the original men was a HUNTER-GATHERER. that means that all he have is what he can CARRY.
Do you understand this?
This means that a woman can only carry one child. The selecting of a breeding partner is thus a delicate moment.
polygamy started when people started farming in mesopotamia. A food surplus made it possible to support many wives AND children. For a lucky few. Thats why those old-testament figures do it all the time. But it isnt the way the ORIGINAL men lived.
Umm.... what about when tribes fought and half of the men died creating a large imbalance in the male to female ratio? I am pretty sure Polygamy was more prevalent when guys were running around getting killed by other dudes and bears all the time.
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.
Scientifically backed? I've yet to seen you show evidence.
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.
If I ask how babies come around and someone says: "well, I think they come about when people leave a jar with a little juice in it outside for a few days. The woman then drinks what's in the jar, the organism hatches in the womb and a baby is formed" I'm right to tell you that your theory is crap, even if I do not have the answer myself.
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.
Tacitus described a Neolithic (late Stone Age) German tribe as having:
One wife apiece—all of them except a very few who take more than one not to satisfy their desires, but because their exalted rank brings many pressing offers of matrimonial alliances. The dowry is brought by husband to wife...gifts [such as] oxen, a horse and bridle, or a shield, spear and sword...she in turn brings a present of arms to her husband.…The woman must not think that she is excluded from aspirations to manly virtues or exempt from the hazards of warfare.…She enters her husband's home to be the partner of his toils and perils, that both in peace and war she is to share his sufferings and adventures.…Clandestine love-letters are unknown to men and women alike. Adultery is extremely rare.…Girls too are not hurried into marriage. As old and full-grown as the men they match their mates in age and strength.[7]
—Tacitus, Germania (circa A.D. 100)
Tacitus. You mean that guy who wasn't around back in the neolithic age??
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We have laboured long to build a heaven, only to find it populated with horrors.
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?
were exactely am i claiming this? or is this what you want to hear? chill out dude
So, you agree that there is no connection from how we were originally to how we should operate today. What was your point, again?
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.
As long as nobody is being forced into it, I can't see why there's a problem with it. Gay marriage at one point and certainly still is referred to as being unnatural or linked to sexual deviants. If that's wrong, why is it ok to treat poly people the same way?
The biggest hurdle I think is how marriage in general affects legal benefits received. Getting government out of marriage and leaving it to those who want to enter it and call it whatever they want would be a good start.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"No one may threaten or commit violence ('aggress') against another man's person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a nonaggressor. Here is the fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory." - Murray Rothbard, Cited from "War, Peace, and the State"
While I am somewhat skeptical of these studies (correlation does not necessarily imply causation, etc.) I don't even think it matters. Let's say that polygamy disputably increases certain societal ills, why does that mean it's ok to ban it? If you believe marriage is a right, then how can you allow only certain adults to exercise that right, and deny it to others?
Take the parallel to gay marriage. Most supporters of gay marriage take the position that marriage is a civil right which is being denied to gay couples. If a study came out that indisputably proved that the children of gay parents are 5% less successful than the children of straight parents, or demonstrated some other societal ill associated with gay marriage, would this change your opinion on gay marriage? Would you go from being in support to being in opposition? Hopefully not, if you think marriage is a civil right.
The right to free speech in the US sometimes causes societal harm (Westboro Baptist Church, etc.) but we don't selectively deny this civil right to some groups and allow it for others based on a harm calculus. Otherwise, it wouldn't be a right.
Some people who are extremely uninformed or apathetic might harm society by exercising their right to vote, but we don't have minimum intelligence or education requirements to vote, because it is a right. If we only allowed some adults to exercise it, it wouldn't be a right. (to preempt the argument: felons can't vote because they committed an illegal act and forfeited the right, this is not a good parallel to polygamy)
Likewise, even if some marriages cause nominal harm to society, how can you argue that they should banned if you believe that marriage is a right that inures to consenting adults?
I think that a lot of the problem with statements and studies on the negative effects of polygamy are that they seem to look at societies or cultures where the practive was widespread and sometimes coerced or forced. I don't know that we have anything that says anything meaningful about how it would effect a community if it was a strictly voluntary fringe practice engaged in by only a small portion of the population.
Do we think that if we legalized polygmous marriages that we'd end up in a society where that was the norm? If so, I can see the cause for concern based on history. If not then I would see no reason not to allow people to do as they wish in this regard as we then have no more data to back societal problems than we did about gay marriage a few decades ago.
On general principle, you're right. There's no clear reason why polygamous marriages should be illegal. But you'll never convince most of the country of that. I actually have a few married friends who are openly polygamous- (though obviously not married to more than one person). It's a really complicated relationship, and sometimes it works better than others.
But as for why it won't stick, and why the gay marriage argument is faulty- gay marriage keeps the basics of marriage (two people who are in love and wish for that to be a permanent and legally recognized state of being), while polygamous marriage does change the definition of marriage. (No longer being between two people, and no longer attached in the same legal way. After all, how do you manage taxes and combined finances between a person and their three spouses? What about hospital visitation rights? Guardianship of children should something go wrong?)
From a moral and logical standpoint, there isn't a reason why we shouldn't allow people to enter into this sort of union if they're so inclined. From a more practical one, I don't see this changing in the next twenty years since it would change so much.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"It is not your place to rule, Radiant. It may not even be mine." ~Serra, Humble
"I Come Looking for Demons and I find a plane full of Angels. I Hate Angels" -Liliana Vess, Killing Wave
"Walls? What Walls?" ~Jaya Ballard, Task Mage, Word of Blasting
"I don't have to have the perfect plan. My foe just has to have an imperfect one." -Jace Beleren, Summoner's Bane
"When your cities and trinkets crumble, only nature will remain" ~Garruk Wildspeaker, Naturalize
On general principle, you're right. There's no clear reason why polygamous marriages should be illegal. But you'll never convince most of the country of that. I actually have a few married friends who are openly polygamous- (though obviously not married to more than one person). It's a really complicated relationship, and sometimes it works better than others.
But as for why it won't stick, and why the gay marriage argument is faulty- gay marriage keeps the basics of marriage (two people who are in love and wish for that to be a permanent and legally recognized state of being), while polygamous marriage does change the definition of marriage. (No longer being between two people, and no longer attached in the same legal way. After all, how do you manage taxes and combined finances between a person and their three spouses? What about hospital visitation rights? Guardianship of children should something go wrong?)
From a moral and logical standpoint, there isn't a reason why we shouldn't allow people to enter into this sort of union if they're so inclined. From a more practical one, I don't see this changing in the next twenty years since it would change so much.
That's why I brought up the idea of at least not banning the practice. Currently people living a poly lifestyle can be prosecuted and face up to 20 years in prison even if they only legally marry one spouse. This happens because of "common law" marriage laws. The guy in the TLC show was only married to his first wife, but because he lived with the 2 other wives for 16 years in the same house and then made a public showing of his 4th "marriage" the state tried to prosecute him.
Edit: I imagine that this is also why they are now trying to build 4 houses right next to each other, each owned by the wife that way Cody can technically only live in 1 of them and avoid becoming "common law" married to his other wives.
I do get the issues with making a huge mess of what is currently a stream lined process, but there are definitely things we can do better for people who choose to live this lifestyle.
While I am somewhat skeptical of these studies (correlation does not necessarily imply causation, etc.) I don't even think it matters. Let's say that polygamy disputably increases certain societal ills, why does that mean it's ok to ban it? If you believe marriage is a right, then how can you allow only certain adults to exercise that right, and deny it to others?
Take the parallel to gay marriage. Most supporters of gay marriage take the position that marriage is a civil right which is being denied to gay couples. If a study came out that indisputably proved that the children of gay parents are 5% less successful than the children of straight parents, or demonstrated some other societal ill associated with gay marriage, would this change your opinion on gay marriage? Would you go from being in support to being in opposition? Hopefully not, if you think marriage is a civil right.
The right to free speech in the US sometimes causes societal harm (Westboro Baptist Church, etc.) but we don't selectively deny this civil right to some groups and allow it for others based on a harm calculus. Otherwise, it wouldn't be a right.
Some people who are extremely uninformed or apathetic might harm society by exercising their right to vote, but we don't have minimum intelligence or education requirements to vote, because it is a right. If we only allowed some adults to exercise it, it wouldn't be a right. (to preempt the argument: felons can't vote because they committed an illegal act and forfeited the right, this is not a good parallel to polygamy)
Likewise, even if some marriages cause nominal harm to society, how can you argue that they should banned if you believe that marriage is a right that inures to consenting adults?
Well, there's always a balance between the rights of the people and the government's pursuit of its legitimate interest. In the case of gay marriage, people have a right to not be discriminated against on the basis of their gender or sexuality. There are a bunch of others ways in which you are protected from discrimination, too, and a bunch of other rights (such as free speech or voting) which the government cannot infringe upon. However, "number of participants" is not one of those angles of protection. There are all manner of laws that disparately affect groups, businesses, etc. based on the number of people involved. There are laws that restrict the number of people who can occupy a building. The list goes on. So in this case, the balance is pretty simple, because there simply isn't a protection to balance against.
While I am somewhat skeptical of these studies (correlation does not necessarily imply causation, etc.) I don't even think it matters. Let's say that polygamy disputably increases certain societal ills, why does that mean it's ok to ban it? If you believe marriage is a right, then how can you allow only certain adults to exercise that right, and deny it to others?
Take the parallel to gay marriage. Most supporters of gay marriage take the position that marriage is a civil right which is being denied to gay couples. If a study came out that indisputably proved that the children of gay parents are 5% less successful than the children of straight parents, or demonstrated some other societal ill associated with gay marriage, would this change your opinion on gay marriage? Would you go from being in support to being in opposition? Hopefully not, if you think marriage is a civil right.
The right to free speech in the US sometimes causes societal harm (Westboro Baptist Church, etc.) but we don't selectively deny this civil right to some groups and allow it for others based on a harm calculus. Otherwise, it wouldn't be a right.
Some people who are extremely uninformed or apathetic might harm society by exercising their right to vote, but we don't have minimum intelligence or education requirements to vote, because it is a right. If we only allowed some adults to exercise it, it wouldn't be a right. (to preempt the argument: felons can't vote because they committed an illegal act and forfeited the right, this is not a good parallel to polygamy)
Likewise, even if some marriages cause nominal harm to society, how can you argue that they should banned if you believe that marriage is a right that inures to consenting adults?
Well, there's always a balance between the rights of the people and the government's pursuit of its legitimate interest. In the case of gay marriage, people have a right to not be discriminated against on the basis of their gender or sexuality. There are a bunch of others ways in which you are protected from discrimination, too, and a bunch of other rights (such as free speech or voting) which the government cannot infringe upon. However, "number of participants" is not one of those angles of protection. There are all manner of laws that disparately affect groups, businesses, etc. based on the number of people involved. There are laws that restrict the number of people who can occupy a building. The list goes on. So in this case, the balance is pretty simple, because there simply isn't a protection to balance against.
So if the United States government did not have a clause about not being discriminated against due to sexuality you would be okay with gay marriage being illegal? Not only not recognized but also criminal if a couple were to be discovered as living in a homosexual relationship.
Tacitus described a Neolithic (late Stone Age) German tribe...
Lol @ Tacitus' Germans being "Neolithic". They had iron and agriculture, dude. They would not have been a challenge to the Roman Empire with stone weapons and hunter-gatherer population densities.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
[So if the United States government did not have a clause about not being discriminated against due to sexuality you would be okay with gay marriage being illegal? Not only not recognized but also criminal if a couple were to be discovered as living in a homosexual relationship.
It doesn't, at least not on the federal level. Sexuality is not a protected class at the federal level, and is only a protected class in some, not all, of the states.
it would be very very confuse. you know, today there is a trend of treating men and women equally (doesn't fully happen, but still...). if i chose to marry a woman, and she agreed that it could be a polygamic marriage (because i want to marry more times), then she'd be able to marry more times to. suddenly, my wife will be having sex with whatever husband she chooses. then she marries many more times. maybe i did not want this. and then she is having sex with some guy with DST... but i chose her. now i want divorce. but i'm married to 8 women. what share of my goods will she get?
my point is that while polygamic marriage could be cool, it would not be stable nowadays. i believe it works only in cultures where one gender has pwoer over the other.
So if the United States government did not have a clause about not being discriminated against due to sexuality you would be okay with gay marriage being illegal? Not only not recognized but also criminal if a couple were to be discovered as living in a homosexual relationship.
Well, that argument is for why I think the government can make it illegal. There is a separate question of whether they should.
It blows my mind to read some of the responses in this thread. If this was the 1920s, I suspect I would be reading similar replys about homosexuality.
For a bunch of people that claim to be tolerant and open minded. I havent seen such antiquated talk in some time. I mean we might as well talk about how a womens place is in the kitchen, that homosexuality is a choice, and that blacks shouldnt be allowed to socialize with whites.
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.
I wouldnt put to much stock into what you see on tv, I mean look at what local goverment produced in the 50's. Granted we have moved away from propaganda films, but now we just have shock and awe media. For example, do you think Amish life is anything like the show Amish Mafia?
So if the United States government did not have a clause about not being discriminated against due to sexuality you would be okay with gay marriage being illegal? Not only not recognized but also criminal if a couple were to be discovered as living in a homosexual relationship.
Well, that argument is for why I think the government can make it illegal. There is a separate question of whether they should.
Do you believe it should or should not be legal and why?
That is what I am asking from people in this thread.
it would be very very confuse. you know, today there is a trend of treating men and women equally (doesn't fully happen, but still...). if i chose to marry a woman, and she agreed that it could be a polygamic marriage (because i want to marry more times), then she'd be able to marry more times to. suddenly, my wife will be having sex with whatever husband she chooses. then she marries many more times. maybe i did not want this. and then she is having sex with some guy with DST... but i chose her. now i want divorce. but i'm married to 8 women. what share of my goods will she get?
my point is that while polygamic marriage could be cool, it would not be stable nowadays. i believe it works only in cultures where one gender has pwoer over the other.
I completely agree with you, it seems like everyone else in this thread don't consider the equality between sexes but it could be considered in societies with a strong sex imbalance like China or India. The problem is that this imbalance comes directly from their tradition, they won't change it for polygamous marriage.
Do you believe it should or should not be legal and why?
That is what I am asking from people in this thread.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure I've already explained why I think polygamous marriage should be illegal...
Right... because it "could" be less good for children than a traditional house hold, having lots of horny single guys around is bad(doesnt really seem like polygamy's fault that single men are bad for crime rates), and there have historically been douchey polygamists?
You think those "reasons" and a lack of special "protected" status are good enough reason to throw people that practice polygamy in jail?
Right... because it "could" be less good for children than a traditional house hold,
I only said I would have concerns about this and I'd want to see it studied before legalizing.
having lots of horny single guys around is bad(doesnt really seem like polygamy's fault that single men are bad for crime rates)
I don't even know how it could be "polygamy's fault". How can a concept be at fault for that?
, and there have historically been douchey polygamists?
I don't think this is one of my reasons.
You think those "reasons" and a lack of special "protected" status are good enough reason to throw people that practice polygamy in jail?
I would say that jail would be in most cases an unnecessarily harsh punishment. That seems like something that should be reserved for abusive polygamy.
Right... because it "could" be less good for children than a traditional house hold,
I only said I would have concerns about this and I'd want to see it studied before legalizing.
having lots of horny single guys around is bad(doesnt really seem like polygamy's fault that single men are bad for crime rates)
I don't even know how it could be "polygamy's fault". How can a concept be at fault for that?
, and there have historically been douchey polygamists?
I don't think this is one of my reasons.
You think those "reasons" and a lack of special "protected" status are good enough reason to throw people that practice polygamy in jail?
I would say that jail would be in most cases an unnecessarily harsh punishment. That seems like something that should be reserved for abusive polygamy.
Ok... let try another angle... Do you believe the family on Sister Wives should be prosecuted with a crime? (1 dad, 4 moms, seem pretty normal other than the 4 wives).
If yes do you then believe that 20 years in prison for the father and 5 years for each mom is a fair punishment?
That is the current maximum punishment for practicing polygamy. Not for practicing evil child marrying polygamy, just plain Jane having more than 1 happy wife.
So the argument is that the government has an interest in preventing polygamy because the guys who get left out are problematic?
I really hope this kind of logic is never systematically applied, because the logic is of the form: If you do activity X, certain crimes Y and Z become more common because other people commit them, where X is not a specific inducement to commit Y and Z. Therefore, you will not be allowed to do X.
I mean, if you could show that female video gamers are less likely to become involved with men, you could argue on the same grounds that society has an interest in preventing female video gaming because unmarried males commit crimes.
Bottom line, I reject this kind of logic because I don't believe that someone acting in good faith should ever be held accountable for the criminal behavior of people they have never met and who they have not specifically induced to that behavior.
Ok... let try another angle... Do you believe the family on Sister Wives should be prosecuted with a crime? (1 dad, 4 moms, seem pretty normal other than the 4 wives).
If yes do you then believe that 20 years in prison for the father and 5 years for each mom is a fair punishment?
That is the current maximum punishment for practicing polygamy. Not for practicing evil child marrying polygamy, just plain Jane having more than 1 happy wife.
I have not seen the show, so I can't really give you an answer on that one, I'm afraid.
As I've already said, though, I do think that the current polygamy punishments go too far in some cases.
While I am somewhat skeptical of these studies (correlation does not necessarily imply causation, etc.) I don't even think it matters. Let's say that polygamy disputably increases certain societal ills, why does that mean it's ok to ban it? If you believe marriage is a right, then how can you allow only certain adults to exercise that right, and deny it to others?
Take the parallel to gay marriage. Most supporters of gay marriage take the position that marriage is a civil right which is being denied to gay couples. If a study came out that indisputably proved that the children of gay parents are 5% less successful than the children of straight parents, or demonstrated some other societal ill associated with gay marriage, would this change your opinion on gay marriage? Would you go from being in support to being in opposition? Hopefully not, if you think marriage is a civil right.
The right to free speech in the US sometimes causes societal harm (Westboro Baptist Church, etc.) but we don't selectively deny this civil right to some groups and allow it for others based on a harm calculus. Otherwise, it wouldn't be a right.
Some people who are extremely uninformed or apathetic might harm society by exercising their right to vote, but we don't have minimum intelligence or education requirements to vote, because it is a right. If we only allowed some adults to exercise it, it wouldn't be a right. (to preempt the argument: felons can't vote because they committed an illegal act and forfeited the right, this is not a good parallel to polygamy)
Likewise, even if some marriages cause nominal harm to society, how can you argue that they should banned if you believe that marriage is a right that inures to consenting adults?
Well, there's always a balance between the rights of the people and the government's pursuit of its legitimate interest. In the case of gay marriage, people have a right to not be discriminated against on the basis of their gender or sexuality. There are a bunch of others ways in which you are protected from discrimination, too, and a bunch of other rights (such as free speech or voting) which the government cannot infringe upon. However, "number of participants" is not one of those angles of protection. There are all manner of laws that disparately affect groups, businesses, etc. based on the number of people involved. There are laws that restrict the number of people who can occupy a building. The list goes on. So in this case, the balance is pretty simple, because there simply isn't a protection to balance against.
First, as bLatch correctly noted, the U.S. constitution does not guarantee equal protection on the basis of "sexuality." It also, as you noted, does not provide special protections based on "the number of participants."
But that's not my point. I'm not talking about equal protection, I'm talking about marriage as a right. If you believe that marriage is a right, then that means the government has to have an extremely good reason to limit or abridge that right. For example, the government can't pass a law saying "redheads can't get married." Even though "redheads" are not entitled to special legal protections, you can't infringe people's rights; it doesn't matter whether they're part of a protected class or not.
So: Is marriage a right?
If so, it's wrong to pass a law that says "redheads can't get married" without an extremely compelling reason for that law. Likewise, it's wrong to pass a law that says "polygamists can't get married."
But, you might say, there is no law that says "polygamists can't get married" only "polygamists can't marry multiple people." Likewise, I would respond, there is no law that says "gay people can't get married," only "gay people can't marry other people of the same sex." In both cases the right is being abridged because the person in question can't marry whom they love, and thus effectively cannot participate in marriage the way others can.
If marriage is a right, why do you believe gay people are entitled to fully exercise that right, but polygamists are not?
Ok... let try another angle... Do you believe the family on Sister Wives should be prosecuted with a crime? (1 dad, 4 moms, seem pretty normal other than the 4 wives).
If yes do you then believe that 20 years in prison for the father and 5 years for each mom is a fair punishment?
That is the current maximum punishment for practicing polygamy. Not for practicing evil child marrying polygamy, just plain Jane having more than 1 happy wife.
It is a show for a reason, they are not happy wifes, they are miserable and jealous of each other, pulling the husband in so many different ways that it causes drama and in the end of it all a show that gets viewers.
My Opinion on the matter
Polygamy is illegal for a reason, do I agree with the punishment, No but human beings are jealous and greedy creatures and situations such as polygamy only cause larger problems. As you said arranged marriages for a chance at wealth/to pay off debt is a obvious one, but then going further and you find that the multiple partners have tensions there that anymore lead to harsher situations.
Umm.... what about when tribes fought and half of the men died creating a large imbalance in the male to female ratio? I am pretty sure Polygamy was more prevalent when guys were running around getting killed by other dudes and bears all the time.
Scientifically backed? I've yet to seen you show evidence.
If I ask how babies come around and someone says: "well, I think they come about when people leave a jar with a little juice in it outside for a few days. The woman then drinks what's in the jar, the organism hatches in the womb and a baby is formed" I'm right to tell you that your theory is crap, even if I do not have the answer myself.
Tacitus. You mean that guy who wasn't around back in the neolithic age??
So, you agree that there is no connection from how we were originally to how we should operate today. What was your point, again?
Pristaxcontrombmodruu!
The biggest hurdle I think is how marriage in general affects legal benefits received. Getting government out of marriage and leaving it to those who want to enter it and call it whatever they want would be a good start.
While I am somewhat skeptical of these studies (correlation does not necessarily imply causation, etc.) I don't even think it matters. Let's say that polygamy disputably increases certain societal ills, why does that mean it's ok to ban it? If you believe marriage is a right, then how can you allow only certain adults to exercise that right, and deny it to others?
Take the parallel to gay marriage. Most supporters of gay marriage take the position that marriage is a civil right which is being denied to gay couples. If a study came out that indisputably proved that the children of gay parents are 5% less successful than the children of straight parents, or demonstrated some other societal ill associated with gay marriage, would this change your opinion on gay marriage? Would you go from being in support to being in opposition? Hopefully not, if you think marriage is a civil right.
The right to free speech in the US sometimes causes societal harm (Westboro Baptist Church, etc.) but we don't selectively deny this civil right to some groups and allow it for others based on a harm calculus. Otherwise, it wouldn't be a right.
Some people who are extremely uninformed or apathetic might harm society by exercising their right to vote, but we don't have minimum intelligence or education requirements to vote, because it is a right. If we only allowed some adults to exercise it, it wouldn't be a right. (to preempt the argument: felons can't vote because they committed an illegal act and forfeited the right, this is not a good parallel to polygamy)
Likewise, even if some marriages cause nominal harm to society, how can you argue that they should banned if you believe that marriage is a right that inures to consenting adults?
Do we think that if we legalized polygmous marriages that we'd end up in a society where that was the norm? If so, I can see the cause for concern based on history. If not then I would see no reason not to allow people to do as they wish in this regard as we then have no more data to back societal problems than we did about gay marriage a few decades ago.
But as for why it won't stick, and why the gay marriage argument is faulty- gay marriage keeps the basics of marriage (two people who are in love and wish for that to be a permanent and legally recognized state of being), while polygamous marriage does change the definition of marriage. (No longer being between two people, and no longer attached in the same legal way. After all, how do you manage taxes and combined finances between a person and their three spouses? What about hospital visitation rights? Guardianship of children should something go wrong?)
From a moral and logical standpoint, there isn't a reason why we shouldn't allow people to enter into this sort of union if they're so inclined. From a more practical one, I don't see this changing in the next twenty years since it would change so much.
"It is not your place to rule, Radiant. It may not even be mine." ~Serra, Humble
"I Come Looking for Demons and I find a plane full of Angels. I Hate Angels" -Liliana Vess, Killing Wave
"Walls? What Walls?" ~Jaya Ballard, Task Mage, Word of Blasting
"I don't have to have the perfect plan. My foe just has to have an imperfect one." -Jace Beleren, Summoner's Bane
"When your cities and trinkets crumble, only nature will remain" ~Garruk Wildspeaker, Naturalize
That's why I brought up the idea of at least not banning the practice. Currently people living a poly lifestyle can be prosecuted and face up to 20 years in prison even if they only legally marry one spouse. This happens because of "common law" marriage laws. The guy in the TLC show was only married to his first wife, but because he lived with the 2 other wives for 16 years in the same house and then made a public showing of his 4th "marriage" the state tried to prosecute him.
Edit: I imagine that this is also why they are now trying to build 4 houses right next to each other, each owned by the wife that way Cody can technically only live in 1 of them and avoid becoming "common law" married to his other wives.
I do get the issues with making a huge mess of what is currently a stream lined process, but there are definitely things we can do better for people who choose to live this lifestyle.
Well, there's always a balance between the rights of the people and the government's pursuit of its legitimate interest. In the case of gay marriage, people have a right to not be discriminated against on the basis of their gender or sexuality. There are a bunch of others ways in which you are protected from discrimination, too, and a bunch of other rights (such as free speech or voting) which the government cannot infringe upon. However, "number of participants" is not one of those angles of protection. There are all manner of laws that disparately affect groups, businesses, etc. based on the number of people involved. There are laws that restrict the number of people who can occupy a building. The list goes on. So in this case, the balance is pretty simple, because there simply isn't a protection to balance against.
So if the United States government did not have a clause about not being discriminated against due to sexuality you would be okay with gay marriage being illegal? Not only not recognized but also criminal if a couple were to be discovered as living in a homosexual relationship.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
It doesn't, at least not on the federal level. Sexuality is not a protected class at the federal level, and is only a protected class in some, not all, of the states.
my point is that while polygamic marriage could be cool, it would not be stable nowadays. i believe it works only in cultures where one gender has pwoer over the other.
Well, that argument is for why I think the government can make it illegal. There is a separate question of whether they should.
For a bunch of people that claim to be tolerant and open minded. I havent seen such antiquated talk in some time. I mean we might as well talk about how a womens place is in the kitchen, that homosexuality is a choice, and that blacks shouldnt be allowed to socialize with whites.
I wouldnt put to much stock into what you see on tv, I mean look at what local goverment produced in the 50's. Granted we have moved away from propaganda films, but now we just have shock and awe media. For example, do you think Amish life is anything like the show Amish Mafia?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeUu-1VheEU
BUWGRChilds PlayGRWUB
BUWGR Highlander GRWUB
UBSquee's Shapeshifting PetBU
BW Multiplayer Control WB
RG Changeling GR
UR Mana FlareRU
UMerfolkU
B MBMC B
Do you believe it should or should not be legal and why?
That is what I am asking from people in this thread.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure I've already explained why I think polygamous marriage should be illegal...
I completely agree with you, it seems like everyone else in this thread don't consider the equality between sexes but it could be considered in societies with a strong sex imbalance like China or India. The problem is that this imbalance comes directly from their tradition, they won't change it for polygamous marriage.
Right... because it "could" be less good for children than a traditional house hold, having lots of horny single guys around is bad(doesnt really seem like polygamy's fault that single men are bad for crime rates), and there have historically been douchey polygamists?
You think those "reasons" and a lack of special "protected" status are good enough reason to throw people that practice polygamy in jail?
I only said I would have concerns about this and I'd want to see it studied before legalizing.
I don't even know how it could be "polygamy's fault". How can a concept be at fault for that?
I don't think this is one of my reasons.
I would say that jail would be in most cases an unnecessarily harsh punishment. That seems like something that should be reserved for abusive polygamy.
Ok... let try another angle... Do you believe the family on Sister Wives should be prosecuted with a crime? (1 dad, 4 moms, seem pretty normal other than the 4 wives).
If yes do you then believe that 20 years in prison for the father and 5 years for each mom is a fair punishment?
That is the current maximum punishment for practicing polygamy. Not for practicing evil child marrying polygamy, just plain Jane having more than 1 happy wife.
I really hope this kind of logic is never systematically applied, because the logic is of the form: If you do activity X, certain crimes Y and Z become more common because other people commit them, where X is not a specific inducement to commit Y and Z. Therefore, you will not be allowed to do X.
I mean, if you could show that female video gamers are less likely to become involved with men, you could argue on the same grounds that society has an interest in preventing female video gaming because unmarried males commit crimes.
Bottom line, I reject this kind of logic because I don't believe that someone acting in good faith should ever be held accountable for the criminal behavior of people they have never met and who they have not specifically induced to that behavior.
I have not seen the show, so I can't really give you an answer on that one, I'm afraid.
As I've already said, though, I do think that the current polygamy punishments go too far in some cases.
First, as bLatch correctly noted, the U.S. constitution does not guarantee equal protection on the basis of "sexuality." It also, as you noted, does not provide special protections based on "the number of participants."
But that's not my point. I'm not talking about equal protection, I'm talking about marriage as a right. If you believe that marriage is a right, then that means the government has to have an extremely good reason to limit or abridge that right. For example, the government can't pass a law saying "redheads can't get married." Even though "redheads" are not entitled to special legal protections, you can't infringe people's rights; it doesn't matter whether they're part of a protected class or not.
So: Is marriage a right?
If so, it's wrong to pass a law that says "redheads can't get married" without an extremely compelling reason for that law. Likewise, it's wrong to pass a law that says "polygamists can't get married."
But, you might say, there is no law that says "polygamists can't get married" only "polygamists can't marry multiple people." Likewise, I would respond, there is no law that says "gay people can't get married," only "gay people can't marry other people of the same sex." In both cases the right is being abridged because the person in question can't marry whom they love, and thus effectively cannot participate in marriage the way others can.
If marriage is a right, why do you believe gay people are entitled to fully exercise that right, but polygamists are not?
It is a show for a reason, they are not happy wifes, they are miserable and jealous of each other, pulling the husband in so many different ways that it causes drama and in the end of it all a show that gets viewers.
My Opinion on the matter
Polygamy is illegal for a reason, do I agree with the punishment, No but human beings are jealous and greedy creatures and situations such as polygamy only cause larger problems. As you said arranged marriages for a chance at wealth/to pay off debt is a obvious one, but then going further and you find that the multiple partners have tensions there that anymore lead to harsher situations.
BURPerfectly Suited to Mindless Carnage, ThraximundarRUB
URBOckham's Mindrazer = Nekusar the MindrazerBRU
UBRMarchsea makes all the Men do Stupid ThingsRBU
GWBThe Best Offense is Defense, Doran 2.0BWG
XRDaretti, Artifact ShenanigansRX
RKrenko the Don of the Goblin MobR
GFreyalise and Elves have pet HydrasG
WArmy of the Heavens, Lead by the Angel of HopeW
BDrana, The Removal BloodchiefB
UAzami, Knowledge is PowerU
WBDaxos is Enchanting Enchantments to Enchant more EnchantsBW
GRI got 99 Permanents but Primal Surge ain't One, Ruric TharRG
GBNel Thot's Sacrificial SwarmBG
WRWifey's Wrath - Gisela Blade of GoldnightRW
WUPillowfort Tron - BrunaUW
XXThe TriadXX
Do you have what it takes to survive?