GameBanshee Forums

Your point being? Inbreeding, welfare abuse, sexual, physical and mental abuse of children and spouses, marrying for money and or other reasons beyond love, etc, etc all occur in normal marriages too. This has been mentioned before, by others on the board.

You see, when you repeatedly rehash the same biased facts for an argument from different places and instances, and everyone you throw these facts at says "So what? It's the same for any other similar situation outside of the instance you mention." you look like you aren't paying attention. I could say water is bad for humans and quote the instances of when people drown in water. It doesn't mean it's true. Fire can burn and kill, it doesn't mean it should be banned either.

People screw up. People end up greedy and abuse systems around them to get what they want. People use other people to get what they want. People screw other people, simply because they want to. People hurt others for fun. That will exist regardless of what you say, do, think, want, believe, or whatever you want to do with yourself. If you want to dance wearing a big sign that says "Don't marry everyone you see!" and think that will change the world, I won't stop you. I may fall over laughing, but I won't stop you. That's your call.

Hurling facts against something you don't personally approve of when trying to protect something that you do approve of...when all of the things you claim are negative reasons why the former shouldn't occur are found regularly in the latter is a sign of slow-witted and close-minded thinking. If I wanted that, I would read the newspaper or watch Fox News, or read the bible. I don't however, except when I want to amuse myself at the expense of others. However, repeating a joke tends to lose it's comedic value after a while, and this one ceased to be funny for me some time ago.

Over the years a blind eye has been turned to the practice of polygamy in the United States. But the trial of a Fundamentalist Mormon for assisting in the rape of a minor could change all that. Ed Pilkington visits Utah and uncovers a closed world of 'sisterwives', underage marriages and banished teenagers.

Husband and wives | Special reports | Guardian Unlimited


Polygamy and Mormonism are inseparably entwined. One of the most offensive aspects of Mormon-based polygamy is the rampant practice of taking underage girls as polygamous wives. This is precisely what Brian David Mitchell did when he abducted Elizabeth Smart. In the western United States, there are at least 30,000 people involved in the practice of Mormon-based polygamy. In these polygamous groups, the compulsion for underage girls to marry polygamists--usually men much older than themselves--is a part of everyday life. In these communities, girls as young as 12 or 13 are often married off to priesthood leaders. The most powerful and influential of these priesthood holders have first pick of the girls. Parents of the young girls submit their daughters willingly into these unions with the hope of being blessed by God in their afterlife.

Child Brides - Mormon - Polygamy

Polygamy and the Marriage Market:
Who Would have the Upper Hand?
Child Brides - Mormon - Polygamy

What every potential polygamist man and woman should know

Plural marriage is not the bed of roses the theoretical polygamists would like you to believe, especially the Latter-day Saint intellectuals who purport to only have a scholastic interest in polygamy. Providing for two or more families, if you go about it right, is hard work that can tax your patience. Or you can be like some of the more devout polygamists who live off the priesthood and the labor of their wives, wives who are left to fend for themselves and their children. I’m talking about the women who supplement their diet by salvaging discarded food from behind grocery store dumpsters.

I will not demean the women I lived with. They tried to go by the book also, but unless you are of exceptional character and are inclined to be submissive and dependent, plural marriage is a tough lifestyle to conquer. My wives were attractive, intelligent and very capable. They had minds of their own and were not adverse to expressing their opinions or pointing out my faults. Although I tried my very best not to show favoritism, it is the nature of women to suspect favoritism, especially where children are concerned.

What every potential polygamist man and woman should know

@Margus

I would ask you please to refrain from word 'nonsense' you repeatedly use describing my posts and such expressions as 'slow-witted' and 'close-minded' when you try to describe my way of 'thinking'.

Thank you.

fable wrote:First, if you compare what I wrote with what you just replied, you'll see that you missed an important part:

""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." That example, like every other I've seen, has a direct monogamous equivalent.

Second, in the next paragraph of my last post, which you didn't quote above, I showed how that exact same relationship would play out in a culture that only recognized monogamy: the man or woman would be maintaining a second relationship right in front of the spouse, who would respond by trying to bribe them out of it. This actually happens quite a bit. "Polygamy" therefore isn't "oppressing" anybody. What we have instead is a behavior pattern that transcends divisions such as monogamy and polygamy, is really fairly common, but which you're refusing to see in the latter, and only in the former.



As I pointed out before, there are numerous polygamous relationships involving two men and a woman in Western cultures, and we are discussing the legalization of polygamy there. Second, why should the government legislate gender-based behaviors in the home? 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?



You are confusing polygamy with spousal abuse, and the two are certainly not the same. If you want to deal with spousal abuse, you deal with it under the law. If polygamy was allowed in Western European nations, what would prevent a woman in such a relationship from going to the courts, if abused? If you say the husband, why wouldn't that hold true in monogamous relationships? If you say the culture, what about Orthodox Judism and Roman Catholicism, both of which frown on gender equality and divorce, alike? Playing cultural favorites, aren't we?



No, it wouldn't be rarer. It would simply be kept behind closed doors; that's all.

And again, I have yet to hear anybody who opposes polygamy any examples of "bad" polygamous behavior that haven't been observed in monogamous relationships. There is always some equivalent. To state that "polygamous relationships would be more prone to..." is personal opinion without the support of evidence. In cultures where women are normally treated as second class citizens, there's going to be a tendency for similar treatment to occur within some marriages--whether polygamous or monogamous; in cultures in Western Europe and the Americas, which pride themselves upon greater gender equality, there's no reason to believe that women or men in a polygamous marriage would behave any differently than in other wedded units. And if problems occur, there's always the law to turn to--just as occurs in monogamous relationships.

Honestly, I do not find continuing this debate productive. I consider you to have misunderstood my position and arguments in many cases. This may be my fault, yours or a mixture, but I will correct a few of the misunderstandings which I consider particulary grievious:

I am not confusing spousal abuse with polygamy. That would be a babarous, semi-insane position. The accusation was that I preferred the plight of oppressed women behind closed doors, an accusation which, speaking frankly, implies the worst thing possible about me. ("Remove the girl, I don't want to watch her bleed!") Hence I gave an example as to show that I was aware of how desperate the situation is for women in subcultures with very traditional gender roles.

The "cultural favorites" thingy: If it is with regards to which degree women are empowered, socially or legally: guilty as charged. I much prefer cultures where women are not oppressed. But this is obviously not what you are referring to. If what you are referring to is that I play favorites when muslims, roman catholics and jews commit roughly the same immoral action, my answer is that with regards to polygamy, muslims are the most relevant group to discuss.


Regarding polygamy: There is nothing to add to the fact that I consider giving the legal and (in some cases) economic benefits of marriage, as well as the implicit acceptance of society, to potential polygamists, would increase the incidence of de facto polygamy. This goes for both oppressive and non-oppresive polygamous relationships, of course. For me, few things are more obvious.

Silur wrote:Absolutely no effect whatsoever.


Unless you are going to outlaw polyamoric relationships alltogether, your tough out of luck on this one. If it is the fundamentalistic religious polygamic relationships you are opposing, the battle is already lost. The practice exists under all our noses all the time and you just don't see it, since only one official, registered wife exists. The other wives aren't bound in matrimony under our laws, but that's pretty irrelevant since the religion will have precedence in these cases anyway.

I haven't really considered the implications of this before, but that is actually much worse than having those marriages out in the open, since a legal wife at least has some rights in society whereas these women have none.

In fact, you touch upon something quite relevant in here: The legal rights of a married couple. If a married triple, quadruple or quintuple could enjoy the same benefits, why wouldn't there be more of them? Especially considering that there are sometimes economic benefits too (mostly through tax or social services laws).

Silur wrote: This might seem cynical, but I actually view this as an advantage. I want those women to flee from their oppressive marriages, and I want those shelters to take very good care of them. That is the only way they will ever be seen, and the root of the problem might be addressed. The abuse, the oppression and much of the gender discrimination is already illegal, so no new laws need to be made - just enforce the existing ones.

All nations law books need to be purged of all the ineffective, unsubstantiated, off-target, populistic crap they're filled up with, so due process isn't clogged up with them the way it is now.

Please, tell me I misunderstand this: I read your remark "This might seem cynical, but I actually view this as an advantage." as an answer to my remark "This is, however, not a reason to introduce a legal option which would leave women from such families even worse off". If this is, indeed, the correct reading, it is certainly cynical. But it is naive as well. While I am all in favor of these women leaving their husbands, inducing them to this through introducing legislation that will leave them even worse off (though the legislation is, of course, not designed to leave them worse off) is horrible. It would probably induce a few more to flee, while worsening the situation for others who didn't dare rebel.

The laws regarding marriage are not "ineffective, unsubstantiated, off-target, populistic crap" resulting in "due process isn't clogged up with them the way it is now." Marriage has been a key institution in organizing society for ages. It is a way for people to organize their lives according to a method which has proven quite succesful through the years. Marriage is not the only institution where legal or economic benefits have been given to different groups: companies, partnerships and religious denominations are others. This, of course, is not a argument for never changing marriage law, but neither should their design be dismissed as populistic jingoism.

Lady Dragonfly wrote:...<snip>...

Do you know that you present zero arguments against polygamy marriages and several against oppressive (fundamentalist) religious view, which I would generally agree with - if this was a debate on such religious views. However they have nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Massive amount of people get forced into monogamist marriages, massive amount of people get abused, physically or sexually or mentally, in such monogamist marriages. Massive amount of people get abused outside marriage altogether.
Yet, you present it as if they were specific to polygamist marriages/relationships and seemingly completely disregard the fact that such incidents are not. The excuses for the incidents are what differs in your post, not the cause.

Why is the seemingly countless instances of abuse in monogamist marriages, forced into a monogamist marriage by culture/family, and religious aspects in monogamist marriage *not* a case against outlawing such an institution as marriage if the very same arguments are the "case" against polygamy relationship?

Heksefatter wrote:Honestly, I do not find continuing this debate productive. I consider you to have misunderstood my position and arguments in many cases. This may be my fault, yours or a mixture, but I will correct a few of the misunderstandings which I consider particulary grievious:

That's fine. Just as long as you realize that when you answer me, as you've continued in this post, I shall consider it a continuation of our discussion. That's only fair.

I am not confusing spousal abuse with polygamy. That would be a babarous, semi-insane position. The accusation was that I preferred the plight of oppressed women behind closed doors, an accusation which, speaking frankly, implies the worst thing possible about me. ("Remove the girl, I don't want to watch her bleed!") Hence I gave an example as to show that I was aware of how desperate the situation is for women in subcultures with very traditional gender roles.

First, as I mentioned above, your example of "polygamy" being responsible for the oppression of a woman (who paid off her husband not to marry a second wife) is a situation that commonly arises in monogamous relationships, too, where one spouse bribes the other to not engage in a relationship outside the marriage. You haven't replied to this point. Instead, you continue to argue that this example shows polygamy itself is at fault, rather than personal or societal behavior patterns. But surely you see the same problems in monogamous relationships, everywhere? Then why state a problem, identify it as due to polygamy, when it plainly isn't? Please provide examples instead of abuse that is strictly polygamous in its origin. Then I think you will make your case--and not until then.

Second, as I also mentioned above, if true oppression/abuse of one spouse has occurred, then in Western Europe and North America, they have recourse under the law. If you reply, no they don't because under subcultures in these countries that treat women as second class citizens, then I could in turn respond polygamy already occurs in these cultures--it is simply forced to hide because of its illegal status. Hiding makes it less likely, not more likely, that an abused spouse will be willing to come forward and seek useful redress in the courts. Because to reveal the abuse, they would have to also reveal that they're guilty of a felony.

And finally, that segues into my third point about this argument of yours: we are discussing legalizing polygamy, not permitting it to exist. It already does exist. Repeatedly stating that it must not be legalized so as to keep it from spreading is trying to close the door after the horse has bolted. Penalizing the people involved will not stop this form of sexual liason, anymore than it will stop homosexuality, or (in several instances) national laws that insist the only legal sexual position in coitus is to have the male on top of the female. You just drive people underground.

The "cultural favorites" thingy: If it is with regards to which degree women are empowered, socially or legally: guilty as charged. I much prefer cultures where women are not oppressed. But this is obviously not what you are referring to. If what you are referring to is that I play favorites when muslims, roman catholics and jews commit roughly the same immoral action, my answer is that with regards to polygamy, muslims are the most relevant group to discuss.

First off, arguing that you can refer to women's rights in some fictitiously uniform Muslim culture--which does not exist; ask any Muslim--is both overly simplistic, and inapplicable. Muslim women in the UK and the US are extremely articulate, well-educated for the most part, and just as aware of the law as their male counterparts. They run businesses, have their own popular call-in programs, and maintain contact through nationwide organizations. Trying even to even take all MidEastern Muslim nations as one, and treat them alike as regards polygamy, makes no sense, because they have their own unique cultures. And remember, each nation in which Muslims reside have their own religious and secular laws, which in turn affect a host of other practices and customs. If you deny this, and its effect on your argument, then with respect, you're demonizing a religious group without knowing a thing about its various practicioners.

Second, saying that Muslims are the "most relevant" culture for the discussion of women as second class citizens doesn't make them so. There is a hoard of research on European Roman Catholic culture in periods and regions where divorce was/is virtually unheard of, and the amount of wife-beating that has been documented. (There may be on Orthodox Jews in their respective sub-cultures in Eastern and Western Europe, but I haven't encountered them as yet.) You could easily find a lot of information showing how poorly women were treated in these societal structures, and observe identical conditions of abuse in monogamous relationships to those you ascribe solely to polygamous ones. It would also provide an insight into the hypocrisy of societies that refuse to legalize polygamy because of reasons of potential abuse and gender inequality, when these societies already allows marriages in sub-cultures that support gender inequality and whose marital conditions promote conditions leading to spousal abuse.

Regarding polygamy: There is nothing to add to the fact that I consider giving the legal and (in some cases) economic benefits of marriage, as well as the implicit acceptance of society, to potential polygamists, would increase the incidence of de facto polygamy. This goes for both oppressive and non-oppresive polygamous relationships, of course. For me, few things are more obvious.

You have provided no evidence other than your opinion supporting a conclusion that legalizing polygamy would increase the actual incident of this relationship type. Nor does it make good sense. People are going to form sexual liasons they are drawn to, whether it is legal or not. You aren't going to prevent three people who love one another from forming a union in private if it isn't legal. Similarly, if it is legal, people aren't going to be drawn into such relationships if they don't care for that side of the street. All you appear to have done is collect your fears and deposited them on legalizing a single relationship structure, for no apparent reason. To return to an earlier theme, I'll close by repeating what I wrote above, since most of it remains unaddressed:

"To state that "polygamous relationships would be more prone to..." is personal opinion without the support of evidence. In cultures where women are normally treated as second class citizens, there's going to be a tendency for similar treatment to occur within some marriages--whether polygamous or monogamous; in cultures in Western Europe and the Americas, which pride themselves upon greater gender equality, there's no reason to believe that women or men in a polygamous marriage would behave any differently than in other wedded units. And if problems occur, there's always the law to turn to--just as occurs in monogamous relationships."

Heksefatter wrote:In fact, you touch upon something quite relevant in here: The legal rights of a married couple. If a married triple, quadruple or quintuple could enjoy the same benefits, why wouldn't there be more of them? Especially considering that there are sometimes economic benefits too (mostly through tax or social services laws).

Well, for one thing, they're illegal, so there can't be more of them. If they were permitted, however, you probably would see more of them - in my view, more normal relationships without religious bias. As you and LD have both pointed out, those who practice (mainly polygynous) multiple marriages do so illegally in the name of one or other faith, and continously defend themselves by claiming that their religious freedom is under attack.

Heksefatter wrote:Please, tell me I misunderstand this: I read your remark "This might seem cynical, but I actually view this as an advantage." as an answer to my remark "This is, however, not a reason to introduce a legal option which would leave women from such families even worse off". If this is, indeed, the correct reading, it is certainly cynical. But it is naive as well. While I am all in favor of these women leaving their husbands, inducing them to this through introducing legislation that will leave them even worse off (though the legislation is, of course, not designed to leave them worse off) is horrible. It would probably induce a few more to flee, while worsening the situation for others who didn't dare rebel.

I'm sorry, but you really can't have it both ways. Before you claim that the change in legislature will leave them worse off, you will have to actually show me something that at least indicates that your assumption is valid. That is the point where you are all failing. Sofar, you have described any number of problems, all in existence today and with no connection whatsoever to polygamy, and state that they will be worse if polygamy is permitted. It like saying "people die in car accidents and therefore we should ban red cars".

But, to humor you, let's assume it actually gets worse. Then let's look at the advantages of legitimacy for polygamy in these cases:

1. Legitimate wives get more attention from women's shelters. This has been shown in many countries. Even in countries where co-habitants are seen almost as married, there is a measurable difference in attention.

2. If matters get worse in some cases, you will have more reported occurences of abuse, more people seeking help, etc. After all, it is not likely that people will put up with more suffering simply because polygamy is legal. Unbearable will still be equally unbearable regardless.

3. If you get more ocurrences, more resources will be allocated to fight the actual problem. This has been true for abuse in legal marriages, why wouldn't it be so in this case. As has been pointed out, the forms of abuse are no different from those already present in monogamous marriages.

4. If an illegitimate second or third wife flees her captor, she has no rights and no security whatsoever. If the legitimate wife flees, she gets half the kingdom. I say this is a strong indication that more likely to keep these women oppressed with the current system. It is also quite easy to motivate the primary wife to take part in the oppression, so to use the same discussion tactics being used abundantly throughout this thread, laws against polygamy promotes slavery! (See this more as an ironic reference. I will not push this issue, and that goes for the red car as well.)

Heksefatter wrote:The laws regarding marriage are not "ineffective, unsubstantiated, off-target, populistic crap" resulting in "due process isn't clogged up with them the way it is now." Marriage has been a key institution in organizing society for ages. It is a way for people to organize their lives according to a method which has proven quite succesful through the years. Marriage is not the only institution where legal or economic benefits have been given to different groups: companies, partnerships and religious denominations are others. This, of course, is not a argument for never changing marriage law, but neither should their design be dismissed as populistic jingoism.

Being strongly against straw men, can you see it in the paragraph above?

I would say that it is rather odd that you see my arguments as being against marriage alltogether, considering that my standpoint has been to allow polygamy. Last time I checked, polygamy is a marriage of many.

Key institution or not, it needs an upgrade. The iuopc law that I am referring to is the one against polygamy - it is usually a separate paragraph from regular marital law. I can present a great number of other such laws, but they're not related to this topic. One other suggested such law is discussed in a parallel thread. One of my favourite from our law book isn't populistic, but still crap; you are not allowed to release pigs to feed in oak forests.

Lady Dragonfly wrote:@Margus

I would ask you please to refrain from word 'nonsense' you repeatedly use describing my posts and such expressions as 'slow-witted' and 'close-minded' when you try to describe my way of 'thinking'.

Thank you.

I'll oblige you as soon as you can type out my 5-letter name properly when there are nearly 17000 instances to copy it from on this websites forum alone.

Give her a break, Mags. She screwed up two letters in your name, oince. Not a big deal.

And LD, Mags has referred to your this being a nonsense thread only once, not repeatedly. I didn't see you ask him why he did so. That might be a good place to start.

fable wrote:Give her a break, Mags. She screwed up two letters in your name, oince. Not a big deal.

And LD, Mags has referred to your this being a nonsense thread only once, not repeatedly. I didn't see you ask him why he did so. That might be a good place to start.

Actually, it's not the first time for either.

Okay, so as not to take up anymore space in this thread, let's go to PMs.

Okay... marriage. The sacred institution where houses join for collective security or merging of assets or elimination of old feuds, the product of parents coming together for the sake of their kids rather than actual love, or because people surrender to the idea that they'll get no better and just settle. You'll excuse me if I don't jump on that band wagon.

Not all humans are naturally-monogamus. To force them into relationships based on preconceptions or old-world notions of chivalry is not exactly going to solve all the world's problems. As has been pointed out repeatedly in this thread, marriage doesn't solve anything. In fact, I think what you're striving for is the notion of the "nuclear family," which people for some bizarre reason seem to believe is the way families always were and always should be. Except the "nuclear family" didn't exactly exist until like the 50's or 60's; it's not the way things always were in the past, nor is it the only model that works for every one person.

If human existence has taught anyone anything, it's that one spcific model cannot work for all of the people all of the time. It may work for some of the people all of the time, or it may work for all of the people some of the time, or it may even only work for some of the people some of the time, but never all of the people all of the time. To insist that the 1 man/1 woman marriage is the way to go and that it is improper for anyone to stray from that path is to instill your own model of the way things should be on people. Enforcing such a thing on unwilling participants is just wrong on so many levels, and mocks the beliefs of other peoples who do not subscribe to that notion (missionaries doing whatever it takes to force the "savages" to believe in their religion, teaching young kids in Latin America English as if it is a language everyone must know but more importantly so that when they get older they will understand the orders from their English oppressors,

Frankly, the institution of marriage altogether strikes me as rather unnecessary. Why do we care if the government or anyone else acknowledges our love, or why does the government deserve to even have any say on love? If two or more people (willingly and knowingly) love each other, and they know they love each other, that should be enough for them, so why do they need the government to sanction it? But due to the benefits offered to people who succumb to such prescribed nonsense, it is very much the government's business. The government is not allowed to impinge on the rights of others so long as those "rights" do not harm others (they did it to blacks and learned it wasn't right then, and nothing has changed). What harm exactly do polygamists or gays do that deserves their not being able to express their love as those who conform to the notion of the nuclear family do?

Have you seen Donnie Darko? It's a great movie dealing with the perceptions of different people and other ways of living. Even some of those who do appear to conform turn out to be even greater dangers than those outside of the "norm." And those who don't prescribe to the so-called "norm" wind up being hurt or destroyed for not conforming (Cherita and Donnie are two examples). You're Cunningham.

*claps* Good stuff. I concur. Good call on the Cunningham comparison.

Xandax wrote:Do you know that you present zero arguments against polygamy marriages and several against oppressive (fundamentalist) religious view, which I would generally agree with - if this was a debate on such religious views. However they have nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Massive amount of people get forced into monogamist marriages, massive amount of people get abused, physically or sexually or mentally, in such monogamist marriages. Massive amount of people get abused outside marriage altogether.
Yet, you present it as if they were specific to polygamist marriages/relationships and seemingly completely disregard the fact that such incidents are not. The excuses for the incidents are what differs in your post, not the cause.

Why is the seemingly countless instances of abuse in monogamist marriages, forced into a monogamist marriage by culture/family, and religious aspects in monogamist marriage *not* a case against outlawing such an institution as marriage if the very same arguments are the "case" against polygamy relationship?

First of all, in this country the polygamy as a long standing tradition is associated with Mormons, so practically all information available is bound to come from this source. The best way to present any pro or contra argument in any informal on-line discussion is to present the accounts of people who has a first-hand experience, or the commentaries of people who studied the problem. I am glad that we are in a general agreement that the documented facts of abuse are too repulsive to be acceptable. 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. That is what the investigation shows and that is what the victims who managed to flee say. Even now it is extremely difficult for any reporter to get much inside information. CNN tried recently. Please remember that the most loud polygamy activists in US are the Mormons.
The abuse exists everywhere, in a marriage and out of it, I agree. But you cannot claim that practically all monogamous marriages are as abusive as reported to be the case in practically all those Fundamentalists’ polygamous communities.
I also presented an account of a man, a former polygamist. But you choose to ignore his opinion about polygamy which is based on his own experience. You keep telling me that I present zero arguments.
Another argument was about a potential anxiety and sense of instability and insecurity the legalization of polygamy can bring to many people.
It might seem (and I have no doubt it will) to be a dumb argument(s) to you but it matters a lot to many others.
Unfortunately, the laws in a democratic society are created 'by the people for the people' who are regular imperfect men with biases, different sexual orientation and (oh, the horror of it!) with various religious beliefs or some other principles we might not like. Polyamorous groups exist and I wish them a Merry Christmas. They have a right to enjoy themselves in any way they prefer, they can have any beliefs they want, fine by me. They are our fellow citizens. Though many people don't approve of promiscuous behavior (for various reasons), they generally don't care what such individuals or groups do together, and do not try to prevent them from enjoying themselves. These ‘many’ have a right to their beliefs, values and principles too, though these beliefs and values are not as 'progressive' as some think they must be to qualify as worthy. The marital law gives these people protection and sense of stability, even if you think this is a false protection and false stability. The marriage as defined by the American Constitution is OK by them. Somebody wants to change the law because it seems discriminatory? There is a legal process to follow. We have the Supreme Court. It is not the first time the laws are changed or upheld.
OK, maybe some non-Mormon polygamists really want a legal marriage. Why? A group of people has a fewer chances to stay together than a couple. The polygamists are as prone to infidelity as any and, actually, I would say much 'more prone' because that is their starting point: to have multiple partners and enjoy sex free of care. 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. They describe themselves as a non-exclusive, non-possessive network where members come and go and there is no commitment. Let them stay this way. They like it.
The égalité is a precious ideal but how many politicians running for a high office will go against the majority of his/her constituents who finds legalizing polygamy (or whatever) really unacceptable? The marriage institution is imperfect (nothing is perfect) but it works for the majority. Unfair? Perhaps. Nothing is really fair. (Who decided that 18 is a right age? Maybe to have sex and to get married and to get killed in Iraq 18 is fine. But it is not OK to drink beer. There are some more or less obscure reasons for that though it looks rather bizarre).

To blame a marital law and the existing institute of the monogamous marriage for a failed personal attempt or three is the same as blame a car for a traffic accident or a bank for one’s compulsive spending. Or a mirror for acne. Any law can be broken or abused.
It is not about a law, it is about responsibility. Marriage is a commitment and a lot of responsibility and patience. All other laws are created around family.
If somebody feels that marriage is nonsense, it’s OK. There are alternative lifestyles for them.
Whether the marital law is going to be amended or abolished in the observable future remains to be seen.

Chimaera182 wrote:Okay... marriage. The sacred institution where houses join for collective security or merging of assets or elimination of old feuds, the product of parents coming together for the sake of their kids rather than actual love, or because people surrender to the idea that they'll get no better and just settle. You'll excuse me if I don't jump on that band wagon.
...

Frankly, the institution of marriage altogether strikes me as rather unnecessary. Why do we care if the government or anyone else acknowledges our love, or why does the government deserve to even have any say on love? If two or more people (willingly and knowingly) love each other, and they know they love each other, that should be enough for them, so why do they need the government to sanction it? But due to the benefits offered to people who succumb to such prescribed nonsense, it is very much the government's business.

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?

Lady Dragonfly wrote: <snip>The best way to present any pro or contra argument in any informal on-line discussion is to present the accounts of people who has a first-hand experience, or the commentaries of people who studied the problem. <snip>

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

Lady Dragonfly wrote:<snip>
I am glad that we are in a general agreement that the documented facts of abuse are too repulsive to be acceptable. 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. That is what the investigation shows and that is what the victims who managed to flee say. Even now it is extremely difficult for any reporter to get much inside information. CNN tried recently. Please remember that the most loud polygamy activists in US are the Mormons. <snip>

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. Which is .... "odd" especially considering the fact that all the same forms of abuse exists within the "standard marriage unit", and also outside marriage alltogether.
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?

Furthermore legalizing polygamist marriage would *not* be legalizing the abuse, and I seriously fail to see the trail of logic behind that one.
Legalizing monogamist marriage did not legalize any of forms of abuse existing in that institution, so why would it do for other forms of marriage?

Lady Dragonfly wrote:<snip>
The abuse exists everywhere, in a marriage and out of it, I agree. But you cannot claim that practically all monogamous marriages are as abusive as reported to be the case in practically all those Fundamentalists’ polygamous communities. <snip>

References which indicate the number of abusive polygamy marriages vs. monogamous marriages vs the number of people participating in said institutions. Then furthermore we need references whether or not this abuse would not have taken place lest it was a polygamy marriage.
However, I doubt you'll give that- but just claim a "A leads to B" type of approch.
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.

Lady Dragonfly wrote:<snip>
I also presented an account of a man, a former polygamist. But you choose to ignore his opinion about polygamy which is based on his own experience. You keep telling me that I present zero arguments. <snip>

One account.
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.
Yes, you have presented zero genuine arguments.

Lady Dragonfly wrote:<snip>
Another argument was about a potential anxiety and sense of instability and insecurity the legalization of polygamy can bring to many people.
It might seem (and I have no doubt it will) to be a dumb argument(s) to you but it matters a lot to many others.
<snip>

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.

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.
Nice and vague, but with enough spin on it that various examples can be found to indicate it.

Lady Dragonfly wrote:<snip>
OK, maybe some non-Mormon polygamists really want a legal marriage. Why? A group of people has a fewer chances to stay together than a couple. The polygamists are as prone to infidelity as any and, actually, I would say much 'more prone' because that is their starting point: to have multiple partners and enjoy sex free of care. <snip>

Again you present your opinion as a fact. Have you anything substantial to show that polygamists people are more prone to infidelity? Or could it be that people in polygamists marriages get their "needs" covered within the marriage and it is monogamous relationships which sees the largest degree of infidelity?

Lady Dragonfly wrote:<snip>
The égalité is a precious ideal but how many politicians running for a high office will go against the majority of his/her constituents who finds legalizing polygamy (or whatever) really unacceptable? The marriage institution is imperfect (nothing is perfect) but it works for the majority. Unfair? Perhaps. Nothing is really fair. (Who decided that 18 is a right age? Maybe to have sex and to get married and to get killed in Iraq 18 is fine. But it is not OK to drink beer. There are some more or less obscure reasons for that though it looks rather bizarre).
<snip>

Ahh, but legal ages also change with society. Throughout history "legal" age have been adjusted (decreased) and expanded, there are even debates on whether 16 year old should be allowed to vote in Denmark.
However, I fail to see what the legal age in laws, has to do with legalizing polygamous marriage.

Lady Dragonfly wrote:<snip>
To blame a marital law and the existing institute of the monogamous marriage for a failed personal attempt or three is the same as blame a car for a traffic accident or a bank for one’s compulsive spending. Or a mirror for acne. Any law can be broken or abused. <snip>

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

Lady Dragonfly wrote:<snip>
It is not about a law, it is about responsibility. Marriage is a commitment and a lot of responsibility and patience. All other laws are created around family.
If somebody feels that marriage is nonsense, it’s OK. There are alternative lifestyles for them.
Whether the marital law is going to be amended or abolished in the observable future remains to be seen.

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.

*waves* I'll volunteer an account. My wonderful daddy was an abusive drunk that cheated on my mommy and beat my brother and I. He didn't marry multiple women at once. There. Polygamous and Monogomous marriages are on even ground so far in the thread.

fable wrote:That's fine. Just as long as you realize that when you answer me, as you've continued in this post, I shall consider it a continuation of our discussion. That's only fair.

Of course it is fair. Still, the misunderstandings continue.

fable wrote: First, as I mentioned above, your example of "polygamy" being responsible for the oppression of a woman (who paid off her husband not to marry a second wife) is a situation that commonly arises in monogamous relationships, too, where one spouse bribes the other to not engage in a relationship outside the marriage. You haven't replied to this point. Instead, you continue to argue that this example shows polygamy itself is at fault, rather than personal or societal behavior patterns. But surely you see the same problems in monogamous relationships, everywhere? Then why state a problem, identify it as due to polygamy, when it plainly isn't? Please provide examples instead of abuse that is strictly polygamous in its origin. Then I think you will make your case--and not until then.

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?

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.

fable wrote: Second, as I also mentioned above, if true oppression/abuse of one spouse has occurred, then in Western Europe and North America, they have recourse under the law. If you reply, no they don't because under subcultures in these countries that treat women as second class citizens, then I could in turn respond polygamy already occurs in these cultures--it is simply forced to hide because of its illegal status. Hiding makes it less likely, not more likely, that an abused spouse will be willing to come forward and seek useful redress in the courts. Because to reveal the abuse, they would have to also reveal that they're guilty of a felony.

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.

fable wrote: And finally, that segues into my third point about this argument of yours: we are discussing legalizing polygamy, not permitting it to exist. It already does exist. Repeatedly stating that it must not be legalized so as to keep it from spreading is trying to close the door after the horse has bolted. Penalizing the people involved will not stop this form of sexual liason, anymore than it will stop homosexuality, or (in several instances) national laws that insist the only legal sexual position in coitus is to have the male on top of the female. You just drive people underground.

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

fable wrote: First off, arguing that you can refer to women's rights in some fictitiously uniform Muslim culture--which does not exist; ask any Muslim--is both overly simplistic, and inapplicable.

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


They have not.

fable wrote: Second, saying that Muslims are the "most relevant" culture for the discussion of women as second class citizens doesn't make them so. There is a hoard of research on European Roman Catholic culture in periods and regions where divorce was/is virtually unheard of, and the amount of wife-beating that has been documented. (There may be on Orthodox Jews in their respective sub-cultures in Eastern and Western Europe, but I haven't encountered them as yet.) You could easily find a lot of information showing how poorly women were treated in these societal structures, and observe identical conditions of abuse in monogamous relationships to those you ascribe solely to polygamous ones. It would also provide an insight into the hypocrisy of societies that refuse to legalize polygamy because of reasons of potential abuse and gender inequality, when these societies already allows marriages in sub-cultures that support gender inequality and whose marital conditions promote conditions leading to spousal abuse.

I have taken the liberty of boldfacing one comment above, which shows a severe misunderstanding of my position, and to that my comment is:

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

And do you think I am not aware that women were very badly treated in former times among roman catholics? (Probably not worse than among protestants, but never mind). And still are.

And of course, my saying that muslims are the most relevant religious group (in Denmark) when discussing polygamy, does not make it so. Of course. The fact which makes it so is:

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).

2) No sizable religious group in Denmark has any tradition at all for polygamy. For example, if we look at one very important conservative christian group, Indre Mission ("Inner Mission" - spreading the word inside the country's border), they will most certainly NOT condone polygamy, legal or otherwise.

fable wrote: You have provided no evidence other than your opinion supporting a conclusion that legalizing polygamy would increase the actual incident of this relationship type. Nor does it make good sense. People are going to form sexual liasons they are drawn to, whether it is legal or not. You aren't going to prevent three people who love one another from forming a union in private if it isn't legal. Similarly, if it is legal, people aren't going to be drawn into such relationships if they don't care for that side of the street. All you appear to have done is collect your fears and deposited them on legalizing a single relationship structure, for no apparent reason. To return to an earlier theme, I'll close by repeating what I wrote above, since most of it remains unaddressed:

"To state that "polygamous relationships would be more prone to..." is personal opinion without the support of evidence. In cultures where women are normally treated as second class citizens, there's going to be a tendency for similar treatment to occur within some marriages--whether polygamous or monogamous; in cultures in Western Europe and the Americas, which pride themselves upon greater gender equality, there's no reason to believe that women or men in a polygamous marriage would behave any differently than in other wedded units. And if problems occur, there's always the law to turn to--just as occurs in monogamous relationships."

Once again: Such an oppresive marriage is also business and family politics. In fact, probably more so than a mere sexual attraction. Of course they are discouraged by not giving them the legal advantages associated with marriage.

Silur wrote:Well, for one thing, they're illegal, so there can't be more of them. If they were permitted, however, you probably would see more of them - in my view, more normal relationships without religious bias. As you and LD have both pointed out, those who practice (mainly polygynous) multiple marriages do so illegally in the name of one or other faith, and continously defend themselves by claiming that their religious freedom is under attack.

I asked: If a married triple (or quadruple and so on) could enjoy the same rights as a married couple, why wouldn't there be more of them? In this case, they would clearly not be illegal.

Silur wrote: I'm sorry, but you really can't have it both ways. Before you claim that the change in legislature will leave them worse off, you will have to actually show me something that at least indicates that your assumption is valid. That is the point where you are all failing. Sofar, you have described any number of problems, all in existence today and with no connection whatsoever to polygamy, and state that they will be worse if polygamy is permitted. It like saying "people die in car accidents and therefore we should ban red cars".

But, to humor you, let's assume it actually gets worse. Then let's look at the advantages of legitimacy for polygamy in these cases:

1. Legitimate wives get more attention from women's shelters. This has been shown in many countries. Even in countries where co-habitants are seen almost as married, there is a measurable difference in attention.

2. If matters get worse in some cases, you will have more reported occurences of abuse, more people seeking help, etc. After all, it is not likely that people will put up with more suffering simply because polygamy is legal. Unbearable will still be equally unbearable regardless.

3. If you get more ocurrences, more resources will be allocated to fight the actual problem. This has been true for abuse in legal marriages, why wouldn't it be so in this case. As has been pointed out, the forms of abuse are no different from those already present in monogamous marriages.

4. If an illegitimate second or third wife flees her captor, she has no rights and no security whatsoever. If the legitimate wife flees, she gets half the kingdom. I say this is a strong indication that more likely to keep these women oppressed with the current system. It is also quite easy to motivate the primary wife to take part in the oppression, so to use the same discussion tactics being used abundantly throughout this thread, laws against polygamy promotes slavery! (See this more as an ironic reference. I will not push this issue, and that goes for the red car as well.)

You didn't answer my question. But never mind. It doesn't seem as if you meant it the way I read it.

Regarding your argument how non-legally-recognized wives could be worse off in a case, that is the first argument from the pro-polygamy side to which I lend any weight. Of course, she could get the same if she reported him to the police and explained that she had lived with him as a de facto wife, and while it wouldn't be difficult to prove, it would be a more taxing sort of trial.

This must, on the other hand, be compared against the increased economic rights of the husband, which I believe will result in more polygamous wives being taken.

Silur wrote: Being strongly against straw men, can you see it in the paragraph above?

I would say that it is rather odd that you see my arguments as being against marriage alltogether, considering that my standpoint has been to allow polygamy. Last time I checked, polygamy is a marriage of many.

Key institution or not, it needs an upgrade. The iuopc law that I am referring to is the one against polygamy - it is usually a separate paragraph from regular marital law. I can present a great number of other such laws, but they're not related to this topic. One other suggested such law is discussed in a parallel thread. One of my favourite from our law book isn't populistic, but still crap; you are not allowed to release pigs to feed in oak forests.

To your first paragraph: no.

To your second paragraph: You misunderstand. I am speaking about the marriage laws, overall. The point is that the marriage laws are built upon centuries of experience, and hence are not what you call "ineffective, unsubstantiated, off-target, populistic crap".

Basically, it was just the rethoric that annoyed me.