Plural marriage versus gay marriage

[Lady Dragonfly]

@Xandax

The best way is to present logical facts instead of anecdotal statements and opinions as facts.

I can hardly call a police statement anecdotal, but you are certainly entitled to your opinion.

I could say that lack of change within the law to reflect the change of society makes many people insecure about said laws, and wonder their legibility. If many feel a law is outdated, and then upholding said law dwindles - and it ends up being changed.

I agree. Completely. The key word is IF.

Not once have we been presented other then with some subjective opinions (which hardly count as logical facts) that increased "abuse" will happen if polygamy marriage was legalized.

What facts, in your opinion, would qualify as logical? What evidence would you find sufficient? Please explain. So far it is your opinion against a police statement.

Just once, how does legalizing polygamy marriage increase abuse, when the abuse is already existing and present? How is polygamy worse off then regular marriage when the same forms of abuse exists in regular?

The abuse is rampant in Mormon polygamous marriage as described by the insiders and the police. Legalizing polygamy first of all will legalize the existing Mormon Fundamentalists' marriages (and they are the main proponents of the legalization) and prevent any prosecution unless a victim comes forward which is unlikely due to the oppressive nature of these marriages and the overwhelming influence of the Mormons in Utah. The polygamy was officially condemned in Utah and the law was repeatedly upheld for the last 150 years in spite of the multiple complains from the polygamists who demanded legalization of polygamy as their religious right. The law does not protect a religious right if it harms children. At the same time the officials assumed a 'don't ask, don't tell' attitude, mostly due to the above mentioned influence. It comes to the end though since more and more victims speak out. In such communities legalization of polygamy will not increase abuse; it will simply legalize it.
As to the non-Mormon would-be polygamous marriages, I briefly outlined my position in the previous post. I have never mentioned any 'abuse' or 'increase in abuse' issues in polyamorous groups so please do not attribute this opinion to me. However, since we presume that abuse is omnipresent, it probably exists in these groups as well.
These groups are mostly unstable and often preoccupied with transcending 'jealousy and possessiveness'. It is not for everyone to enjoy the fact that your lover 'falls in love' with more and more partners who become members (however temporarily) of the group. To accept this you must be able to ‘transcend’ anxiety and start 'loving' all your partner's partners and those partners' partners. Or you are out. In the so-called open marriages legally married husband and wife openly enjoy multiple lovers that come and go. Fine too.
I am not, and I repeat, I am not against such unions. I am against callining them marriage.
And how would you legally marry and divorce several people every few months? Please do tell me. This is not a marriage. If everything is marriage, nothing is. I say again: leave these free spirits be. They like it as is.

Abuse most likely exists within fundamentalist polygamous communities, but you have not yet shown that it would increase if polygamy marriages were legalized, or that it wouldn't happen anyway. You simply claim that because abuse happens - it must be connected to polygamous relationships. And that is flawed.

I've already answered that.

Would you like me to present one "account" from a person in former monogamist relationships who've been abused in some form and claim it is general for all types of monogamist relationships based on this persons experience? Because one would be quite easy to find.

Please do, but there is no real need; you have already made this assumption yourself. And since I know of no incidents of child rape, incest and physical abuse that happened even once in my family, my husband's extensive family and my friends' families, I can safely answer that to claim these kinds of abuse are common in practically all monogamous families is more than exaggeration. At the same time, this is a common practice in the Mormon polygamous community and they don't view it as abuse.

Yeah, it is a dumb argument to me, because you grasp an unidentified transparent group of society as argument. And that hardly carries much weight in a debate.

OK, let us look at the latest Gallup poll:

Americans on polygamy
"Testimony continues in a Utah courtroom on the issue of whether or not polygamist Warrant Jeffs should stand trial on charges of rape.

We've been tracking Americans' views on the moral acceptability of polygamy for a while now. Five percent of Americans believe that “polygamy, when one husband has more than one wife at the same time” is morally acceptable.

This presents an interesting case of interpretation. Certainly that’s a very low number from one perspective. In fact, polygamy is near the bottom of the list of a number of moral issues we test each year (only 4% of Americans say that married men and women having an affair is morally acceptable -- putting it at the very bottom).

At the same time, do 5% of Americans really think polygamy is morally acceptable? We spelled it out in some detail for respondents (as noted above) so it’s hard to believe that there was some misunderstanding about what polygamy really is. Without calling back the 5% who found it acceptable and quizzing them in more detail, we don’t know precisely what is behind their responses. But it appears that at least some Americans don't reject the idea."

Or blaming polygamous marriage for abuse which happens anyway/elsewhere.

You are twisting my position. Again. I have answered this accusation already.

With the way marriages fail left and right (what is the divorce rate in the US?, and the Western Europe? .... high isn't it) I do not follow the "Marriage is a commitment and a lot of responsibility and patience".
And even if true, then commitment and responsibility and patience would also exists in polygamous marriages, or homosexual marriages for that matter, just as abuse exists in both forms.

Responsibility ...that not everyone is ready to take. The marriage commitment should not be taken as easy as a sexual encounter in a swinging bar. (The accommodating divorce laws are abused as well).
Actually, we share the opinion that marriage is commitment.

I am quoting Xandax now:

Marriage to me is an institution of commitment which just incidentally carries a lot of benefits in many societies which makes marriage *not* and institution of religion, but of society and state.

And even if true, then commitment and responsibility and patience would also exists in polygamous marriages

No, they would not. No commitment, period.

[Magrus]

You do realize you are basing your entire argument off of a singular group using polygamy in a negative manner, and that is why everyone is tearing apart your arguments, right? Some people do take multiple partners for reasons other than what you are listing in a negative light and are content with it.

Please do, but there is no real need; you have already made this assumption yourself. And since I know of no incidents of child rape, incest and physical abuse that happened even once in my family, my husband's extensive family, my married daughters families and my friends' families, I can safely answer that to claim these kinds of abuse are common in practically all monogamous families is more than exaggeration. At the same time, this is a common practice in the Mormon polygamous community and they don't view it as abuse.

1. My best friend in high school was raped by his father when the father was drunk, often.

2. 2 of my ex's were sexually abused by family members.

3. Myself, 3 of my ex's and a number of my personal friends, not to mention my brothers and cousins were abused physically as well as emotionally.

All of these were in family's which the married couple involved fit the following:

1. Monogomous
2. Male/Female relationship
3. Christian

According to this data from my life, and using your logic there I could say the following:

"Straight Christians in monogomous relationships are commonly abusive to their children in a mental and physical manner, while occasionally involving incest and sexual abuse."

[fable]

No, I never stated that polygamy itself is at fault. But I thought it clear that her husband's option of taking another wife worsened her situation. Do you, or do you not agree with that opinion of mine?

What you have stated repeatedly is that the legalization of polygamy would mean more grief and oppression. If that isn't a remark directly blaming polygamy, holding it at fault, what is it? If polygamy isn't at fault in your opinion, then you wouldn't be holding it responsible.

As far as the husband wishing to take another wife worsening the situation of the wife he's married to: didn't you read where I mentioned three times that in monogamous relationships, husbands can (and do) set up relationships with mistresses, worsening the situations with their wives? So the problem isn't polygamy. The problem lies within the relationship. Since that is the case, polygamy isn't at fault, and if it isn't at fault, there's no reason to stop from legalizing it.

And no, I quite honestly do not think her relation similar to the common back-and-forth-bribing found in many western marriages. She was terribly oppressed, and polygamy was a further blow to her.

So if polygamy was a "further blow" to her because her husband wanted to take a second wife, I presume monogamy would be a "further blow" to her if her husband wanted to set up with a mistress? Right?

You are not guilty of a felony if you practise de facto polygamy. As seen by the eyes of the law, you are married to your first spouse, and living with someone else too. At most, you have gone through a religious ceremony with no legally binding effect.

Maybe the situation is different in your nation, but in the US and the UK, you most certainly can be married to both wives at the same time, and it's called bigamy. It's a felony. And if you are married to both of them at the same time and they have been aware of this yet continued the relationship, then you are considered guilty of bigamy in the eyes of the law, and they are both considered accessories to the commission of the crime. Consequently, there would be less willingness for a women in a criminalized polygamous relationship to come forward, as she would be considered criminally responsible, too. But she would not suffer from this if polygamy was legalized.

I disagree. This is not just sexual desire, but business and family politics. And for these, the law comes in very, very handy.

In the US, polygamy is a fact. It happens. It is not usually a matter of business or family, because it does not entail marriage; it must be the result of affection, because it would brand all involved as social pariahs in most communities, if it were known. Polygamy simply isn't something that happens in a few Arabic sub-cultures associated with Islam, nor is it limited to marriages.

When on Urth did I state that muslims have a uniform culture?!

Right here, where you deny it in the next breath, and continue doing it:

1) There exists traditions for polygamy in muslim culture. (Note that this does not imply the existence of an uniform muslim culture, any more than stating the fact that there exists roman traditions in Western culture means that there is an uniform Western culture).

You can't seriously refer to Muslim culture, because there is no such thing. Muslim religoius beliefs, yes; but not Muslim culture. There are Muslims with very different sets of behaviors in a wide variety of lands, just as there are many different sets of behaviors among Jews in many lands, and Christians, too, and other religions. So I will not stereotype every Jew as following "Jewish culture," or every Christian as following "Christian culture," or every Muslim as following "Muslim culture." If you're going to sweepingly claim that polygamy is part of "Muslim culture," then let's have you define exactly which Muslims culture you refer to. Saudis? Rural Southern Egyptians? Sunnis in Qatar, or the United States? The Shi'a in Western Iran? Be fair to all the people you're tarring with a single brush, please. They're not all polygamists, anymore than all Jews are polygamists because the biblical old testament displayed a great deal of it.

What?! Which bad thingy am I saying is not happening at all in a monogamous marriage?

Then if spousal oppression/abuse occurs in monogamous marriages, too, do you believe it occurs more often in polygamous ones? And if you do, what evidence do you have to back this opinion up? If you don't, then there seems to be no more reason to cirminalize polygamy than there would be to criminalize monogamy.

[Xandax]

<snip>
What facts, in your opinion, would qualify as logical? What evidence would you find sufficient? Please explain. So far it is your opinion against a police statement.<snip>

Well, statistical material to back up your claims, scientifically studies being done - that sort of things which doesn't stem from "I think X, therefore X is right ...."
So when you for instance a bit later says:At the same time, this is a common practice in the Mormon polygamous community and they don't view it as abuse. it would be good to back up such a claim.

<snip>
The abuse is rampant in Mormon polygamous marriage as described by the insiders and the police. Legalizing polygamy first of all will legalize the existing Mormon Fundamentalists' marriages (and they are the main proponents of the legalization) and prevent any prosecution unless a victim comes forward which is unlikely due to the oppressive nature of these marriages and the overwhelming influence of the Mormons in Utah.
<snip>

And how do you know this abuse is due to polygamous marriages, and not something which would happen - and is happening - anyway.
After all, abuse in marriage or committed relationships happens in all walks of life - despite group structure or belief system.
If anything - legalizing the polygamist marriages would - as fable has already mentioned - provide another layer of legal protection to everybody in said relationship.

<snip>
I am not, and I repeat, I am not against such unions. I am against callining them marriage.<snip>

Because traditionally marriage is between man and woman? However, marriage is not tradition any more because it is a discriminating institution as it provides legal and economical benefits to *some* based purely on sexual preferences.
If - as I've mentioned before - all such benefits were removed from marriage as an institution, then I could go along with not calling polygamist relationships "marriages", because then marriage could be defined as everything the parties wanted (such as man/women without chance for divorce in Christian societies etc)- but until, then it is purely discrimination and nothing else

<snip>
And how would you legally marry and divorce several people every few months? Please do tell me. This is not a marriage. If everything is marriage, nothing is.

And viewing the divorce rate in "traditionally" marriages, what do you base the question on? Indicating that polygamist relationships changes partners "every few months"? Do you have any "facts" to back this up, or is it once again an opinion stated as fact (or attempted fact)
You have no indication of polygamist relationships can't last the same few days that Britney Spears marriage in Vegas lasted?
You have no indication that polygamist relationships can't be exclusive within their little sphere of privacy.
Marriage is these things as well - not just "forever, through sickness and health".

<snip>
I say again: leave these free spirits be. They like it as is.<snip>

No - you seem to like it as it is. Big difference. Lest, you - once again - can present arguments to indicate that polygamist do not want the same benefits and legality of the traditionally "man/women" marriage.

<snip>
Please do, but there is no real need; you have already made this assumption yourself. And since I know of no incidents of child rape, incest and physical abuse that happened even once in my family, my husband's extensive family, my married daughters families and my friends' families, I can safely answer that to claim these kinds of abuse are common in practically all monogamous families is more than exaggeration. <snip>

Well, Magrus did this fine enough, a couple of posts up from this.

<snip>
Responsibility ...that not everyone is ready to take. The marriage commitment should not be taken as easy as a sexual encounter in a swinging bar. (The accommodating divorce laws are abused as well).
Actually, we share the opinion that marriage is commitment.
<snip>

We agree here, but I fail to see how this has effect on polygamous relationships when "man/women" traditionally relationships do the same.
Unless you again indicate that polygamous people are more "promiscuous" by definition then everybody else, as per earlier in your post. Especially when seeing again - the divorce race in marriage and the amount of people cheating on their (monogamous) spouse.

<snip>
No, they would not. No commitment, period.

Opinion, not fact. Period. Lest you have something again to back up that polygamous people aren't committed to each other within their sphere of relationship.

[Lady Dragonfly]

@Xandax

So when you for instance a bit later says:At the same time, this is a common practice in the Mormon polygamous community and they don't view it as abuse. it would be good to back up such a claim.

Here you go.

Laura Chapman Story
Flora Jessop Autobiography
Phoenix News| azfamily - KTVK| News for Phoenix, Arizona | Phoenix News| AZFamily - KTVK | Polygamy Diaries

And how do you know this abuse is due to polygamous marriages, and not something which would happen - and is happening - anyway.

Oh, please. We are talking about specified groups of polygamists and their adopted common practices they view as their God-given religious right, not abuse.

"If...an older man seduces a 13-year old girl....in his own mind he doesn't commit sexual abuse.....he views himself as married." (Comment by Ron Barton, special investigator of "closed societies," at the Utah State Attorney's Office)

Because all the plural marriages, except perhaps for the first one, are celestial, and not legal unions, FLDS men are not polygamists; they are only adulterers in the eyes of the state. Adultery is not a criminal act. (Comment by former Bishop Winston Blackmore of Bountiful)

Also according to The Economist, critics say that the schools run by the Canadian branch of the FLDS provide minimal education. Boys are trained as farm and forest laborers. Girls are trained to be"

"... young brides and mothers....Women who have fled tell of girls as young as 13 being married off to polygamous men three times their age; of babies born to girls of 14 and 15; and of under-age girls being brought in from similar American communes for arranged marriages and to serve as 'breeding stock'."

I encourage you to make your own research.

If anything - legalizing the polygamist marriages would - as fable has already mentioned - provide another layer of legal protection to everybody in said relationship.

Such as?..
With all due respect, is everything fable say in this forum automatically constitute an absolute truth?
Which prompts a quote from fable:

Would you allow the government to see whether you roleplay in bed? Whether you are allowed to look at images of naked women or men? If the government isn't allowed to tell you what to do in these matters, why should they be allowed to act as policemen over what people who are certainly of the age of rational decision-making and personal consent do in their private time? Twosomes=automatically okay, threesomes=automatically wrong?

Hell, no. All above conversation was about mormons, not about abstract threesomes.
I make a distinction here.
But let us talk about a hypothetical law allowing polygamy outside the mormons' groups.
How many partners can you legally marry at the same time? Five? Twenty? A hundred? A thousand? Where is the cutting point after which the marriage becomes a joke? Following this logic, why 1,000 is OK and 1,001 is not? Or are we talking about some abstract ideals again?
What would prevent me from going to another country, marrying 1,000 people for a monetary gain and successfully transport them across the border?
I leave the whole chain of events to your imagination.
Islam permits four wives. A polyamorous group number, according to their websites, varies greatly.

If - as I've mentioned before - all such benefits were removed from marriage as an institution, then I could go along with not calling polygamist relationships "marriages", because then marriage could be defined as everything the parties wanted (such as man/women without chance for divorce in Christian societies etc)- but until, then it is purely discrimination and nothing else

You can go along with not calling them "marriages" now without opposing 95% of Americans. All-tolerant Dutch call such unions "cohabitation", for example.
If a marriage law needs economical strengthening, the burden of proof that polygamy would strengthen marriage is on polygamists.
If a marriage law should be stripped of all economical benefits, you have a hell of the job to do to prove it with the facts. So far it is all a wishful thinking without a thought about all possible implications.

Well, Magrus did this fine enough, a couple of posts up from this.

There are 10 apples. 7 are red. 3 are green.
A Red apple statement:
I am red and two other apples next to me are red, therefore NOT ALL apples are green, though I admit there are a few green apples in the basket.

A Green apple statement:
I am green and two apples next to me are green, therefore all apples in the basket are green and you are stupid.

Give me a break, Xandax, will you? You are an intelligent man.

Unless you again indicate that polygamous people are more "promiscuous" by definition then everybody else, as per earlier in your post. Especially when seeing again - the divorce race in marriage and the amount of people cheating on their (monogamous) spouse.

The right on divorce is a part of the marital law. Are you saying that divorce is bad?
Logic: people cheat, divorce rate is getting high, thus monogamous marriage is a fiction; polygamy exists anyway and it does not matter if we legalize polygamy as a union of unlimited number of people and strip the marriage of all benefits regardless of political, social and economical consequences to hundreds of millions people because otherwise it is discrimination.
Is that what you are telling?

The polygamous people are more promiscuous because they choose the lifestyle that by definition is promiscuous.
However, to be fair, there are some groups that try to limit promiscuity by introducing the so-called "polifidelity" concept.

Opinion, not fact. Period. Lest you have something again to back up that polygamous people aren't committed to each other within their sphere of relationship.

I base my opinion on many polyamory proponents' statements I have read on-line.

[Magrus]

There are 10 apples. 7 are red. 3 are green.
A Red apple statement:
I am red and two other apples next to me are red, therefore NOT ALL apples are green, though I admit there are a few green apples in the basket.

A Green apple statement:
I am green and two apples next to me are green, therefore all apples in the basket are green and you are stupid.

Give me a break, Xandax, will you? You are an intelligent man.

This in response to what he said regarding my commentary? You do realize I was imitating you in an attempt to show you how pitiful your argumentative tactics have been in this whole thread are, right? The amusement factor just went right back up. :laugh:

[Xandax]

<snip>
Such as?..
With all due respect, is everything fable say in this forum automatically constitute an absolute truth?
Which prompts a quote from fable:

Heh, not even close.
But simply logic dictates that if polygamous marriages were recognized as legal marriages along side the traditionally, then the same laws which extend to the (single) spouse would extend to the (multiple) spouses, all things equal.
Simple logics.

<snip>
If a marriage law needs economical strengthening, the burden of proof that polygamy would strengthen marriage is on polygamists.
If a marriage law should be stripped of all economical benefits, you have a hell of the job to do to prove it with the facts. So far it is all a wishful thinking without a thought about all possible implications.<snip>

I do not think polygamist marriages would "strengthen" marriage as an institution - I simply see no reason why it would derogated it further then it already is, given the amount of issues with simple monogamous marriages (illustrated nicely qua the divorce rates).
And thankfully we start seeing more and more legalization of for instance homosexual marriages and rights, so hope is there that marriages benefits (equal benefits) amongst others will be available to all, and not just whom is deemed "proper/right" people.

<snip>
There are 10 apples. 7 are red. 3 are green.
A Red apple statement:
I am red and two other apples next to me are red, therefore NOT ALL apples are green, though I admit there are a few green apples in the basket.

A Green apple statement:
I am green and two apples next to me are green, therefore all apples in the basket are green and you are stupid.

Give me a break, Xandax, will you? You are an intelligent man.
<snip>

Pot, meet kettle, and boy is it black.

Some/a number (say - 3 green apples out of 10?) reports of abuse within Mormon religious societies in polygamist relationships; and therefore the two are de facto always connected (the 7 red apples are now stated to be green) - have been your entire line of argumentation in regards to polygamist relationships are bad and should not be able to be classified as marriage; and *now* you tell me that line of argumentation is not valid because similar arguments can be presented when it comes to monogamous marriages in non "strong" religious setting? Ei. the "traditionally" (lawful) view of marriage?
Simply because Magrus displayed some arguments mimicking your own?

Come now, either such arguments are accepted by you or not. You can't have it when it suits your line of argumentation and disregard it when it does not suit you.

[Chimaera182]

Good point. Why try to legalize something that is unnecessary and a prescribed nonsense on top of that?
And how would you personally solve the alleged problem with the ‘benefits’?
And what benefits exactly? And how would you deal with the consequences?

You seriously took my anti-marriage post, twisted it, and chose to use it to bolster your own sadistic argument? No. And you seemed to do a good job of ignoring just about everything else in the post if only so you could use that very small tidbit for yourself.

What benefits? Visitation rights if your spouse is in hospital (doctors tend to not like anyone but family visiting patients), the proper dissemenation of assets upon a spouse's death (something which can be better-contested if your "spouse" happens to be not legally married to you), shared insurance plans offered by one's job (insurance provided by one's place of business only covers family, especially spouses). Those are three rather big benefits. How would I deal with the consequences? Well, let's see. As far as visitation rights go, I'd have to lie to the medical staff to see my spouse, or not even see them at all. I could conceivably lose all claim to property both I and my spouse bought together and shared with one another, if one of his/her relatives challenged my claim to it (and win or lose, that would be a costly legal battle on top of that). And I could get my own insurance, which may be completely insignificant compared to that offered by my spouse's employer.

Legalizing polygamy will basically mean legalizing the abuse in these particular groups of people, legalizing child rape and incest because that is exactly what is happening. Why? Because these communities are closed to almost everybody, a serious abuse is a way of life and vastly going unreported, and the children are brainwashed.

Where exactly is that correlation? How exactly would legalizing polygamy mean legalizing abuse or child rape or incest? That's like saying legalizing polygamy will open the door for allowing people to marry their pets, which is of course stupid because no animal has legal standing nor can they sign a marriage license. The correlation between legal polygamy and legal bestiality is just as nonexistant as legal polygamy and legal incest/rape/pedophilia.

Polyamorous groups exist and I wish them a Merry Christmas.

As has been pointed out repeatedly by Fable--and I assume ignored by you--there are many Muslims who also perform polygamy. And they don't celebrate Christmas.

It is mostly about sex, not about ‘family’. Most of the original groups never stay original for a long time. Very often they also include swingers. These are well-known facts about existing polyamorous groups.

Who said it's mostly about sex? There are people who think monogamus marriages are about sex and not about family. And why does family have to automatically include sex? My cousin has an 8 year old child and she and the boy's father had been living together for almost 9 years now. They didn't get married until last year. The family can exist without the marriage just as easily as the marriage can exist without the family. As for that bit about most original groups never staying original long, says who? And how can swingers be polygamists? Swingers just have sex with other people; polygamists marry multiple people. Maybe if marriage is only about sex as you posit, then that business about swingers would make more sense. But your argument has been nothing of the sort, and swingers are not at all a good example to draw upon in that case.

No, they would not. No commitment, period.

So you believe that polygamists cannot commit, just because they commit to multiple people at a time? Commitment is not as black and white as you seem to be implying that it is. It is possible for a person to be truly dedicated and committed to more than one person at a time. You cannot simply assume that dedication and commitment do not exist in something you have never experienced for yourself. And you have yet to supply any documentation proving that such aspects are definitely lacking in polygamous relationships.

Oh, please. We are talking about specified groups of polygamists and their adopted common practices they view as their God-given religious right, not abuse.

"If...an older man seduces a 13-year old girl....in his own mind he doesn't commit sexual abuse.....he views himself as married." (Comment by Ron Barton, special investigator of "closed societies," at the Utah State Attorney's Office)

[snip]

"... young brides and mothers....Women who have fled tell of girls as young as 13 being married off to polygamous men three times their age; of babies born to girls of 14 and 15; and of under-age girls being brought in from similar American communes for arranged marriages and to serve as 'breeding stock'."

About Ron Barton: how does he know what that man thinks? Does the man who seduced a 13 year old girl really believe that he is married, or is Barton simply transposing his own beliefs onto the man? You can't prove one way or the other what the man who seduced the little girl thought; all you can guess is that he is attracted to younger girls. If he uses the "oh we're married" excuse after the fact, he is only trying to justify his behavior, not the other way around.

As for that last bit... hate to tell you this, but a hundred years ago, such a thing wasn't exactly uncommon in the U.S. It was a rather common practice for young girls to have their parents arrange marriages with men who were well-off, better connected, to give them some chance at life. And all of those were monogamous marriages.

But let us talk about a hypothetical law allowing polygamy outside the mormons' groups.

Then which group would that be? Muslims? Or are you suggesting that if polygamy is legalized everyone is going to be doing it? Some fringe groups might wish to engage in it, but in the case of both Muslims and Mormons who practice polygamy, it is as much a part of their religion as Jesus is your Savior. To deny them any aspect of their religion merely on the moral precepts dictated to you by your own religion is simply wrong.

I base my opinion on many polyamory proponents' statements I have read on-line.

Are these proponents leading experts of the field of polyamory? Are they willing practitioners who stand staunchly behind their beliefs? Are they credible by any sense of the word? Or are they perhaps stupid kids who just think it would be "cool" to marry multiple girls?

[Lady Dragonfly]

It is funny how many typos and grammatical errors I keep finding in my posts after I skim them the next day. My excuse is that I am getting senile.

@Xandax

Heh, not even close.
But simply logic dictates that if polygamous marriages were recognized as legal marriages along side the traditionally, then the same laws which extend to the (single) spouse would extend to the (multiple) spouses, all things equal.
Simple logics.

Pot, meet kettle, and boy is it black

No, let us keep to the fruit basket. And define the positions. We start with mormons if you don't mind.

The case study:

There is a large basket of apples and a small box of grapes.

The Apples: Hey, this small box in the corner smells funny, let's delegate Apple #1 to sniff it out.

Apple #1 rolls into the corner, opens the lid and looks inside the small box.

Apple #1: There are grapes. And as far as I can tell by looking through the layers, they are in a various state of decomposure. The box stinks, cover your nose, Boo.

The Grape Boss: This is not a stink This is a smell of fermentation. We have a religious right to smell and our recipe is sacred. We are the green grapes, the chosen ones. Our path was revealed to us by our great ancestor The Grape. We believe that out path is better than yours but we want a place in your basket so we could enjoy the same right to be eaten as you, infidels.
Since you are letting bananas in your basket, we feel discriminated against.

Red Apple #2: I refuse to let them in our nice traditional basket because they are grapes. Whole or rotten, it does not matter; my religion rejects grapes.

Red Apple #3: The grapes belong in our basket because they are our brothers, fruits of the Mother Earth. It is not our place to judge grapes or bananas. We all deserve to be eaten and I would fight to my last breath for their right to be eaten. Welcome, brothers.

Red Apple #4: They belong in the basket because some of the apples show the signs of decay too. We are all fruits with the the signs of rot, let them in. And since I think we are inedible anyway, it does not matter. But we should be politically correct. Plus. the evidence presented by the Apple #1 is anecdotal. I am gonna call his "evidence" a biased opinion of an apple.

Red Apple #5: The Apple #1 looked into that box and reported that the grapes are rotten. I don't mind grapes, they are fruits, but let first put them in a crate and sort them out, try to salvage the small ones on the bottom before the big rotten ones would squeeze a living hell out of them.

Red Apple #6: They are rotten grapes. They stink and ooze the greenish stuff. There is no way I would let them in my basket.

Red Apple #7: What are grapes anyway, folks? Are they more like bananas or apples?

Green Apple: I am green, they are green, everybody is green, I've already told you. And you are stupid, by the way.

Some/a number (say - 3 green apples out of 10?) reports of abuse within Mormon religious societies in polygamist relationships; and therefore the two are de facto always connected (the 7 red apples are now stated to be green) - have been your entire line of argumentation in regards to polygamist relationships are bad and should not be able to be classified as marriage; and *now* you tell me that line of argumentation is not valid because similar arguments can be presented when it comes to monogamous marriages in non "strong" religious setting? Ei. the "traditionally" (lawful) view of marriage?

That would be true IF only 3 out of 10 plural marriages were abusive compare to 3 out of 10 monogamous. The numbers are figurative, of course. The case is, practically 9 or 10 out of 10 PM are abusive. That is what has been reported. My opinion is based on this fact. I am the red apple #5.
If you can prove otherwise, that only few of them are abusive and the abuse is not the way of their operation, I will listen. I am a nice, friendly, pragmatic apple who used to flirt a lot with the other nice, good looking apples in the basket and who is not too old yet to forgo this sport completely.

I am still waiting for your response about the cutting point.
How many members would you allow into a single official marriage before it becomes even a better joke?

@Chimaera

You seriously took my anti-marriage post, twisted it, and chose to use it to bolster your own sadistic argument? No. And you seemed to do a good job of ignoring just about everything else in the post if only so you could use that very small tidbit for yourself.

Relax, I did not take it seriously. I am smiling right now. My sadistic arguments are for the willing partners with masochistic tendencies only, so you are free to opt out.

What benefits? Visitation rights...

Actually there are about 1,400 legal rights conferred upon married couples in the U.S. Typically these are composed of about 400 state benefits and over 1,000 federal benefits. So I am aware.
But before the US benefits would be made available, it is good to demonstrate that polygamy as we know it (in US) qualify as a marriage.
And the marriage, de facto, is available for the polyamorous groups because nobody prevents them from marrying as a couple within the existing law. The problem can exists with the benefits though.
For example, one person can have a health insurance and his/her forty partners want to share it. How do you think the insurance company would reciprocate? I do want to hear your solution to this small problem. That is what I mean when I make my argument about not thinking about all potential implications a regular apple might face. And there are many others.
The gay marriage does not create any problems of this magnitude whatsoever. The gay marriage (which I support) is opposed on the 'moral grounds' held by some people. The original premise of this thread is that the polygamists make an attempt to capitalize on the human rights argument made by the gay activists. The gay activists are furious about this attempt because they want to distance themselves from the Mormons as far as possible.

Where exactly is that correlation? How exactly would legalizing polygamy mean legalizing abuse or child rape or incest?

The correlation is in the allegations that the child rape and incest:
1) are a long standing common tradition of conducting family business in the closed Mormon groups and
2) are not considered as rape or incest by the family Patriarchs.

You may disbelieve the allegations but they are out there.

As has been pointed out repeatedly by Fable--and I assume ignored by you--there are many Muslims who also perform polygamy. And they don't celebrate Christmas.

And you ignored the fact that I referred to the polyamorists.
And the fact that sometimes I use a bit of humor. Happy Hanukah.

Who said it's mostly about sex? There are people who think monogamous marriages are about sex and not about family. And why does family have to automatically include sex?

Sometimes it is not about sex, true. Especially after Viagra stopped producing the desirable effect. Then the marriage becomes either a platonic relationship or an ex-marriage.
If you visit the polyamorists' websites, you would see that a lot of those who post are divorced women disappointed in the previous marriage(s), married couples who want to experience more variety, individuals who prefer sex with multiple partners because they are bored otherwise, intellectuals making money by counseling people and teaching them sexual technics and so on.
The one thing that is interesting though, is the philosophy behind it, the assumption that the polyamorists achieved the highest status of ethics and morals available to humans. I encourage you to learn more if you have not yet, it is really interesting, and I am not sarcastic, though I have some difficulty in accepting promiscuity as a moral standard (I am a mere mortal). That is why I say that I am personally not against such unions, I am against calling them marriages because I am not sure how legalizing polygamy is going affect my rights.
By analogy, my property taxes were increased lately (again) to pay for the local school extracurricular activities. My children are grown up and have never attended any shcool in the state I now reside. But I pay the price the actual parents do not because they are much less well off. I generally don't like the taxes but I pay without much complain because I understand the children's need.
I am not that accommodating towards paying much higher insurance premiums to cover insurance needs of people who prefer sexual freedom in a 30-some marriage because that is what will happen.

Are these proponents leading experts of the field of polyamory? Are they willing practitioners who stand staunchly behind their beliefs? Are they credible by any sense of the word? Or are they perhaps stupid kids who just think it would be "cool" to marry multiple girls?

I have answered this as honestly as I could but you are totally free to browse the Internet. I don't claim any monopoly on absolute truth.

About fable and his dangerous charms:
I already said once that he is having a bad influence on me. Like the influence a fakir playing his flute has on a snake. So I try to read his arguments with one eye closed, to lessen my pain.

[Heksefatter]

First, Fable, an apology for taking so long to answer. For one, I am busy, and second I have an internal struggle between my tenacity and my annoyance over this discussion.

What you have stated repeatedly is that the legalization of polygamy would mean more grief and oppression. If that isn't a remark directly blaming polygamy, holding it at fault, what is it? If polygamy isn't at fault in your opinion, then you wouldn't be holding it responsible.

As far as the husband wishing to take another wife worsening the situation of the wife he's married to: didn't you read where I mentioned three times that in monogamous relationships, husbands can (and do) set up relationships with mistresses, worsening the situations with their wives? So the problem isn't polygamy. The problem lies within the relationship. Since that is the case, polygamy isn't at fault, and if it isn't at fault, there's no reason to stop from legalizing it.

I explained from the very beginning that if a polygamous relationship is free, equal and whatnot, then I have no problem with it. Hence, polygamy itself it not at fault. ("Polygamy does not oppress people - people with polygamy oppresses people").

So if polygamy was a "further blow" to her because her husband wanted to take a second wife, I presume monogamy would be a "further blow" to her if her husband wanted to set up with a mistress? Right?

In a way, yes. The "initial blow", is really the oppressive gender-roles in Saudi-Arabia. Her marriage to a <censored by the Ministery of Culture> man. But because she is in that situation, polygamy serves as a further blow to her.

Maybe the situation is different in your nation, but in the US and the UK, you most certainly can be married to both wives at the same time, and it's called bigamy. It's a felony. And if you are married to both of them at the same time and they have been aware of this yet continued the relationship, then you are considered guilty of bigamy in the eyes of the law, and they are both considered accessories to the commission of the crime. Consequently, there would be less willingness for a women in a criminalized polygamous relationship to come forward, as she would be considered criminally responsible, too. But she would not suffer from this if polygamy was legalized.

I was referring to de facto polygamy. If you go through with a couple of private religious ceremonies without legal effect, you do not break any law in my country, that much is certain. If you claim the legal and/or economic benefits associated with a state-recognized marriage, you would be in breach of the law. This wouldn't matter for a woman in a in the hypothetical abusive polygamous marriage, because she was only married to one person. Technically, the women could be considered accesories to the crime, but I am certain that no one would ever consider starting such a case at any court, since they were clearly not responsible for the crime.

In the US, polygamy is a fact. It happens. It is not usually a matter of business or family, because it does not entail marriage; it must be the result of affection, because it would brand all involved as social pariahs in most communities, if it were known. Polygamy simply isn't something that happens in a few Arabic sub-cultures associated with Islam, nor is it limited to marriages.

Are you thinking of people having affairs? In my view, that is quite different from full-fledged marriages. If, on the other hand, you a talking about those really rare full-fledged polygamous relationships there are, then yes, I fell sorry for them when taking the position I feel I must take when it comes to legalizing polygamy.

But given the lack of gender equality which is found in only too many places, I decide against it.

Right here, where you deny it in the next breath, and continue doing it:

1) There exists traditions for polygamy in muslim culture. (Note that this does not imply the existence of an uniform muslim culture, any more than stating the fact that there exists roman traditions in Western culture means that there is an uniform Western culture).

You can't seriously refer to Muslim culture, because there is no such thing. Muslim religoius beliefs, yes; but not Muslim culture. There are Muslims with very different sets of behaviors in a wide variety of lands, just as there are many different sets of behaviors among Jews in many lands, and Christians, too, and other religions. So I will not stereotype every Jew as following "Jewish culture," or every Christian as following "Christian culture," or every Muslim as following "Muslim culture." If you're going to sweepingly claim that polygamy is part of "Muslim culture," then let's have you define exactly which Muslims culture you refer to. Saudis? Rural Southern Egyptians? Sunnis in Qatar, or the United States? The Shi'a in Western Iran? Be fair to all the people you're tarring with a single brush, please. They're not all polygamists, anymore than all Jews are polygamists because the biblical old testament displayed a great deal of it.

Let’s be reasonable. I think the quotes from my remarks in this thread show that I do not intend to refer to every single muslim with my arguments, or even to a majority of them:

”There is only one religious group of any size where polygamy would be practised on a religious basis, that group being muslims. It would probably be very rare among Danish muslims but I do think it would happen in some smallish number”. (Post 22)

”Polygamic marriages would affect very few people, and that goes for both happy and unhappy polygamic marriages.” (Post 39)

”1) Gender inequality exists in Western Societies.

2) In this argument, the gender inequality in certain religiously conservative groups is the most important.

3) If we consider Danish society, the most important group for which 2) is relevant is muslims, as they are the only large group where conservatives can draw on a tradition of polygamy”. (Post 87)

Considering this, I think it is pretty clear that I do not regard muslims as sharing a uniform culture, and certainly not that they are all potential polygamists.

On the other hand, I will admit that using an expression like ”muslim culture” could, when isolated, be considered to mean that I am talking about a thing, muslim culture, and that it is, perhaps, not a very productive expression. It was intended to be an analogue of a concept like ”Western Culture”, which does not denote universality, even inside its own sphere. What does a professional nanny, a slacker college student and his Lordship Viscount St. Austell-in-the-Moor Biggleswade-Brixham have in common, really?

I will summarize my position:

1) Polygamy is permitted in the Qu’ran.
2) For that reason, polygamy has occured lots of places around the Muslim world, even in recent times.
3) I do not believe that Muslims in general really condone polygamy, but the traditions remain – and it ends up hurting women. (And to be clear: Not the tradition itself. Traditions do not hurt women, people with traditions hurt women).

Then if spousal oppression/abuse occurs in monogamous marriages, too, do you believe it occurs more often in polygamous ones? And if you do, what evidence do you have to back this opinion up? If you don't, then there seems to be no more reason to cirminalize polygamy than there would be to criminalize monogamy.

I think I’ve made my point that when regarding the position that polygamous marriages would, in Denmark, mostly be a Muslim thingy, especially when we consider religious conservatives, who are really the problem here. Muslim women are hugely overrepresented in centers for women who have fled their husbands. A loose estimation is 600-800 % overrepresentation. The men who put their wives in such a situation are, broadly, the most religiously conservative and clan-oriented. These men are, I believe, also the ones most likely to enter a polygamous marriage.

Of course, this would still be rare. But so would happy and equal polygamous marriages. Personally, I’ve never heard of such any Dane living in such a relationship. Of course, there’ve been a few free-love communities, and infidelity is widespread like everywhere else. But infidelity isn’t usually a commited, polydirectional relationship. And the rare free-love community almost never lasts for long.

[Xandax]

<snip>
No, let us keep to the fruit basket. And define the positions. We start with mormons if you don't mind.

The case study:

There is a large basket of apples and a small box of grapes.

The Apples: Hey, this small box in the corner smells funny, let's delegate Apple #1 to sniff it out.

Apple #1 rolls into the corner, opens the lid and looks inside the small box.

Apple #1: There are grapes. And as far as I can tell by looking through the layers, they are in a various state of decomposure. The box stinks, cover your nose, Boo.

The Grape Boss: This is not a stink This is a smell of fermentation. We have a religious right to smell and our recipe is sacred. We are the green grapes, the chosen ones. Our path was revealed to us by our great ancestor The Grape. We believe that out path is better than yours but we want a place in your basket so we could enjoy the same right to be eaten as you, infidels.
Since you are letting bananas in your basket, we feel discriminated against.

Red Apple #2: I refuse to let them in our nice traditional basket because they are grapes. Whole or rotten, it does not matter; my religion rejects grapes.

Red Apple #3: The grapes belong in our basket because they are our brothers, fruits of the Mother Earth. It is not our place to judge grapes or bananas. We all deserve to be eaten and I would fight to my last breath for their right to be eaten. Welcome, brothers.

Red Apple #4: They belong in the basket because some of the apples show the signs of decay too. We are all fruits with the the signs of rot, let them in. And since I think we are inedible anyway, it does not matter. But we should be politically correct. Plus. the evidence presented by the Apple #1 is anecdotal. I am gonna call his "evidence" a biased opinion of an apple.

Red Apple #5: The Apple #1 looked into that box and reported that the grapes are rotten. I don't mind grapes, they are fruits, but let first put them in a crate and sort them out, try to salvage the small ones on the bottom before the big rotten ones would squeeze a living hell out of them.

Red Apple #6: They are rotten grapes. They stink and ooze the greenish stuff. There is no way I would let them in my basket.

Red Apple #7: What are grapes anyway, folks? Are they more like bananas or apples?

Green Apple: I am green, they are green, everybody is green, I've already told you. And you are stupid, by the way.
<snip>

Irrelevant, as the question at hand was your argumentative technique where you use generalization to "state" your opinion, but dislike generalization in return to state otherwise.

<snip>
That would be true IF only 3 out of 10 plural marriages were abusive compare to 3 out of 10 monogamous. The numbers are figurative, of course. The case is, practically 9 or 10 out of 10 PM are abusive. That is what has been reported. My opinion is based on this fact. I am the red apple #5.
If you can prove otherwise, that only few of them are abusive and the abuse is not the way of their operation, I will listen. I am a nice, friendly, pragmatic apple who used to flirt a lot with the other nice, good looking apples in the basket and who is not too old yet to forgo this sport completely.
<snip>

Which you've not yet been able to display other then some "stories".
I've yet seen any statistics which shown that polygamous marriage as an institution increases the likelihood for abuse.
You argue repeatedly that the two things are connected, yet you do not seem to graps that the abuse could take place anyway; that the abuse could be connected with the fundamentalist religious views; that abuse happens constantly outside your sphere of "interest".
You seem to me to de facto connect A with B withouts any correlation other then the fact that they happen in the same environment. At the same line countless more or less strange connections can be made simply because they exists in the same sphere of examination.

Oh, and It is not up to me to "prove" they aren't connected, because I don't do reverse evidence. I do not have to prove you wrong, you have to prove yourself right, as it is you claiming all sorts of (still unfounded by the way) connections of topics. Otherwise, I'll still maintain it is your opinion and you attempting to state it as fact, which you've attempted numerous times over.

<snip>
I am still waiting for your response about the cutting point.
How many members would you allow into a single official marriage before it becomes even a better joke?
<snip>

That is most certainly not a cutting point of anything. It is a bait and nothing more, because if I mention a number, you'll argue something along the line of the cases above or under that number. So I'll just say 6 billion and be on the safe side.
Seriously - though - I could care less how many people want to live together in "holy matrimony" until divorce do them apart.
Marriage to me is personal, an institution of commitment between the parties involved (oh, and currently for the legal and economical benefits) - and for the record, you've not shown either that polygamous people are less committed within their relationship then "monogamous" people are. .... you just assume.
And when legal and economical benefits and rights exists, I can clearly understand why different then traditionally group structures wishes the same benefits and rights for themselves. Hence my discrimination point.

<snip>
I have answered this as honestly as I could but you are totally free to browse the Internet. I don't claim any monopoly on absolute truth.
<snip>

Oh yeah, because if it is on the Internet - it must be true. Nobody ever have lied or made false statement over it.

[Silur]

But given the lack of gender equality which is found in only too many places, I decide against it.

I hope I missunderstand this. What it sounds like you're saying is that since a number of people abuse a privilege (they do not even have legally), is a motivation for keeping said privilege illegal? That sounds a lot similar to "since some elements could misuse the privileges of democracy, so protect the innocent from those elements, we cannot introduce democracy yet". Same logic. Same authoritarian principles.

I will summarize my position:
1) Polygamy is permitted in the Qu’ran.
2) For that reason, polygamy has occured lots of places around the Muslim world, even in recent times.
3) I do not believe that Muslims in general really condone polygamy, but the traditions remain – and it ends up hurting women. (And to be clear: Not the tradition itself. Traditions do not hurt women, people with traditions hurt women).

First, I cannot see how the consequence of your position leads you to the conclusion that keeping polygamy illegal will make any difference for the better, nor why making it legal would change anything for the worse.

Second, this is the second fleeting generalisations paraphrasing "guns don't kill people..." and I find them equally irrelevant as the original. People with a history of polygamy are exactly as likely to be abusive as anyone else in the entire human population. Same goes for people with traditions. I know it's convenient to bundle up people into manageable groups of us and them, but that doesn't make the assumption more valid. Quite the contrary, it's the central thesis of prejudice.

I think I’ve made my point that when regarding the position that polygamous marriages would, in Denmark, mostly be a Muslim thingy, especially when we consider religious conservatives, who are really the problem here. Muslim women are hugely overrepresented in centers for women who have fled their husbands. A loose estimation is 600-800 % overrepresentation. The men who put their wives in such a situation are, broadly, the most religiously conservative and clan-oriented. These men are, I believe, also the ones most likely to enter a polygamous marriage.

Of course, this would still be rare. But so would happy and equal polygamous marriages. Personally, I’ve never heard of such any Dane living in such a relationship. Of course, there’ve been a few free-love communities, and infidelity is widespread like everywhere else. But infidelity isn’t usually a commited, polydirectional relationship. And the rare free-love community almost never lasts for long.

Again, assumptions, anecdotal evidence from your limited experience and more assumptions. Still, *even considering you by some strange coincidence are absolutely right*, how does it effect whether or not polygamy should be legal or not?

I wish you and LD would stop rehashing the same arguments over and over. It is disrespectful to those of us you discuss with, and to be honest, doesn't reflect too well back on you either. If it hasn't become apparent by now that we do not accept special pleading, anecdotal evidence, false dichotomies and slipery slopes as valid arguments against polygamy, I think it is reasonable to say that we will just have to agree to disagree.

[Cartell]

I wish you and LD would stop rehashing the same arguments over and over. It is disrespectful to those of us you discuss with, and to be honest, doesn't reflect too well back on you either. If it hasn't become apparent by now that we do not accept special pleading, anecdotal evidence, false dichotomies and slipery slopes as valid arguments against polygamy, I think it is reasonable to say that we will just have to agree to disagree.

Also, The arguments have mostly been personal oppinion, and therefore the arguments are just arguing your own particular point of view with no real evidence to back any of the positions up.

[fable]

First, Fable, an apology for taking so long to answer. For one, I am busy, and second I have an internal struggle between my tenacity and my annoyance over this discussion.

I understand, and appreciate your willingness to discuss these points.

I explained from the very beginning that if a polygamous relationship is free, equal and whatnot, then I have no problem with it. Hence, polygamy itself it not at fault. ("Polygamy does not oppress people - people with polygamy oppresses people").

Then if polygamy isn't a problem, there should be no difficulty with legalizing it in the US or Western Europe. Since legal safeguards can obviously protect the rights of all involved against such abuses as have occurred elsewhere in both monogamous and polygamous relationships.

In a way, yes. The "initial blow", is really the oppressive gender-roles in Saudi-Arabia. Her marriage to a <censored by the Ministery of Culture> man. But because she is in that situation, polygamy serves as a further blow to her.

Saudi Arabia is among the most background nations as regards human rights (and a few other things, too). But we're discussing polygamy in Western Europe and the US, as I've repeatedly stated in our discussion, so there are no grounds for believing any abuse would arise in polygamy that wouldn't also occur in monogamy. I thought we agreed on this.

I was referring to de facto polygamy. If you go through with a couple of private religious ceremonies without legal effect, you do not break any law in my country, that much is certain.

Not so in the US or UK, once again. Whether you claim benefits or not, you're guilty of a felony. That's one very good reason for legalizing polygamy. It harms no one in Europe or the Americas, so making it a crime to commit it is simply arrant bigotry.

Are you thinking of people having affairs? In my view, that is quite different from full-fledged marriages.

We weren't looking at affairs and marriages in and of themselves, but rather as functioning parts of a social dynamic that resulted in the abuse of one partner. In the instance we discussed, where a woman tried to buy off her husband from getting a second wife (polygamy) or tried to buy off her husband from keeping a mistress (monogamy), the social and cultural result was the same.

Let’s be reasonable. I think the quotes from my remarks in this thread show that I do not intend to refer to every single muslim with my arguments, or even to a majority of them:

”There is only one religious group of any size where polygamy would be practised on a religious basis, that group being muslims. It would probably be very rare among Danish muslims but I do think it would happen in some smallish number”. (Post 22)

But I have to ask, on what do you base this opinion? Simply because polygamy is practiced in among some Muslim worshippers? It's also practiced among a great many non-Muslim, animist cultures, and among some Christian ones. The Jews of the OT practiced it. Enthusiastically. I see no evidence from you that Danish (or US, or UK) Muslims would jump at the change to engage in polygamy. You forget: they're Danes, and Americans, and Brits. Their religious beliefs do not determine everything in their lives, nor are these religious beliefs practiced consistently across all Muslim worshippers. (I obviously exempt certain core beliefs.) I have to say that I believe this appears to be opinion based on pre-judgment and stereotyping. I would think, if anything, that some Christian sub-cultures in the US, such as the Mormons, would form the largest group to jump immediately at polygamy, followed by loving threesomes who simply want the same protection and recognition under law that they've had to enjoy in secret for years.

”Polygamic marriages would affect very few people, and that goes for both happy and unhappy polygamic marriages.” (Post 39)

Then I appear to have misunderstood you, and you agree with me that there's no problem with legalizing polygamy.

On the other hand, I will admit that using an expression like ”muslim culture” could, when isolated, be considered to mean that I am talking about a thing, muslim culture, and that it is, perhaps, not a very productive expression. It was intended to be an analogue of a concept like ”Western Culture”, which does not denote universality, even inside its own sphere. What does a professional nanny, a slacker college student and his Lordship Viscount St. Austell-in-the-Moor Biggleswade-Brixham have in common, really?

I appreciate your humor, but I would have to shake my head against both Western Culture and Muslim Culture. These are pop phrases, coined by people who either don't understand, or seek to promote agendas of strife and bigotry. If you want to start a thread on Western Culture someday, I'll gladly jump in on that.

1) Polygamy is permitted in the Qu’ran.
2) For that reason, polygamy has occured lots of places around the Muslim world, even in recent times.
3) I do not believe that Muslims in general really condone polygamy, but the traditions remain – and it ends up hurting women. (And to be clear: Not the tradition itself. Traditions do not hurt women, people with traditions hurt women).

Polygamy was also permitted in the OT. It's allowance in the Qu'ran is of less importance in this context than its allowance among various cultural groups, such as those peoples that have been influenced by Mediterranean and sub-Saharan societies. There is no uniformity of belief in polygamy among Muslims, and many reject it.

Of course, this would still be rare. But so would happy and equal polygamous marriages. Personally, I’ve never heard of such any Dane living in such a relationship. Of course, there’ve been a few free-love communities, and infidelity is widespread like everywhere else. But infidelity isn’t usually a commited, polydirectional relationship. And the rare free-love community almost never lasts for long.

Of course you wouldn't have heard of polygamous relationships among Danes. It's not something the society condones. And you have no more background on the rarity of "happiness and equality" among polygamous sub-cultures, now, than you had before--which is to say, you don't have any data. But why bring free love up in this discussion? That again appears to reflect your preconceptions of any relationship beyond monogamy, based on stereotypes witthout foundation. By its nature, polygamy (like monogamy) defines relationsihps between specific individuals. Free love does not. It is amorphous.

[Lady Dragonfly]

I wish you and LD would stop rehashing the same arguments over and over. It is disrespectful to those of us you discuss with, and to be honest, doesn't reflect too well back on you either. If it hasn't become apparent by now that we do not accept special pleading, anecdotal evidence, false dichotomies and slipery slopes as valid arguments against polygamy, I think it is reasonable to say that we will just have to agree to disagree.

__________________

Your wish is granted. Farewell to all "we".

[Heksefatter]

I hope I missunderstand this. What it sounds like you're saying is that since a number of people abuse a privilege (they do not even have legally), is a motivation for keeping said privilege illegal? That sounds a lot similar to "since some elements could misuse the privileges of democracy, so protect the innocent from those elements, we cannot introduce democracy yet". Same logic. Same authoritarian principles.

Yes, that is pretty much what I am saying. I am saying that since I believe that the net result of polygamy would be more oppression of women, I decide against it, even though it leads to the denying other people some legal benefits. The argument is utilitarian, pragmaticist and whatnot. Incidentally, I would be against democracy, if I really believed that it would lead to more oppression than whatever hypothetical situation we were in.

However, it is more based on the abuse I believe would take place

Pragmaticism has a large part in most modern democracies, by the way. No doubt, some 17-year-old people are mature enough to vote, whereas some 30 years olds clearly aren't. Yet, the most normal voting age is 18 - for reasons of pragmaticism.

First, I cannot see how the consequence of your position leads you to the conclusion that keeping polygamy illegal will make any difference for the better, nor why making it legal would change anything for the worse.

Second, this is the second fleeting generalisations paraphrasing "guns don't kill people..." and I find them equally irrelevant as the original. People with a history of polygamy are exactly as likely to be abusive as anyone else in the entire human population. Same goes for people with traditions. I know it's convenient to bundle up people into manageable groups of us and them, but that doesn't make the assumption more valid. Quite the contrary, it's the central thesis of prejudice.

As you write you cannot see how I arrive at my conclusion, I feel that I have to restate my view: By denying legal and economic benefits to polygamous relationships, there will be fewer of them. Economic and legal benefits means a lot, especially in those tightly-knit clan-structured families where the status of women is low.

As for the "guns-tradtions"-thingy, I tried to lighten the mood. If I repeated the joke, that was a mistake. You really shouldn't put much into it. It is absurd, and intended to be absurd - traditions are ubiquitous.

Again, assumptions, anecdotal evidence from your limited experience and more assumptions. Still, *even considering you by some strange coincidence are absolutely right*, how does it effect whether or not polygamy should be legal or not?

The 600-800 % overrepresentation of muslims is not my experience. It is an estimate, based on the reports from Danish aid centres for runaway women.

My point about conservative muslims being the most likely to enter a polygamous marriage is rather trivial, I think. Polygamy is considered rather old-fashioned in most of the Muslim world.

And is it really so strange an estimation that women from conservative muslim families are the most oppressed?

And to answer your question: "Still, *even considering you by some strange coincidence are absolutely right*, how does it effect whether or not polygamy should be legal or not?" I've already answered this one, several times. It is pragmatic. I believe that it would lead to more oppression if we legalize polygamy, than we currently perform by outlawing it.

I wish you and LD would stop rehashing the same arguments over and over. It is disrespectful to those of us you discuss with, and to be honest, doesn't reflect too well back on you either. If it hasn't become apparent by now that we do not accept special pleading, anecdotal evidence, false dichotomies and slipery slopes as valid arguments against polygamy, I think it is reasonable to say that we will just have to agree to disagree.

It is perfectly true that I have repeated myself. In some cases, I have actually quoted myself. As I see it, this has been when people have misunderstood me, asked for clarification or asked the same question more than once. Note that in the posting which I am now answering you have invited my to repeat myself and clarify my opinions.

And I will just have to live with the fact that it does not reflect so well on me, though this rethoric smacks of ad hominem to me - why should my person and what reflects on it matter in this?

The point about us agreeing to disagree, is perfectly fine. Since you asked me questions in the post I am answering now, you cannot fault me for answering.

[Silur]

Since you asked me questions in the post I am answering now, you cannot fault me for answering.

Actually, I can, since you utterly failed to answer them in any coherent fashion.

And I will just have to live with the fact that it does not reflect so well on me, though this rethoric smacks of ad hominem to me - why should my person and what reflects on it matter in this?

You noticed that. Good. Thus your powers of perception seem to work sometimes. I suggest you use them to analyse your own texts, and specifically address the following key problem:

In order to reach the conclusion you re-re-re-re-state, you need to make an enormous leap of faith. Now, leaps of faith are useless in an argument, since they asume we already agree on the point where you choose not to reply. The key issue the last 50 posts or so is that neither you nor LD expand on the leap of faith that allows you to reach the conclusion that the legal restriction on polygamy has any effect. You don't get to call it utilistic nor pragmatic until you can show that. You can call it a belief, or an epiphany or the word of god, but you cannot state that it is the logical conclusion of your reasoning.

[Xandax]

Yes, that is pretty much what I am saying. I am saying that since I believe that the net result of polygamy would be more oppression of women, I decide against it, even though it leads to the denying other people some legal benefits. The argument is utilitarian, pragmaticist and whatnot. Incidentally, I would be against democracy, if I really believed that it would lead to more oppression than whatever hypothetical situation we were in.
<snip>

Well, wouldn't this be argument for completely disallowing marriages - in amongst other - "strong" religious circles as much abuse seems to be the result/means in said circles.
If you double check the reports for run-away women in Denmark as you mention, I'd like to know how many of these run-aways were abused in a polygamous relationship or in a monogamous one? How many of the reports of forced and arranged marriages in Denmark are to polygamous marriages/relationships compared to traditional ones?
And that has been my key point this entire debate and one which is overlooked.

Abuse exists in (some) polygamous relationships.
Abuse exists in real marriages both "normal" and religiously inspired.
Abuse exists in (strong) religious societies and "normal" outside marriage. Heck - abuse happens in the school- and playground.
I then - with logical train of deduction and just three statements would postulate that people abuse people, and they do so with little thought of their relationships structure.

Now - I have no doubt that in some religious circles who practice polygamous marriages, some underage people would be forced to marry - however this is also true in monogamous marriages in other religious circles. I also don't dispute that some women in same circles get abused - physically, mentally or sexual, but then again - what differs from any other setting where this happens, both religious or otherwise?

Also the quantity is unknown, because nobody can seemingly provide substantial information other then hearsay and anecdotes to indicate that the problem with polygamous relationships are indeed a problem or would lead to "additional" problems which aren't already presented in the monogamous settings.


So once more - why would offering legal and economical rights to the people who willingly want to participate in other then "traditionally" relationships structure has to do with the fact that there are abusive people in various religious communities, when said abuse happens constantly and massively in the "traditionally" relationship structure as well?
If anything you'd be giving the people additional legal rights, such as dividing of assets upon divorce, possibility to take custody over children if anything happens, visitation rights, various economical benefits.


If fear of abuse is what drives the line of thought presented, then we should completely outlaw traditionally marriage and the vast majority of abuse in marriages I see/hear about, occurs in a monogamous structure.

[Silur]

If fear of abuse is what drives the line of thought presented, then we should completely outlaw traditionally marriage and the vast majority of abuse in marriages I see/hear about, occurs in a monogamous structure.

From a purely analytical view of the available statistics on abuse, the utilistic solution is to ban alcohol, since it is the single largest factor in all abuse cases, both overall and in specific subgroups like married couples. In fact, in Denmark it's such a significant factor that you would cut numbers in half - at least.

[Magrus]

From a purely analytical view of the available statistics on abuse, the utilistic solution is to ban alcohol, since it is the single largest factor in all abuse cases, both overall and in specific subgroups like married couples. In fact, in Denmark it's such a significant factor that you would cut numbers in half - at least.

Which would remove the instances of most people ever going out and meeting strangers to have sex! :laugh:

Seriously though, I have to wonder what removing alcohol from the world would due to the rate of people coupling and breeding. It could have staggering results.