There are certainly instances in which I think the government goes too far in prosecuting polygamy.
I am good with baby steps... Can we at least agree that laws that prevent the practice of polygamy should be done away with? These families still wouldnt receive all of the benefits of having everyone be married but at least they wouldnt have to fear prosecution. From what I can tell the anti-polygamy laws were basically created out of laziness not wanting to investigate the real crimes happening in some polygamous communities like child wives.
It depends on what you mean by "practice of polygamy". I'm still opposed to legalizing polygamist marriage, even if government benefits are excluded. If people are simply living together and having sex or whatever they want to do, I don't think the government needs to go snooping around to hunt them down.
I'm also concerned about possible effects of raising children in that sort of environment, but I would have to see some scientific studies on the question before knowing if that's a valid concern.
You should watch the tv show Big Love. Polygamy, while I agree should be legal I can completely understand why people are against it. That tv show at leasts depicts cult mentality, forced sex on minors as well as uneducating said minors. That is the TL,DR of the issue in my opinion. As long as 80 yr old men dont have twenty adolescent wives, and as long as it is all the choice of the women involved I do not care.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
By: ol MISAKA lo
Cockatrice: Infallible
Mhjames: mtgsalvation: I DON'T SEE HOW THIS CARD IS GOOD. I KNOW PATRICK CHAPIN USED IT AND WENT 8-0, BUT THAT WAS A SMALL TOURNAMENT. THE CARD IS TOO SLOW. YOU NEED TO MAKE SURE THE OPPONENT HAS A SPELL IN THE GRAVEYARD
I notice that everyone immediately jumps on multiple wives to a single man.
Has anyone considered one woman with several husbands?
Also, what about multiple husbands and wives in the same polygamous marriage together?
I mean, I'm all for it. People should be able to do what they want to do. I just don't see how this could be worked within the current legal system. I think the idea of marriage needs to be removed from law and tax code before we can even think about allowing this kind of thing.
Polygamy is multiple wives to one man
Polyandry is multiple husbands to one woman.
I suppose most people jumped to multiple wives because the thread is about Polygamy.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Current Decks:
Modern
Modern Warp / UR Control / UR Storm / Naya Breachshift / ElectroBalance
Legacy
Solidarity / Lands / Sneak and Show / Grixis Delver / Reanimator / Belcher / Storm / Dredge
In polygamous relationship I feel there must be a dominant sex either man or woman, I think women would make more sense than men since there is more of them. To have a dominant sex is discriminatory and the equality of sex is pretty important in modern society. If there is no dominant sex then you get weird situations where a man is married to 3 wives, 1 of them has 2 husbands, one has 10 husbands and 1 has only 1 husband. All the wives' husbands having multiple wives. How do you determine fatherhood and what is the value of this hodge-podge of marriage? Can there really be a household arising out of this? There can be some twisted combinations with this like two wives shared by the same men and long chains of married people creating all kind of weird things especially when you consider marriage between people of the same sex.
If I was a divorce lawyer I would rejoice from the intricacies of assets allocation in those complex networks.
You should watch the tv show Big Love. Polygamy, while I agree should be legal I can completely understand why people are against it. That tv show at leasts depicts cult mentality, forced sex on minors as well as uneducating said minors. That is the TL,DR of the issue in my opinion. As long as 80 yr old men dont have twenty adolescent wives, and as long as it is all the choice of the women involved I do not care.
The cult mentality, forced sex on minors, avoiding educating said minors are the things to criminalize (insofar as it's possible).
While I'm mostly on your side on this one, the big reason it's repressed isn't because it's icky. The reason it's repressed is because polygamy in practice is very strongly correlated with a number of severe, extreme abuses including child marriage, the banishment or murder of adolescent boys, and other such things, dating back more than a century. Anti-polygamy laws exist largely to give the government an excuse to step in and break up those abusive groups before having to prove a specific crime.
Now, I don't think that answer is good enough anymore. As I've said, I'd support a well-crafted poly marriage law.
I know you said that the above is not a good answer, but I do have to write this.
Marriage is strongly correlated with spousal abuse, child endangerment, and murder.
It depends on what you mean by "practice of polygamy". I'm still opposed to legalizing polygamist marriage, even if government benefits are excluded. If people are simply living together and having sex or whatever they want to do, I don't think the government needs to go snooping around to hunt them down.
In essence it would be multiple adults living together, sharing resources(money, time children), and yes having sex. Is that not what marriage is kind of about?
I'm also concerned about possible effects of raising children in that sort of environment, but I would have to see some scientific studies on the question before knowing if that's a valid concern.
Kind of like the conservatives that worry about the effects of raising children in a homosexual household?
In essence it would be multiple adults living together, sharing resources(money, time children), and yes having sex. Is that not what marriage is kind of about?
Those are certainly parts of what marriage is about. I think there is a balance here between the government's interest in discouraging polygamy and people's right to privacy in their personal relationships.
Kind of like the conservatives that worry about the effects of raising children in a homosexual household?
Sort of, but I'm entirely open to evidence on the issue. Given the vast amount of research that supports the fact that homosexual couples are just as capable of providing a healthy environment for a child, I can't say the same about conservative who still hold those concerns.
the government's interest in discouraging polygamy
Outside of acts that are already illegal that some polygamous sects practiced... why should the government have any interest in polygamy at all let alone in discouraging it?
Kind of like the conservatives that worry about the effects of raising children in a homosexual household?
Sort of, but I'm entirely open to evidence on the issue. Given the vast amount of research that supports the fact that homosexual couples are just as capable of providing a healthy environment for a child, I can't say the same about conservative who still hold those concerns.
Is there that much research? Honestly I have always ignored any data on child development with homosexual parents mostly because it was originally highly biased. I also found it to be kind of irrelevant... I cant imagine that having homosexual parents can be any more stressful than parents getting a messy divorce, growing up knowing daddy is sleeping with the maid, having 5 siblings from 3 different fathers (none of which are around), teen parents, parents that cant afford to feed their children, etc etc... I cant imagine that outside the extremists (who I believe are going to operate outside the law anyway) there would be much of a negative impact on children with polygamist parents versus some of the other stressful environments that are 100% perfectly legal to raise a child in.
I mean... the kids on the show seem pretty well adjusted. Some of them definitely crave more attention... but so do my cousins (5 different dads, 15ish kids/grandkids, I stopped keeping track). They are going to college, they have shown several of them talk about how they dont want to polygamists themselves, some of them do... They seem pretty normal to me.
Outside of acts that are already illegal that some polygamous sects practiced... why should the government have any interest in polygamy at all let alone in discouraging it?
I feel like I've already answered this. Polygamy causes social ills. Government has a legitimate interest in combating social ills.
Is there that much research? Honestly I have always ignored any data on child development with homosexual parents mostly because it was originally highly biased. I also found it to be kind of irrelevant... I cant imagine that having homosexual parents can be any more stressful than parents getting a messy divorce, growing up knowing daddy is sleeping with the maid, having 5 siblings from 3 different fathers (none of which are around), teen parents, parents that cant afford to feed their children, etc etc... I cant imagine that outside the extremists (who I believe are going to operate outside the law anyway) there would be much of a negative impact on children with polygamist parents versus some of the other stressful environments that are 100% perfectly legal to raise a child in.
I mean... the kids on the show seem pretty well adjusted. Some of them definitely crave more attention... but so do my cousins (5 different dads, 15ish kids/grandkids, I stopped keeping track). They are going to college, they have shown several of them talk about how they dont want to polygamists themselves, some of them do... They seem pretty normal to me.
For homosexual couples, yes. The question has been researched pretty thoroughly with consistent findings that same-sex parents are just as capable and beneficial as opposite-sex parents.
I'm honestly not sure what the state of research on polygamous child raising is, though.
In essence it would be multiple adults living together, sharing resources(money, time children), and yes having sex. Is that not what marriage is kind of about?
That's the modern conception of marriage. Ancient marriage was more about selling daughters for food/land/animals/anything else the bride's family wanted from the groom's family.
"Selling" might be too strong a word, but overall historic marriage was more for the family or the clans' benefits than the individuals.
I feel like I've already answered this. Polygamy causes social ills. Government has a legitimate interest in combating social ills.
What social ill does it cause that can't be attributed to the fact that most people who actually practice polygamy today (at least in the U.S.) also happen to be members of a cult that actively teaches people rather crazy things?
You do realize that people protest against gay marriage because it supposedly also causes social ills, right? There's been studies, that obviously have been used as proof back in the day and now have largely been disproved because they're biased, etc.
What social ill does it cause that can't be attributed to the fact that most people who actually practice polygamy today (at least in the U.S.) also happen to be members of a cult that actively teaches people rather crazy things?
Gender imbalance among eligible singles caused by polygamy results in high rates of crime including sexual assaults, drug and alcohol problems, and others.
You do realize that people protest against gay marriage because it supposedly also causes social ills, right? There's been studies, that obviously have been used as proof back in the day and now have largely been disproved because they're biased, etc.
Yes, of course I realize that. The difference, as you state, is that in the gay marriage case those fears were baseless. The effects of polygamy on communities are, to my knowledge, reasonably well established.
Gender imbalance among eligible singles caused by polygamy results in high rates of crime including sexual assaults, drug and alcohol problems, and others.
Yes, of course I realize that. The difference, as you state, is that in the gay marriage case those fears were baseless. The effects of polygamy on communities are, to my knowledge, reasonably well established.
Hence, I specifically raised the point that people 20-30 years (or however long ago) thought said fears and the studies were solid and reputable. The fact that you think that the effects of polygamy are well established don't mean much in light of this.
Hence, I specifically raised the point that people 20-30 years (or however long ago) thought said fears and the studies were solid and reputable. The fact that you think that the effects of polygamy are well established don't mean much in light of this.
I'm not sure I buy the line of reasoning "some unrelated old studies were unreliable, therefore this other set of studies is also unreliable".
It damages society on a biological level. This should never be allowed, or legalised.
Quoi?
Damages society on a biological level? Are you rustling my jimmies? You're putting words together, but it means nothing.
Polygamy is multiple wives to one man
Polyandry is multiple husbands to one woman.
Nope. Polygyny is a man with multiple women. Polygamy is a term used to describe both of them.
On page 2 i explained why its biological sane for each man to have one wife. I am not repeating it again. Look it up if you dont understand.
I don't do 20 posts per page, so referring to page number is kinda useless. Furthermore: you're making a claim without any backup (ie: single men are more aggressive) and then saying that because of bad behaviour from a certain group we should ban activities for everyone. That's not how laws work. We do not ban drinking because it makes some people more aggressive.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We have laboured long to build a heaven, only to find it populated with horrors.
It damages society on a biological level. This should never be allowed, or legalised.
Quoi?
Damages society on a biological level? Are you rustling my jimmies? You're putting words together, but it means nothing.
Polygamy is multiple wives to one man
Polyandry is multiple husbands to one woman.
Nope. Polygyny is a man with multiple women. Polygamy is a term used to describe both of them.
On page 2 i explained why its biological sane for each man to have one wife. I am not repeating it again. Look it up if you dont understand.
I don't do 20 posts per page, so referring to page number is kinda useless. Furthermore: you're making a claim without any backup (ie: single men are more aggressive) and then saying that because of bad behaviour from a certain group we should ban activities for everyone. That's not how laws work. We do not ban drinking because it makes some people more aggressive.
We ban drinking and driving because it leads to more riscful behaviour while driving.
I believe that certain biological laws end up being part of the ethics of society. Thats why polygamy is mostly forbidden even if most people cant tell you why.
Again: belief. Beliefs have no basis in lawmaking.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We have laboured long to build a heaven, only to find it populated with horrors.
Everything in that study is only an issue if a significant portion of the population turns to single male multiple female polygamy. I could say the exact same things about lesbians or F to M sex changes... but that doesnt mean that is a valid reason to ban the practice.
Op isnt talking about laws he is asking why. I answerd that. Belief is another discussion, im just telling my threory. My theory is scientificly backed.
Actually I am talking about laws. Like... why is there a law banning it? and Why no push to change this law like there is for gay marriage? And your theory is bull. The reason Polygamy laws were created was because people were lazy and didnt want to have to go through the trouble of a real investigation to break up polygamist sects that were practicing things like child brides.
Everything in that study is only an issue if a significant portion of the population turns to single male multiple female polygamy. I could say the exact same things about lesbians or F to M sex changes... but that doesnt mean that is a valid reason to ban the practice.
Pretty much anything can be acceptable if only a small enough portion of the population do it. How do you enforce it remains small enough? How is it not discriminatory if only certain person have the right to do something?
Op isnt talking about laws he is asking why. I answerd that. Belief is another discussion, im just telling my threory. My theory is scientificly backed.
Actually I am talking about laws. Like... why is there a law banning it? and Why no push to change this law like there is for gay marriage? And your theory is bull. The reason Polygamy laws were created was because people were lazy and didnt want to have to go through the trouble of a real investigation to break up polygamist sects that were practicing things like child brides.
So if you know my theory is bull then why did you bother to make a thread about it? First you make me think up an answer and then as i present you it you start shuffling it aside while labeling it as bull is kind of akward.
So polygamist laws are created because people were lazy... yeahhh... laziness as the answer for anything you cant grasp the reasonings behind. The world is an afwul lazy place for you aint it?
Let me tell you another little secret... indigenous people like indians or aboriginals... never have polygamist relationships. Stone age man did not have either. Makes you think right? Maybe my bull has more truth then your lazy-theories. Think about it.
Indigenous cultures practice polygamy all the time. Are you just making this stuff up as you go along?
Everything in that study is only an issue if a significant portion of the population turns to single male multiple female polygamy. I could say the exact same things about lesbians or F to M sex changes... but that doesnt mean that is a valid reason to ban the practice.
Pretty much anything can be acceptable if only a small enough portion of the population do it. How do you enforce it remains small enough? How is it not discriminatory if only certain person have the right to do something?
How do we stop all of the men from becoming gay? How do we force couples to keep having children?! What if too many couples choose not to have children!? oh the horror!!!!
The thing is polygamy really is not that desirable of a situation for the average woman. Because of this I highly doubt that many men will be able to find multiple women to marry, especially outside the upper class.
You are basically saying a fringe practice, that was fringe before it was banned, should stay banned out of fear that it would become not fringe anymore.
polygamy started when people started farming in mesopotamia. A food surplus made it possible to support many wives AND children. Thats why those old-testament figures do it all the time. But it isnt the way the ORIGINAL men lived.
Are you claiming that the way ORIGINAL men lived is better in every way by virtue of being ORIGINAL? Are you claiming that we should all forgo our internet connections and housing and farming, all to return to the hunter-gatherer lifestyle that is clearly so much better for us?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"[Screw] you and the green you ramped in on." - My EDH battle cry. If I had one. Which I don't.
I am good with baby steps... Can we at least agree that laws that prevent the practice of polygamy should be done away with? These families still wouldnt receive all of the benefits of having everyone be married but at least they wouldnt have to fear prosecution. From what I can tell the anti-polygamy laws were basically created out of laziness not wanting to investigate the real crimes happening in some polygamous communities like child wives.
I'm also concerned about possible effects of raising children in that sort of environment, but I would have to see some scientific studies on the question before knowing if that's a valid concern.
By: ol MISAKA lo
Cockatrice: Infallible
Polygamy is multiple wives to one man
Polyandry is multiple husbands to one woman.
I suppose most people jumped to multiple wives because the thread is about Polygamy.
Modern Warp / UR Control / UR Storm / Naya Breachshift / ElectroBalance
Solidarity / Lands / Sneak and Show / Grixis Delver / Reanimator / Belcher / Storm / Dredge
If I was a divorce lawyer I would rejoice from the intricacies of assets allocation in those complex networks.
The cult mentality, forced sex on minors, avoiding educating said minors are the things to criminalize (insofar as it's possible).
I know you said that the above is not a good answer, but I do have to write this.
Marriage is strongly correlated with spousal abuse, child endangerment, and murder.
And yet we do ban marriage.
In essence it would be multiple adults living together, sharing resources(money, time children), and yes having sex. Is that not what marriage is kind of about?
Kind of like the conservatives that worry about the effects of raising children in a homosexual household?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Those are certainly parts of what marriage is about. I think there is a balance here between the government's interest in discouraging polygamy and people's right to privacy in their personal relationships.
Sort of, but I'm entirely open to evidence on the issue. Given the vast amount of research that supports the fact that homosexual couples are just as capable of providing a healthy environment for a child, I can't say the same about conservative who still hold those concerns.
Outside of acts that are already illegal that some polygamous sects practiced... why should the government have any interest in polygamy at all let alone in discouraging it?
Is there that much research? Honestly I have always ignored any data on child development with homosexual parents mostly because it was originally highly biased. I also found it to be kind of irrelevant... I cant imagine that having homosexual parents can be any more stressful than parents getting a messy divorce, growing up knowing daddy is sleeping with the maid, having 5 siblings from 3 different fathers (none of which are around), teen parents, parents that cant afford to feed their children, etc etc... I cant imagine that outside the extremists (who I believe are going to operate outside the law anyway) there would be much of a negative impact on children with polygamist parents versus some of the other stressful environments that are 100% perfectly legal to raise a child in.
I mean... the kids on the show seem pretty well adjusted. Some of them definitely crave more attention... but so do my cousins (5 different dads, 15ish kids/grandkids, I stopped keeping track). They are going to college, they have shown several of them talk about how they dont want to polygamists themselves, some of them do... They seem pretty normal to me.
I feel like I've already answered this. Polygamy causes social ills. Government has a legitimate interest in combating social ills.
For homosexual couples, yes. The question has been researched pretty thoroughly with consistent findings that same-sex parents are just as capable and beneficial as opposite-sex parents.
I'm honestly not sure what the state of research on polygamous child raising is, though.
That's the modern conception of marriage. Ancient marriage was more about selling daughters for food/land/animals/anything else the bride's family wanted from the groom's family.
"Selling" might be too strong a word, but overall historic marriage was more for the family or the clans' benefits than the individuals.
What social ill does it cause that can't be attributed to the fact that most people who actually practice polygamy today (at least in the U.S.) also happen to be members of a cult that actively teaches people rather crazy things?
You do realize that people protest against gay marriage because it supposedly also causes social ills, right? There's been studies, that obviously have been used as proof back in the day and now have largely been disproved because they're biased, etc.
Gender imbalance among eligible singles caused by polygamy results in high rates of crime including sexual assaults, drug and alcohol problems, and others.
Yes, of course I realize that. The difference, as you state, is that in the gay marriage case those fears were baseless. The effects of polygamy on communities are, to my knowledge, reasonably well established.
Show me.
Hence, I specifically raised the point that people 20-30 years (or however long ago) thought said fears and the studies were solid and reputable. The fact that you think that the effects of polygamy are well established don't mean much in light of this.
http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/367/1589/657.full for one example among many. I'm sure you can find more if you so desire. Given your dismissive attitude towards these studies, I'm not sure it's worth my effort to search up more.
I'm not sure I buy the line of reasoning "some unrelated old studies were unreliable, therefore this other set of studies is also unreliable".
Quoi?
Damages society on a biological level? Are you rustling my jimmies? You're putting words together, but it means nothing.
Nope. Polygyny is a man with multiple women. Polygamy is a term used to describe both of them.
I don't do 20 posts per page, so referring to page number is kinda useless. Furthermore: you're making a claim without any backup (ie: single men are more aggressive) and then saying that because of bad behaviour from a certain group we should ban activities for everyone. That's not how laws work. We do not ban drinking because it makes some people more aggressive.
Again: belief. Beliefs have no basis in lawmaking.
Everything in that study is only an issue if a significant portion of the population turns to single male multiple female polygamy. I could say the exact same things about lesbians or F to M sex changes... but that doesnt mean that is a valid reason to ban the practice.
Actually I am talking about laws. Like... why is there a law banning it? and Why no push to change this law like there is for gay marriage? And your theory is bull. The reason Polygamy laws were created was because people were lazy and didnt want to have to go through the trouble of a real investigation to break up polygamist sects that were practicing things like child brides.
Pretty much anything can be acceptable if only a small enough portion of the population do it. How do you enforce it remains small enough? How is it not discriminatory if only certain person have the right to do something?
Indigenous cultures practice polygamy all the time. Are you just making this stuff up as you go along?
How do we stop all of the men from becoming gay? How do we force couples to keep having children?! What if too many couples choose not to have children!? oh the horror!!!!
The thing is polygamy really is not that desirable of a situation for the average woman. Because of this I highly doubt that many men will be able to find multiple women to marry, especially outside the upper class.
You are basically saying a fringe practice, that was fringe before it was banned, should stay banned out of fear that it would become not fringe anymore.
Are you claiming that the way ORIGINAL men lived is better in every way by virtue of being ORIGINAL? Are you claiming that we should all forgo our internet connections and housing and farming, all to return to the hunter-gatherer lifestyle that is clearly so much better for us?
Pristaxcontrombmodruu!