). If we have kids, there is a six month cooling off period, but that is mainly for the sake of the kids.

Again, all arguments boil down to marriages not being on equal terms and the arguments are strawmen, since the problems aren't related to the question of polygamy versus monogamy. I fully agree, there are marriages where one party is weaker than the other and may give way to the stronger party's will. It is not gender-specific by the way. There are studies that show that men are being abused and harassed by their wives, and that this is under-reported to the authorities because of the stigma of being beaten or (ab)used by a woman. Still, all these problems mentioned are commonplace today in our mainly monogamous society, and I see nothing that supports the view that allowing polygamy will make the slightest bit of difference either way. What would make a serious difference for the better, however, is fighting the old conventions and traditions that make people accept the kind of destructive situations you describe. This includes religious dogma of all sorts, including christian.

[Cartell]

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?

And here is another possibility from A or B. Lets say talk about A but in either case, the man decides to get another wife. The woman, not wanting a divorce, accepts, but she also gets another husband. This causes he husband to get mad, and so he is the one who ends up filing for divorce. It can work either way but in each case it can mean divorce. Polygamy creates the problem of a greater amount of divorce.

Think about this too. Husband 1 marries wife 1. Husband 1 then decides to marry wife 2. Wife 1 marries husband 2. husband 2 also has a wife 3 who has a husband 4. Now, who is married to whom. Is husband 1 considered "married" to wife 3, even though she is the wife of husband 2, and is wife 1 cosidered "married" to husband 3 even though he is the husband of wife 3. Obviously the larger the family the more conflict like the above could transpire, but polygamy would create huge family problems.

Also, in the above situation, (assuming all the parties are straight) would husband 1 want to share wife 1 with husbands 2 and 3? Or would wives want to share their husbands? If the parties are bi, then those issues may not be so important since, it would natural for the bi persons to have sex with either gender. And thus it could easily be concieved that all people could be married to all other people in the polygamus relationship. Bisexaulity would be the only concievable way, (in my eyes) to have a working polygamus relationship, but the jealousy issues could very well still apply.




Since gay marriage doesn't really create those issues it is, in my eyes, more acceptable then polygamy.

[dragon wench]

@Cartell,
yes, any and all of those complicated situations could occur. But, who are you (or anybody else) to say that consenting adults should not pursue such relationships?
If everyone enters into such a relationship, freely and of their own accord, it is between the parties involved, any fallout is theirs to deal with.

As has been already stated, hypothetical situations are based on potentiality, not fact. As such they are utterly invalid and do not address the real questions at hand.

[Silur]

Questionaire

Here's a small questionaire to try to illustrate what I find to be wrong with the reasoning in the defense of a law against polygamy (or any other type of marriage for that matter).

1. Would polygamy be a threat to a purely monogamous marriage where both parties respect and care for each other?

2. If so, please elaborate. This should be interesting.

3. If not, can we conclude that for a threat to exist, at least one party has to disrespect the other party?

4. Will permitting polygamous marriages increase the number of persons likely to disrespect their spouse?

5. If so, please explain how a law can create respect.

6. If not, how can polygamy possibly make matters worse?

... now, morality. I've ignored this one, mostly because I have a hard time connecting how loving more than one person affects morality negatively.

1. Consider a utopic polygamous relationship where everyone respects everyone else and everyone is having fun with everyone else like rabbits, and no one gets hurt, is this in itself morally wrong?

2. If so, please elaborate.

If not, then polygamy in itself is not the issue.

3. If in question 2, you argued from the standpoint of some belief system, religious or otherwise, why is that belief system to be the basis for all people's behaviour regardless if they share it or not?

4. If in question 2, you argued from a standpoint other than that of a belief system, you may be on to something.

5. If in question 3, you defend imposing the concept of morality based on a belief system without any other valid reasoning, how does your law system differ from that of a religious state except by degree?

I am quite far from being a religious person, but if I try really hard to conceptualise an omnipresent, all-seeing god, I still have serious difficulty imagining that he, being everything, everywhere, would give a rats behind about what I do in my bedroom with any number of consenting, self-aware beings of any sort, or if I decide to label the group to be a marriage. I can understand the issue he may have about hurting people though, so if anything, he would be right in condemning the ever so faithful, but disrespectful husband or wife. If morality is anything, it is about respect for others.

[Silur]

Pre-emptive strike

I realised I left an opening for a different kind of strawman argument, so I rushed back to plug it up before anyone noticed... please read Morality without god before claiming that religion has patent rights on morality.

[Cartell]

Here's a small questionaire to try to illustrate what I find to be wrong with the reasoning in the defense of a law against polygamy (or any other type of marriage for that matter).

1. Would polygamy be a threat to a purely monogamous marriage where both parties respect and care for each other?

2. If so, please elaborate. This should be interesting.

3. If not, can we conclude that for a threat to exist, at least one party has to disrespect the other party?

4. Will permitting polygamous marriages increase the number of persons likely to disrespect their spouse?

5. If so, please explain how a law can create respect.

6. If not, how can polygamy possibly make matters worse?

... now, morality. I've ignored this one, mostly because I have a hard time connecting how loving more than one person affects morality negatively.

1. Consider a utopic polygamous relationship where everyone respects everyone else and everyone is having fun with everyone else like rabbits, and no one gets hurt, is this in itself morally wrong?

2. If so, please elaborate.

If not, then polygamy in itself is not the issue.

3. If in question 2, you argued from the standpoint of some belief system, religious or otherwise, why is that belief system to be the basis for all people's behaviour regardless if they share it or not?

4. If in question 2, you argued from a standpoint other than that of a belief system, you may be on to something.

5. If in question 3, you defend imposing the concept of morality based on a belief system without any other valid reasoning, how does your law system differ from that of a religious state except by degree?

I am quite far from being a religious person, but if I try really hard to conceptualise an omnipresent, all-seeing god, I still have serious difficulty imagining that he, being everything, everywhere, would give a rats behind about what I do in my bedroom with any number of consenting, self-aware beings of any sort, or if I decide to label the group to be a marriage. I can understand the issue he may have about hurting people though, so if anything, he would be right in condemning the ever so faithful, but disrespectful husband or wife. If morality is anything, it is about respect for others.

To question 1 and 2 it can enable the monogamus married person to when they are "tired" of their spouse, what the reason, to instead of working on cultivating the relationship, to simply find a new person to try again. Divorce also does the same thing, but when divorce begins to be mentioned many people try to fix the issue for the children, or because they love each other. Polygamy doesn't give any good reasons not to marry another person, and simply ignore the first. If your tired of the first, and they have kids, don't tramatize the children, just get another marriage, while keeping the old one.

To questions 3, 4, and 5. To answer question 3 yes people have to disrespect each other but, polygamy would almost encourage disrespect, by ignoring the person since you can try again with no bad effects. Which leads to question 4, by allowing more then 2 people per marriage, then why show respect and payattention to one of the old wives/husbands. Why not ignore them as much as possible and focus on your new wife/husband. To show respect is also to listen to what the other person has to say, and polygamy encourages the opposite. And to question 5, while a law against polygamy may create respect, it would stop the disrespect described above. It stops what would most likely be a bad situation.

Overall, your questions illustrate that polygamy works on paper. In the perfect relationship, I'm sure polygamy could very easily work, The husbands and wives respect each other, and a happy sex life is available for all of them.(especially the men:laugh But people will not create the perfect relationships and so it wouldn't work quite as well in real life a it looks on paper.

[Lady Dragonfly]

jealous wives and abused husbands

You are right about existence of men harassed by women. But can you honestly say that the number of such cases is approaching at least a third of the number of cases where the women are the victims? I have never heard of battered husbands seeking a shelter. Have you?

The marriage is falling apart, this is a simple fact. The problem is a complex one and is beyond the scope of this discussion. But why is a polygamous marriage better? I think all this is actually a step backwards, into the self-indulgent drug-induced hippy land and into the caves of our hairy ancestors.
Self-restraint and chastity are out of fashion. Something to ridicule. ‘Free love’ sounds better, doesn’t it? Sexual fantasies can become a legalized lifestyle. And they do.
We talk about 'free love', 'free choice' and in our minds make them synonymous with 'true love', 'happiness' and the other idealistic attributes of romantic longing and heavenly bliss.
Are they really synonymous?
Then why does this ideal love need 'a prior agreement' to guarantee that a spouse would never entertain a thought about polygamy? Where is that precious trust associated with 'true love'? And doesn’t ‘free love’ mean changing partners whenever we feel like it? I personally respect rabbits but they are not my role model.

I think that, unfortunately, the marriage or any other form of cohabitation is inherently possessive, even if we don't like the idea. This is a human nature. Thus the jealousy. Any relationship is a potential cause. But the plural marriage is asking for it. And, actually, a ‘plural’ husband’s life can easily become a bloody Hell with competing wives, constant fights, tears, threats etc. To alleviate the problem, a man must rule with the iron hand. Punish the impudent wife, maybe reward a ‘pleasant’ one. He must take the road of the Patriarch or perish (either from madness or from Viagra overdose). I guess that could be a case of abuse… poor guy…

Law cannot create respect any more than Law can create love. Law is not creative. The function of law (a negative law) is to guarantee the citizens that bad things would not happen to them without a serious legal complications to their potential offenders.
(Almost all laws are negative. There are few positive laws. They include social security, education and medical care.)
I don't see anything wrong with a reasonable marital law protecting men, women, their children and their property. Reasonable. This is not More's Utopia where a perpetrator was to be buried alive under his victim's coffin.

[dragon wench]

You are right about existence of men harassed by women. But can you honestly say that the number of such cases is approaching at least a third of the number of cases where the women are the victims? I have never heard of battered husbands seeking a shelter. Have you?

As this issue is far afield of the question at hand I will simply supply links rather than personal commentary:

Male Sexual Abuse Victims of Female Perpetrators: Society's Betrayal of Boys
Domestic Violence Against Men
Abused by Women

And those are just a small handful of all the pages I could have listed...

But why is a polygamous marriage better?

I don't think anyone here is necessarily saying that a polygamous marriage is "better." We are simply stating that it is a personal decision and that those arguments voicing the apparent flaws of polygamous marriage speak to problems symptomatic of gender inequality as a whole.

I think all this is actually a step backwards, into the self-indulgent drug-induced hippy land and into the caves of our hairy ancestors.
Self-restraint and chastity are out of fashion. Something to ridicule. ‘Free love’ sounds better, doesn’t it? Sexual fantasies can become a legalized lifestyle. And they do.

With all due respect, this does not sound like an argument against polygamous marriage. Rather it sounds like, "I don't personally approve because it offends my particular set of moral values."

But the plural marriage is asking for it. And, actually, a ‘plural’ husband’s life can easily become a bloody Hell with competing wives, constant fights, tears, threats etc.

Asking for it? Asking for what exactly?
Do you have an objective source of evidence for this portrayal of domestic mayhem?
And even if it is the case, if such an arrangement is made by consenting adults, I don't see why it is anyone's business. Finally, monogamous relationships can be rife with tears, and constant acrimony; does that mean we should legislate against marriage of all forms because married people fight?

To alleviate the problem, a man must rule with the iron hand. Punish the impudent wife, maybe reward a ‘pleasant’ one. He must take the road of the Patriarch or perish (either from madness or from Viagra overdose). I guess that could be a case of abuse… poor guy…

One, this speaks yet again to gender inequality. Two, it reinforces a particular stereotype, one that helps to promote gender inequality, among other problems.

[Lady Dragonfly]

'Some professionals have observed that mental and emotional abuse can be an area where women are often "brutal" than men. Men on the other hand are quicker to resort to physical abuse and they are more capable of physical assaults that are more brutal - even deadly!.'

The slamming doors and scratched faces, cruel emotional manipulation and sarcastic remarks about poor 'performance', lack of good housekeeping skills and "I am too tired to-night' stuff, 'stop-watching-TV-you-idiot' and 'I-can't-believe-I-married-a-loser'. Even drug and alcohol abuse. Bad, bad, bad women. Why would anybody in his right mind want to marry several??? And have several Mothers-in-law giving a precious advice how to live?

The links provided claim that men are equally abused. If that is true, there is no 'gender-inequality'. Everybody is abused.

With all due respect, this does not sound like an argument against polygamous marriage. Rather it sounds like, "I don't personally approve because it offends my particular set of moral values."

It offends the moral values of the majority of people. Well, that is why polygamy is still a crime punishable by law. Polyamory is not a crime. Pornography is legal as well. Many people will argue that History shows that immoral things slowly become moral as cultures change. That is true. Does not automatically means that it is always a good thing.
The human mind is conservative. The traditional is usually perceived as something better. That is why I don't believe that polygamy will be legalized in this country in the observable future.

Asking for it? Asking for what exactly?

Let's say... Jealousy fits? Melodramatic behavior associated with jealousy? I am sorry, I thought that was evident in the context. But pehaps not.

Do you have an objective source of evidence for this portrayal of domestic mayhem?

You just provided the links about domestic violence. I can try and find links about abuse in the plural marriage. Anybody can.

And even if it is the case, if such an arrangement is made by consenting adults, I don't see why it is anyone's business. Finally, monogamous relationships can be rife with tears, and constant acrimony; does that mean we should we legislate against marriage of all forms because married people fight?

Consenting adults engage in a lot of activities that are none of my business. That is not affecting my own rights. However, if polygamy is no more a crime, it will affect a lot of people. I refer you to the article I mentioned in my previous post. I respect gay rights, I respect 'polyamourous' rights (I don't have to approve of them) but hey, let them respect my rights too. Or I will stop respecting theirs.

[Xandax]

Marriage is falling apart in monogamous marriage situation, so perhaps we should simply outlaw that as well? Or perhaps because monogamous marriages are falling apart left and right, polygamous is really the way to go

Anyways, you seem to be missing the entire point Silur and DW is trying to make.
They aren't arguing pro-polygamous marriage as such - it is simply all the con's you've listed are in effect today in monogamous marriages, so somehow claiming these will be an effect of polygamous marriage is flawed, because they are already in effect today, in large numbers.
I see no more "dangers" towards marriage as an institution from polygamous marriage then I do monogamous. The "danger" is coming from *people* not treating other *people* correct. Not the external label one decides to put on a relationship.

I still maintain that when there are legal benefits connected with marriage, marriage should be open to any consenting adults in the manner they so choose to form. Otherwise, it is simply discrimination: the homosexual group being one obvious segment.
Remove the legal and economical benefits of the stamp "marriage", and then we can talk about (religious) morality or "anti-hippie" what not.

<snip>
Consenting adults engage in a lot of activities that are none of my business. That is not affecting my own rights. However, if polygamy is no more a crime, it will affect a lot of people. I refer you to the article I mentioned in my previous post. I respect gay rights, I respect 'polyamourous' rights (I don't have to approve of them) but hey, let them respect my rights too. Or I will stop respecting theirs.

How is what other people do - whether illegal or not, but not affecting you directly - involving/disrespecting "your rights"?

[Heksefatter]

No offense meant, but I don't see any way in which women (or children, or men, for that matter) can be abused in a polygamous relationship that cannot occur in a monogamous one. Unless you're going to tell me that jealousy enters into it more often, and there's absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support that.

Then, let me give you an example mentioned in the book "De Retfærdige" ("The Just") by the Danish Journalist Martin Krasnik: In Saudi Arabia, a woman entered into a settlement with her husband, paying him a rather large sum of money for him not to take an additional wife.

Now, obviously, even though the husband having taken an extra wife was avoided, this is still not a happy marriage. Even so, the woman went to great lengths in order to prevent her from merely one of the wives.

Now, changing the setting to a western country, but looking at those religiously conservative families where there really is a great lack of gender equality, the wife would have very hard time actually preventing her husband taking a second wife. Legally, she might be entitled to veto such an additional marriage or divorce her husband if he goes through with it, but socially it would be very difficult for her. She is rebelling against the head of the family.

Of course, this does not make their marriage just peachy in my eyes. Still, for her, the legalization of polygamy would mean more grief and oppression, not less.

[Heksefatter]

@Lady Dragonfly: I wasn't aware that the US still had the antiquated view that you actually need a reason to be granted a divorce. I can divorce my wife this instant (well, besides the paperwork). If we have kids, there is a six month cooling off period, but that is mainly for the sake of the kids.

Again, all arguments boil down to marriages not being on equal terms and the arguments are strawmen, since the problems aren't related to the question of polygamy versus monogamy. I fully agree, there are marriages where one party is weaker than the other and may give way to the stronger party's will. It is not gender-specific by the way. There are studies that show that men are being abused and harassed by their wives, and that this is under-reported to the authorities because of the stigma of being beaten or (ab)used by a woman. Still, all these problems mentioned are commonplace today in our mainly monogamous society, and I see nothing that supports the view that allowing polygamy will make the slightest bit of difference either way. What would make a serious difference for the better, however, is fighting the old conventions and traditions that make people accept the kind of destructive situations you describe. This includes religious dogma of all sorts, including christian.

Yes, my opposition to legalizing polygamy is based on concerns about gender equality.

This has, however, nothing to do with "straw men". If I was to use a "straw man" argument, something I consider abhorrent, I would be attributing a position to someone else. While I have misunderstood Fable's position at one time, this was just that - a misunderstanding.

There is (obviously) little scientific study of what effect polygamous marriages would have if introduced into western societies, so we must derive our conclusions from other observations. Just above, I gave examples to Fable as to how I believe gender oppression could come about from legal polygamy.

[Heksefatter]

Here's a small questionaire to try to illustrate what I find to be wrong with the reasoning in the defense of a law against polygamy (or any other type of marriage for that matter).

1. Would polygamy be a threat to a purely monogamous marriage where both parties respect and care for each other?

No.

1. Consider a utopic polygamous relationship where everyone respects everyone else and everyone is having fun with everyone else like rabbits, and no one gets hurt, is this in itself morally wrong?

No.