Plural marriage versus gay marriage

[Lady Dragonfly]

This topic is influenced by discussions on human rights. How far are we willing to go? There is a movement to legalize polygamy...

Polygamy is a lifestyle choice for a relative handful of Americans. Experts estimate that there are between 30,000 and 50,000 polygamists in the United States who practice a form of Mormonism, though the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, most commonly associated with the term "Mormon," banned the practice in 1890. There's also a growing number of evangelical Christian and Muslim polygamists—some experts say they may even exceed the number who describe themselves as Mormon.

By Charles Krauthammer
Published March 17, 2006
....
Polygamy used to be stereotyped as the province of secretive Mormons, primitive Africans and profligate Arabs. With "Big Love" (HBO series) it moves to suburbia as a mere alternative lifestyle.

As Newsweek notes, these stirrings for the mainstreaming of polygamy (or, more accurately, polyamory) have their roots in the increasing legitimization of gay marriage. In an essay 10 years ago, I pointed out that it is utterly logical for polygamy rights to follow gay rights. After all, if traditional marriage is defined as the union of (1) two people of (2) opposite gender, and if, as gay marriage advocates insist, the gender requirement is nothing but prejudice, exclusion and an arbitrary denial of one's autonomous choices in love, then the first requirement -- the number restriction (two and only two) -- is a similarly arbitrary, discriminatory and indefensible denial of individual choice.
....
What is historically odd is that as gay marriage is gaining acceptance, the resistance to polygamy is much more powerful. Yet until this generation, gay marriage had been sanctioned by no society that we know of, anywhere at any time in history. On the other hand, polygamy had been sanctioned, indeed common, in large parts of the world through large swaths of history, most notably the biblical Middle East and through much of the Islamic world.

I'm not one of those who see gay marriage or polygamy as a threat to or assault on traditional marriage. The assault came from within. Marriage has needed no help in managing its own long slow suicide, thank you. Astronomical rates of divorce and of single parenthood (the deliberate creation of fatherless families) existed before there was a single gay marriage or any talk of sanctioning polygamy. The minting of these new forms of marriage is a symptom of our culture's contemporary radical individualism -- as is the decline of traditional marriage -- and not its cause.

As for gay marriage, I've come to a studied ambivalence. I think it a mistake for society to make this ultimate declaration of indifference between gay and straight life, if only for reasons of pedagogy. On the other hand, I have enough gay friends and feel the pain of their inability to have the same level of social approbation and confirmation of their relationship with a loved one that I'm not about to go to anyone's barricade to deny them that. It is critical, however, that any such fundamental change in the very definition of marriage be enacted democratically and not (as in the disastrous case of abortion) by judicial fiat.

Call me agnostic. But don't tell me that we can make one radical change in the one-man, one-woman rule and not be open to the claim of others that their reformation be given equal respect.

The whole article is here:
RealClearPolitics - Articles - Polygamy, Gay Marriage and Values

What are your thoughts?

[Magrus]

I have dated multiple woman at once before, and I cared for each of them. In all honesty, I didn't care enough to commit long-term with them at the time. However, I have been in a situation where I cared deeply for two girls at once, and would have done so for both of them if I had the choice to do so. So, in that respect, if all parties involved are wishing for something, I would say, let them have it. In fact, it has been brought up by girls I dated that given my tendency to not sleep and my sexual habits, they thought it would be best that I bring in second or possibly third girl to take some of the pressure off of them in dealing with me in a romantic/sexual way.

I have no qualms with gay people wanting to get together, and no problems with multiple people wanting to get together in groups. I have problems with marriage in and of itself however. Those do not at all really come into the question of gay vs. plural marriage though.

[Heksefatter]

I can't really argue against the principle of polygamy, if it was equal and informed people who were entering a marriage voluntarily.

However, this will almost never be the case. Polygamy will in reality be a situation where the husband is clearly the leader of an extended family with several wives. You will never, or at least almost never, see a situation of multiple husband, or mixture, ie. 3 husbands, 2 wives.

Therefore, I say keep the ban on polygamy. Such a ban is a good way of reducing what will in fact be hardcore discrimination of women.

[dragon wench]

In my opinion it is normal and natural to love more than one person at a time. It is equally (if not even moreso) natural to have sexual feelings for multiple people simultaneously.

I frankly have no problem with this whatsoever on a purely ideal and theoretical level. Indeed, in my particular view of a Utopia, the ideal of 'free love' figures prominently.
However.... I'm not sure our society will ever make it beyond the base human impulses of jealousy and possession. And, I'm not sure we will ever be able to reconcile the ideals with the presently existing reality.

I suppose my bottom line is this, if the concept were fully equal for both genders I would definitely support it. But, if it were a double standard and something only available to men, I'd oppose it with every ounce of will and strength I possess.

Regarding gay marriage, group or otherwise, I can't see any reason not to support it. Personally, I have major difficulties with the concept of conventional/mainstream marriage, but I feel everyone should have the right to it, should they so wish.

On a slightly lighter note, though, I figure just one partner can be enough of a headache.... more than that and any headache would turn into a fully fledged migraine...

[Tricky]

I get the various arguments in the article, but I don't understand the title you chose for the thread. Why does it have to be polygamy versus eh.. <snip: derogatory term removed - Xandax>?

As for my disposition on either subject; everybody should do as they please. The 'as long as they don't hurt anyone' argument is retarted, so I won't use that. Of course they don't. Duh.

Marriage simply doesn't apply to me, personally. I can imagine myself living with someone for an extended time, that's it. Polygamy.. I have no reason to believe it would make me unhappy, so I have no reason not to be open to it (that's a good attitude toward any sexuality by the way, I wish more people would adopt it). It's a lot less likely to happen, I'll give you that. Still, I see no reason for marriage in either case, unless my significant other(s) insist on it. I like to please I guess.

[Moonbiter]

Plural marriage versus gay marriage

....Eh... Vøttt???????.........

[Magrus]

On a slightly lighter note, though, I figure just one partner can be enough of a headache.... more than that and any headache would turn into a fully fledged migraine...

It's all sorts of fun when everything is going fine. Although, it is draining, like trying to work a triple shift in one day. Yet, when things go badly...*shudders* I once dated 5 girls at once, before sex got involved in my life. It was fun, but when it went bad, oh, I thought of fleeing the country. After I decided to bring sex into my relationships, dating more than 3 girls at once became far too much, and I made sure to let the girl know who suggested I take up a second girlfriend two years ago I would never do so again. Still...it is a fun way to spend time when you don't sleep at all.

[Silur]

I'm all for polygamy, monogamy, gay marriages, straight marriages, and however else people wish to define their relationships. If you look at it, it is rather absurd having the government dictate what is an acceptable relationship between consenting adults, regardless of gender or quantity. Equal terms for all involved is a given, of course (and I'm apalled that I actually have to state that in this day and age!)

[Moonbiter]

By Charles Krauthammer

Sorry, I couldn't resist... but wasn't that the name painted on the nose of a B17 during WW2?

[Sean The Owner]

well, why should the government be allowed to control which gender you love, who you love, and how many people you love? if polygamy works, why stop it? if gay marriages work why stop them either? its just stupid to say you cant marry someone because of their sexual preference, or that you cant have a 2+ relationship.

[Lady Dragonfly]

@ Tricky (and some others)
quote
I get the various arguments in the article, but I don't understand the title you chose for the thread. Why does it have to be polygamy versus eh.. queergamy?

Because gays don't really want to be placed on the same level with polygamists. They claim their situation is different. That is why I've chosen 'versus'. Did you read the whole article?

This line of argument makes gay activists furious. I can understand why they do not want to be in the same room as polygamists. But I'm not the one who put them there. Their argument does.

Let us clarify some terms.
Forms of Polygamy(when all partners know each other)

Polygyny

Polygyny is described as when a man is either married to or involved in sexual relationship with a number of different females at one time. This is the most common form of polygamy. Polygyny is practiced in a traditional sense in many African cultures and countries even today, including South Africa and most of Southern and Central Africa.

Polyandry

Polyandry is a mating practice where a woman has more than one male sexual partner simultaneously. Polyandry was traditionally practiced among nomadic Tibetans including Nepal and parts of China, where it meant that two or more brothers share the same wife. It was widespread not just among the poor families, but also within the elite.

Group marriage

Group marriage, or circle marriage, may exist in a number of forms, such as where more than one man and more than one woman form a single family unit, and all members of the marriage share parental responsibility for any children arising from the marriage.

Strictly speaking, cohabitation involving three or more sexually-involved people does not count as polygamy unless the participants at least claim to be married.

Polyamory

The term polyamory refers to romantic or sexual relationships involving multiple partners at once, regardless of whether they involve marriage. Any polygamous relationship is polyamorous, and some polyamorous relationships involve multiple spouses. "Polygamy" is usually used to refer to multiple marriage, while "polyamory" implies a relationship defined by negotiation between its members rather than cultural norms.

So, when somebody talks about 'relationship' with multiple partners it is most likely termed 'polyamory'. It is completely legal, however the conservative majority disaproves of it. I am myself uncomfortable with the concept and would never participate in such union but I don't mind if other people embrace group sex as long as I am not forced to witness. My personal opinion it is highly immoral as any promiscuity but I am willing to respect other opinions.

Unfortunately, this is not an ideal world where love and beauty prosper and "nobody gets hurt".
There are many real victims of polygamy in US. The girls (some of them as young as 10) are forced to marry much older men and join the other slaves of a plural family. The 'sister-wives' are supposed to bear children every year and apply for welfare as single mothers. The young men are often chased out of polygamous community so a 'surplus' of young women is created.
The child abuse is widespread. In some communities poverty is overwhelming and a medical care is unheard of.

I hope polygamy will never be legalized.

[Xandax]

Frankly - I personally do not care if people want to marriage their goat or what not (well, actually I do, because the goat has no say, but just illustrating a point).
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.
Thus I think these benefits should be removed or granted to all who wants a part of it, and as they are not currently removed, I think anybody of any kind of sexual or lifestyle preference should be allowed to marry.

Once the benefits are removed, then I do not care if church or religion bans marriage from anybody within their sphere, however when they are not - I believe marriage should be open to all who so wishes (of legal age, with consent).

[Silur]

Consent is *the* key word in this, and as long as that is the main requirement , I'm fine with the goat as well - but you have to prove to me that it is consenting, and you will have problems with the current age norms, since 18-year old goats are rare.

[Heksefatter]

Consent is *the* key word in this, and as long as that is the main requirement , I'm fine with the goat as well - but you have to prove to me that it is consenting, and you will have problems with the current age norms, since 18-year old goats are rare.

But consent can be a problematic concept. Polygamist men do not usually kidnap their women. Rather, polygamy usually takes place in very conservative cultures, where there is little tradition for female education and self-determination. Therefore, it is entirely possible that an uneducated woman may consent to being the third wife of someone, but it would be open to debate whether it is an informed consent.

This, of course, opens to the counter-argument that we should not intervene and decide what is "informed consent" for her. There is no easy way to counter this argument. But on the other hand, I can't shake the feeling that this sort of polygamy would be organized oppression of women.

Honestly, I make my decision based on what I would result from permitting polygamy. A tiny number would enter satisfactory polygamic marriages, and a small, but larger, number of oppressive marriages with multiple wives.


The goat, of course, is another matter. My pet goat loves me!

[fable]

I think the discussion's really focusing on a single phenomenon that's really got two different natures, because it depends upon differing cultural traditions.

First, there's religiously enshrined polygamy, with all the complexities, pro and con, that come from such things, and depend upon whether they're viewed by outsiders or insiders, and by those who buy into the concept or not.

Then, there's what we might term "personal choice" polygamy: people who, in a culture that is not polygamous, nevertheless choose to live in such a lifestyle. This second type is not driven (usually) by a need to establish familial hierarchies, but by sexual preference.

I think we can agree that these two types of polygamy have entirely different profiles, actors, and results. It might help if we don't confuse the two, but treat them as separate for the purposes of discussion.

[Heksefatter]

I think the discussion's really focusing on a single phenomenon that's really got two different natures, because it depends upon differing cultural traditions.

First, there's religiously enshrined polygamy, with all the complexities, pro and con, that come from such things, and depend upon whether they're viewed by outsiders or insiders, and by those who buy into the concept or not.

Then, there's what we might term "personal choice" polygamy: people who, in a culture that is not polygamous, nevertheless choose to live in such a lifestyle. This second type is not driven (usually) by a need to establish familial hierarchies, but by sexual preference.

I think we can agree that these two types of polygamy have entirely different profiles, actors, and results. It might help if we don't confuse the two, but treat them as separate for the purposes of discussion.

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

[fable]

True, but if the question is whether to legalize polygamy, you will have to consider them both.

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

polygamy (though I am quite certain it isn't for me),

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

[Tricky]

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

[fable]

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

Google is your friend, but here you go. Especially note the first part:

MARRIAGE - A contract made in due form of law, by which a free man and a free woman reciprocally engage to live with each other during their joint lives, in the union which ought io exist between husband and wife. By the terms freeman and freewoman in this definition are meant, not only that they are free and not slaves, but also that they are clear of all bars to a lawful marriage.

[Tricky]

"idiots, lunatics, and infants.. etc"

Idiots, lol. I always thought you'd have to be rather stupid to get married in the first place.

In any case, I can think of a few contingencies that elaborate description doesn't cover. That bit about slavery is a bit scary though, why hasn't it been updated?