Question for polygamy: is it possible to equally love more than one human?
I think the real discussion should be held on a psychological level. I don't know much about that, but personally, I think it would be a bad idea to give equally love to two humans being at the same time. This will mess up my brain so much. And that's only for one person. Imagine the psychological health of my two partners (jealousy is a natural reaction).
Also, if I have the right for polygamy, my partners will have that too. So his/her other partner has that right too,...
As you can see, this could end up in a chain, and that would be very very difficult to work this out practically.
I agree with this. I watched a documentary on polygamy (of course that makes me an expert on the subject). Pretty much the director went through many polygamist relationships. Some couldn't share the love and some could. In the end, none of them worked. Even in the ones that were planned out, the people involved could not help but feel jealously. They even became paranoid at times.
Maybe liberals only care about marriage issues when they can get their quota of republican bashing in it. Why the plight of the polygamist is of less concern to them than the plight of the homosexual is a curios phenomena to me.
A quick question do I get to call people who are anti polygamy bigots too?
Maybe liberals only care about marriage issues when they can get their quota of republican bashing in it. Why the plight of the polygamist is of less concern to them than the plight of the homosexual is a curios phenomena to me.
A quick question do I get to call people who are anti polygamy bigots too?
It's curious to you that we're skeptical of a demographic which has, historically, been patriarchal and oppressive to women, on an almost exclusive level? You're really wondering about that?
Or are you just throwing some loaded words into a couple of sentences to sound clever?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“A man's at odds to know his mind cause his mind is aught he has to know it with. He can know his heart, but he dont want to. Rightly so. Best not to look in there. It aint the heart of a creature that is bound in the way that God has set for it. You can find meanness in the least of creatures, but when God made man the devil was at his elbow. A creature that can do anything. Make a machine. And a machine to make the machine. And evil that can run itself a thousand years, no need to tend it.”
― Cormac McCarthy, Blood Meridian, or the Evening Redness in the West
Why the plight of the polygamist is of less concern to them than the plight of the homosexual is a curios phenomena to me.
It wouldn't be, if you'd read the thread. There are plenty of reasons given here why polygamous marriage is socially problematic in ways that gay marriage isn't. If you want to talk about those reasons, feel free. But pretending they're not there just makes you look ignorant.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
It's curious to you that we're skeptical of a demographic which has, historically, been patriarchal and oppressive to women, on an almost exclusive level? You're really wondering about that?
Or are you just throwing some loaded words into a couple of sentences to sound clever?
Do you believe that gay marriage is a right? Something fundamental that gay people deserve just as much as heterosexual people? Or do you believe that marriage is a privilege that society chooses to bestow upon gay people as a reward for being historically well-behaved and refraining from "patriarchal and oppressive" behavior?
Or are you just throwing some loaded words into a couple of sentences to sound clever?
People who compare polygamy discussion with gay marriage discussion need education.
It's natural to love another human being. If this love works in both ways for people with a decent cognitive development (aka adults), no one should have any problem with that.
Question for polygamy: is it possible to equally love more than one human?
I think the real discussion should be held on a psychological level. I don't know much about that, but personally, I think it would be a bad idea to give equally love to two humans being at the same time. This will mess up my brain so much. And that's only for one person. Imagine the psychological health of my two partners (jealousy is a natural reaction).
Also, if I have the right for polygamy, my partners will have that too. So his/her other partner has that right too,...
As you can see, this could end up in a chain, and that would be very very difficult to work this out practically.
Maybe, making laws for polygamy is just practically impossible :).
This society is not ready to speak about "one of my wife's husbands...". Some are not even ready to accept normal love, just because these lovers have the same sex.
Your argument raises some good concerns however.... not only is it not legal in the sense that polygamist couple cannot get a marriage license it is strictly illegal in the sense that if evidence of a "common law" marriage is in effect the couple (triple?) can be prosecuted with very steep punishment. Similar to how there is a huge difference between throwing gays in jail for being gay and giving gays the right to marry... There is a huge difference between saying "we recognize your multi-marriage" and "you live with multiple partners? go to jail!"
Question for polygamy: is it possible to equally love more than one human?
I think the real discussion should be held on a psychological level. I don't know much about that, but personally, I think it would be a bad idea to give equally love to two humans being at the same time. This will mess up my brain so much. And that's only for one person. Imagine the psychological health of my two partners (jealousy is a natural reaction).
Also, if I have the right for polygamy, my partners will have that too. So his/her other partner has that right too,...
As you can see, this could end up in a chain, and that would be very very difficult to work this out practically.
I agree with this. I watched a documentary on polygamy (of course that makes me an expert on the subject). Pretty much the director went through many polygamist relationships. Some couldn't share the love and some could. In the end, none of them worked. Even in the ones that were planned out, the people involved could not help but feel jealously. They even became paranoid at times.
You are correct this does not make you an expert. TLC has a show going right now about a polygamist family and while they have their issues they now have children entering college which tells me they made plural marriage work for at least 18 years with 3 wives. (I have a feeling adding the 4th wife plus TV cameras is what is causing the issues now). I am not saying I am an expert but that evidence shows that it is possible for a poly family to work for an extended period of time. Even if there was evidence that 80% of poly marriages ended in divorce that's no reason to ban them since we dont ban teen marriage or any other marriage configuration that tends to result in a short marriage.
Polygamy is legal in over 50 countries and is recognized by an additional dozen including Australia. Those countries haven't fallen apart because of polygamy.
It was legal in the U.S. until around the Civil War. Did polygamy cause untold chaos prior to that time; I haven't seen anything about it? I have helped people who married people already married (and thus engaged in polygamy), and guess what? They didn't die and their kids weren't taken away. They only used the anti-polygamy laws to nullify their marriages (thus making it faster than an actual divorce) and avoid paying alimony. Legalizing it should not really cause any problems other than ones manufactured to prevent it.
As a side note, laws are malum prohibitum (prohibited by statute) and malum in se (evil in itself). Polygamy falls into the malum prohibitum side which means that it is only prohibited because there is a law against it rather than it being considered evil in itself (like murder for example).
They only used the anti-polygamy laws to nullify their marriages (thus making it faster than an actual divorce) and avoid paying alimony. Legalizing it should not really cause any problems other than ones manufactured to prevent it.
Source? The maximum penalty for a polygamist with multiple partners is 20 years in prison it's something like 3 or 5 years for one of the "multiples". That's a heck of a penalty on a law that was only used to not have to go through divorce.
Polygamy is legal in over 50 countries and is recognized by an additional dozen including Australia. Those countries haven't fallen apart because of polygamy.
It was legal in the U.S. until around the Civil War. Did polygamy cause untold chaos prior to that time; I haven't seen anything about it? I have helped people who married people already married (and thus engaged in polygamy), and guess what? They didn't die and their kids weren't taken away. They only used the anti-polygamy laws to nullify their marriages (thus making it faster than an actual divorce) and avoid paying alimony. Legalizing it should not really cause any problems other than ones manufactured to prevent it.
As a side note, laws are malum prohibitum (prohibited by statute) and malum in se (evil in itself). Polygamy falls into the malum prohibitum side which means that it is only prohibited because there is a law against it rather than it being considered evil in itself (like murder for example).
If there were evidence which suggested equity in polygamous marriages, then I'd be more supportive. But there isn't. Just the opposite, in fact. Sure, you could probably point out one or two historical outliers, but they're not statistically significant in the grand scheme of things. Polygamous marriages are NOT equal: cultures which endorse them are almost exclusively patriarchal.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“A man's at odds to know his mind cause his mind is aught he has to know it with. He can know his heart, but he dont want to. Rightly so. Best not to look in there. It aint the heart of a creature that is bound in the way that God has set for it. You can find meanness in the least of creatures, but when God made man the devil was at his elbow. A creature that can do anything. Make a machine. And a machine to make the machine. And evil that can run itself a thousand years, no need to tend it.”
― Cormac McCarthy, Blood Meridian, or the Evening Redness in the West
If there were evidence which suggested equity in polygamous marriages, then I'd be more supportive. But there isn't. Just the opposite, in fact. Sure, you could probably point out one or two historical outliers, but they're not statistically significant in the grand scheme of things. Polygamous marriages are NOT equal: cultures which endorse them are almost exclusively patriarchal.
Most societies throughout history have been unequal and patriarchal. Therefore most polygamist societies have also been unequal and patriarchal. This does not necessarily imply that polygamy causes or worsens patriarchy.
This argument reminds me of the evangelical Christian argument that goes something like: "Ancient Greece tolerated homosexuality. Ancient Greece also tolerated pedophilia. Therefore tolerance of homosexuality leads to tolerance of pedophilia." Correlation does not imply causation. The onus is on you to show that polygamy causes inequality and patriarchy.
EDIT: This also goes to my previous point, to which you still haven't responded: Do you believe that gay marriage is a right, or do you believe that marriage is a privilege that society chooses to bestow upon gay people as a reward for being historically well-behaved and refraining from "patriarchal and oppressive" behavior?
If two gay people want to get married today, it wouldn't make sense to say "no, you can't get married because some ancient Greek gay people were pedophiles."
Likewise, if two men and two women want to enter into an equal, cooperative, four-way marriage, it doesn't make sense to tell them "no, you can't get married to one another because some 19th century Mormon polygamists [or ancient middle eastern polygamists, or whatever] were really sexist and patriarchal."
Maybe liberals only care about marriage issues when they can get their quota of republican bashing in it. Why the plight of the polygamist is of less concern to them than the plight of the homosexual is a curios phenomena to me.
A quick question do I get to call people who are anti polygamy bigots too?
Because they make polygaphobic remarks to try an scare people. There is no difference between the arguments used in this thread, and those used in the early part of the last century to deny gays their right to marry. Bigotry is bigotry.
Maybe liberals only care about marriage issues when they can get their quota of republican bashing in it. Why the plight of the polygamist is of less concern to them than the plight of the homosexual is a curios phenomena to me.
A quick question do I get to call people who are anti polygamy bigots too?
The question is also related to the the past history of the United States with polygamy. We had Mormonism here in the US entertain polygamy for quite sometime, we even had wars over it cited above since I'm lazy.
Now the problem with leftists is also that they do indeed fight polygamy cults in the US that create what are called Lost Boys:
In short, the Mormon cults will cull their young males during adolescence and abandon them so that it makes the elect few alpha males able to grapple with more wives. This social structure has long standing degenerative effects on societies. Look towards what happened to the success of Utah as a state after the abandonment of polygamy the same with the Mormons who moved to Mexico. Rather they created an entire system that includes a culture of success as well as one of the largest private charity systems in the US.
Equally, we see the abandonment of polygamy as a biological strategy in isolated villages of Tibetan regions. Prior to roads and bridge constructions, polygamy was high because of the amount of males or females born. So to decrease competition, men and women were able to marry multiple partners. Women could have multiple husbands, and men the inverse. I don't know how bisexuality and homosexuality worked there but let's go towards male-female marriage for now. After the amount of gender related mates evened out, pair bonding remained mostly two and polygamy decline sharply after one generation.
Equally, whenever we consider say Biblical polygamy or other forms of polygamy such as African. Marriage is used as a tool for social mobility and politics. You see this explicitly in the "foreign wives" of Solomon, to give you a Biblical idea and commonality.
Another point to look at is the cycle of fratricide for caliphs and harem politics through the Ottoman Empire. Since there could only be one alpha male, Ottoman sibling rivalries became basically Highlander.. except no swords and just strangulation.
So we have a power structure system in place to exhibit prolonged polygamy or cultural systems or geographical difficulty explaining multiple factors towards sustained polygamy.
Whereas pair bonded homosexuals with long term committed relationships has been more accustomed to their birth homes likely arranging from hedrosexually dominated households. Which basically maintains the social norms of the original models with some particular changes. This pair bonding strategies has worked in tribes where gender ratios and power structures remain even.
So the question of health and sustainability comes into the game on feasibility for polygamy and thus far. There just isn't a huge amount of would-be polygamists pushing for it, and the ones who do push for it in the US at least are considered uncouth with their cult, male dominated social hierarchies that create far reaching deleterious effects on external communities.
Therefore, polygamy experimentation in the US failed and elsewhere is declining, while monogamous hedrosexual relationships have so far thus shown stability and growth no similar nor different than that of anyone else.
We must also consider that the lack of "being married" means little for sexual morality these days. So as a person can get "more ass than a toilet seat" while single, the need for a person to accumulate marriages to increase sexual satisfaction among others is relatively low. Then there's also pornography, sex toys, and other factors to come into compliance with as well. Which would point towards more consumption of prostitution than one of multiple spouses.
We must also consider the complexity of polygamist relationships, where women or men have to take turns sleeping with their spouse and learn to live together. This creates multiple problems and room for arguments. There have been some people who have tried polygamy and "going in with an open mind" to in the end have hated it.
We must also consider living arrangements where multiple girlfriends or boyfriends live with someone, which does happen from time to time. Yet, those situations have yet to become normative because of the sheer complexity of sexual and economic reasons as well as the cultural impulse to get married to that "special one."
It's not really hypocritical, it just doesn't make any sense when you consider the logistical reasoning and the socio-cultural baggage. Whereas a handful of Biblical references doesn't make for secular democracies to make laws to abide with the Bible. As we have a long standing tradition for British Commonlaw and Roman Commonlaw in the west, to which the western tradition has indeed had some reluctant tolerance for homosexuality. Christianity did not actively persecute homosexuals until the 1300's.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Maybe liberals only care about marriage issues when they can get their quota of republican bashing in it. Why the plight of the polygamist is of less concern to them than the plight of the homosexual is a curios phenomena to me.
A quick question do I get to call people who are anti polygamy bigots too?
The question is also related to the the past history of the United States with polygamy. We had Mormonism here in the US entertain polygamy for quite sometime, we even had wars over it cited above since I'm lazy.
Now the problem with leftists is also that they do indeed fight polygamy cults in the US that create what are called Lost Boys:
In short, the Mormon cults will cull their young males during adolescence and abandon them so that it makes the elect few alpha males able to grapple with more wives. This social structure has long standing degenerative effects on societies. Look towards what happened to the success of Utah as a state after the abandonment of polygamy the same with the Mormons who moved to Mexico. Rather they created an entire system that includes a culture of success as well as one of the largest private charity systems in the US.
Equally, we see the abandonment of polygamy as a biological strategy in isolated villages of Tibetan regions. Prior to roads and bridge constructions, polygamy was high because of the amount of males or females born. So to decrease competition, men and women were able to marry multiple partners. Women could have multiple husbands, and men the inverse. I don't know how bisexuality and homosexuality worked there but let's go towards male-female marriage for now. After the amount of gender related mates evened out, pair bonding remained mostly two and polygamy decline sharply after one generation.
Equally, whenever we consider say Biblical polygamy or other forms of polygamy such as African. Marriage is used as a tool for social mobility and politics. You see this explicitly in the "foreign wives" of Solomon, to give you a Biblical idea and commonality.
Another point to look at is the cycle of fratricide for caliphs and harem politics through the Ottoman Empire. Since there could only be one alpha male, Ottoman sibling rivalries became basically Highlander.. except no swords and just strangulation.
So we have a power structure system in place to exhibit prolonged polygamy or cultural systems or geographical difficulty explaining multiple factors towards sustained polygamy.
Whereas pair bonded homosexuals with long term committed relationships has been more accustomed to their birth homes likely arranging from hedrosexually dominated households. Which basically maintains the social norms of the original models with some particular changes. This pair bonding strategies has worked in tribes where gender ratios and power structures remain even.
So the question of health and sustainability comes into the game on feasibility for polygamy and thus far. There just isn't a huge amount of would-be polygamists pushing for it, and the ones who do push for it in the US at least are considered uncouth with their cult, male dominated social hierarchies that create far reaching deleterious effects on external communities.
Therefore, polygamy experimentation in the US failed and elsewhere is declining, while monogamous hedrosexual relationships have so far thus shown stability and growth no similar nor different than that of anyone else.
We must also consider that the lack of "being married" means little for sexual morality these days. So as a person can get "more ass than a toilet seat" while single, the need for a person to accumulate marriages to increase sexual satisfaction among others is relatively low. Then there's also pornography, sex toys, and other factors to come into compliance with as well. Which would point towards more consumption of prostitution than one of multiple spouses.
We must also consider the complexity of polygamist relationships, where women or men have to take turns sleeping with their spouse and learn to live together. This creates multiple problems and room for arguments. There have been some people who have tried polygamy and "going in with an open mind" to in the end have hated it.
We must also consider living arrangements where multiple girlfriends or boyfriends live with someone, which does happen from time to time. Yet, those situations have yet to become normative because of the sheer complexity of sexual and economic reasons as well as the cultural impulse to get married to that "special one."
It's not really hypocritical, it just doesn't make any sense when you consider the logistical reasoning and the socio-cultural baggage. Whereas a handful of Biblical references doesn't make for secular democracies to make laws to abide with the Bible. As we have a long standing tradition for British Commonlaw and Roman Commonlaw in the west, to which the western tradition has indeed had some reluctant tolerance for homosexuality. Christianity did not actively persecute homosexuals until the 1300's.
Maybe liberals only care about marriage issues when they can get their quota of republican bashing in it. Why the plight of the polygamist is of less concern to them than the plight of the homosexual is a curios phenomena to me.
A quick question do I get to call people who are anti polygamy bigots too?
Because they make polygaphobic remarks to try an scare people. There is no difference between the arguments used in this thread, and those used in the early part of the last century to deny gays their right to marry. Bigotry is bigotry.
We must ask a more simpler question; why haven't polygamist activist groups been more successful? The simplest answer; there aren't any. Seriously I can't name one. Certainly I can name women's organizations, some gay rights organizations, and of course NAMBLA thanks to South Park. But beyond that, the polygamist right's movement sucks. When was the last time there was even a polygamist right's march? I can't even think to happen to know of one. And when we consider the Tibetan regions pre-roads and post-roads that actively practiced polygamy, we can presume safely that polygamy isn't a well supported strategy that will unlikely be accepted in the near future. My guess is until gay marriage is normal, and someone from Africa pushes for it under cultural reasons and wins through a court case. Or we have a massive influx of African polygamists.
Maybe liberals only care about marriage issues when they can get their quota of republican bashing in it. Why the plight of the polygamist is of less concern to them than the plight of the homosexual is a curios phenomena to me.
A quick question do I get to call people who are anti polygamy bigots too?
The question is also related to the the past history of the United States with polygamy. We had Mormonism here in the US entertain polygamy for quite sometime, we even had wars over it cited above since I'm lazy.
It also had to do with theocracy. At the time, most Americans still didn't want a church to control the government, yet one of the central goals of LDS is to establish a society modeled after ancient Israel, including a theocracy.
My own personal issue with Mormons is that they not only colonize the future, but the past. And the whole Mountain Meadows thing. (Which is kinda hilarious, when you consider the Reichstag fire conspiracy theory.)
But if they want, I'll buy them some steaks. (And see if anyone gets that joke.)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
Polygamy (and polyandry for that matter) would wreak havoc on the tax code, insurance law, and family law. As if these three things aren't already complicated to the point of ridiculousness.
Same-sex marriage is sticky enough with full faith and credit and the SCOTUS not taking a side due to the alleged lack of ripeness.
I grew up with a girl who's parents were in a working 3 person relationship consisting of two women and one man. The three of them shared a bed and were all in love/attracted to each other and it worked just like a two person relationship but with 3 people. I don't see why they shouldn't be able to get married all to one another, do you? We should just keep out of people's business, be it two men, a man and a woman, or two women and a man.
Polygamy (and polyandry for that matter) would wreak havoc on the tax code, insurance law, and family law. As if these three things aren't already complicated to the point of ridiculousness.
Same-sex marriage is sticky enough with full faith and credit and the SCOTUS not taking a side due to the alleged lack of ripeness.
Came to post this. How in the hell would the state work out the income tax breaks and homestead exemptions in plural marriage?
Polygamy (and polyandry for that matter) would wreak havoc on the tax code, insurance law, and family law. As if these three things aren't already complicated to the point of ridiculousness.
Same-sex marriage is sticky enough with full faith and credit and the SCOTUS not taking a side due to the alleged lack of ripeness.
Came to post this. How in the hell would the state work out the income tax breaks and homestead exemptions in plural marriage?
If polygamy were legalized we'd have more cases like Terry Schiavo's because you'd have at least three other people who had their own opinions about what should happen should a husband or wife become incapacitated without a living will or medical power of attorney.
Polygamy (and polyandry for that matter) would wreak havoc on the tax code, insurance law, and family law. As if these three things aren't already complicated to the point of ridiculousness.
Same-sex marriage is sticky enough with full faith and credit and the SCOTUS not taking a side due to the alleged lack of ripeness.
So... we should throw people in jail because their lifestyle is a paperwork mess?
If you didnt read the thread.... a man simply living with multiple wives (having a common law marriage) can face up to 20 years in prison.
Convenience should never be a reason for legal punishment.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Asking people to remove quotes in their signatures is tyranny! If I can't say something just because someone's feelings are hurt then no one would ever be able to say anything! Political correctness is stupid.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I agree with this. I watched a documentary on polygamy (of course that makes me an expert on the subject). Pretty much the director went through many polygamist relationships. Some couldn't share the love and some could. In the end, none of them worked. Even in the ones that were planned out, the people involved could not help but feel jealously. They even became paranoid at times.
Sexy Sig by mchief111 @ Rising Studios
EDH
G Isao
A quick question do I get to call people who are anti polygamy bigots too?
It's curious to you that we're skeptical of a demographic which has, historically, been patriarchal and oppressive to women, on an almost exclusive level? You're really wondering about that?
Or are you just throwing some loaded words into a couple of sentences to sound clever?
― Cormac McCarthy, Blood Meridian, or the Evening Redness in the West
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Do you believe that gay marriage is a right? Something fundamental that gay people deserve just as much as heterosexual people? Or do you believe that marriage is a privilege that society chooses to bestow upon gay people as a reward for being historically well-behaved and refraining from "patriarchal and oppressive" behavior?
Or are you just throwing some loaded words into a couple of sentences to sound clever?
Your argument raises some good concerns however.... not only is it not legal in the sense that polygamist couple cannot get a marriage license it is strictly illegal in the sense that if evidence of a "common law" marriage is in effect the couple (triple?) can be prosecuted with very steep punishment. Similar to how there is a huge difference between throwing gays in jail for being gay and giving gays the right to marry... There is a huge difference between saying "we recognize your multi-marriage" and "you live with multiple partners? go to jail!"
You are correct this does not make you an expert. TLC has a show going right now about a polygamist family and while they have their issues they now have children entering college which tells me they made plural marriage work for at least 18 years with 3 wives. (I have a feeling adding the 4th wife plus TV cameras is what is causing the issues now). I am not saying I am an expert but that evidence shows that it is possible for a poly family to work for an extended period of time. Even if there was evidence that 80% of poly marriages ended in divorce that's no reason to ban them since we dont ban teen marriage or any other marriage configuration that tends to result in a short marriage.
It was legal in the U.S. until around the Civil War. Did polygamy cause untold chaos prior to that time; I haven't seen anything about it? I have helped people who married people already married (and thus engaged in polygamy), and guess what? They didn't die and their kids weren't taken away. They only used the anti-polygamy laws to nullify their marriages (thus making it faster than an actual divorce) and avoid paying alimony. Legalizing it should not really cause any problems other than ones manufactured to prevent it.
As a side note, laws are malum prohibitum (prohibited by statute) and malum in se (evil in itself). Polygamy falls into the malum prohibitum side which means that it is only prohibited because there is a law against it rather than it being considered evil in itself (like murder for example).
Source? The maximum penalty for a polygamist with multiple partners is 20 years in prison it's something like 3 or 5 years for one of the "multiples". That's a heck of a penalty on a law that was only used to not have to go through divorce.
If there were evidence which suggested equity in polygamous marriages, then I'd be more supportive. But there isn't. Just the opposite, in fact. Sure, you could probably point out one or two historical outliers, but they're not statistically significant in the grand scheme of things. Polygamous marriages are NOT equal: cultures which endorse them are almost exclusively patriarchal.
― Cormac McCarthy, Blood Meridian, or the Evening Redness in the West
Most societies throughout history have been unequal and patriarchal. Therefore most polygamist societies have also been unequal and patriarchal. This does not necessarily imply that polygamy causes or worsens patriarchy.
This argument reminds me of the evangelical Christian argument that goes something like: "Ancient Greece tolerated homosexuality. Ancient Greece also tolerated pedophilia. Therefore tolerance of homosexuality leads to tolerance of pedophilia." Correlation does not imply causation. The onus is on you to show that polygamy causes inequality and patriarchy.
EDIT: This also goes to my previous point, to which you still haven't responded: Do you believe that gay marriage is a right, or do you believe that marriage is a privilege that society chooses to bestow upon gay people as a reward for being historically well-behaved and refraining from "patriarchal and oppressive" behavior?
If two gay people want to get married today, it wouldn't make sense to say "no, you can't get married because some ancient Greek gay people were pedophiles."
Likewise, if two men and two women want to enter into an equal, cooperative, four-way marriage, it doesn't make sense to tell them "no, you can't get married to one another because some 19th century Mormon polygamists [or ancient middle eastern polygamists, or whatever] were really sexist and patriarchal."
Because they make polygaphobic remarks to try an scare people. There is no difference between the arguments used in this thread, and those used in the early part of the last century to deny gays their right to marry. Bigotry is bigotry.
BUWGRChilds PlayGRWUB
BUWGR Highlander GRWUB
UBSquee's Shapeshifting PetBU
BW Multiplayer Control WB
RG Changeling GR
UR Mana FlareRU
UMerfolkU
B MBMC B
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_War_(1838)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_War
The question is also related to the the past history of the United States with polygamy. We had Mormonism here in the US entertain polygamy for quite sometime, we even had wars over it cited above since I'm lazy.
Now the problem with leftists is also that they do indeed fight polygamy cults in the US that create what are called Lost Boys:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_boys_(Mormon_fundamentalism)
In short, the Mormon cults will cull their young males during adolescence and abandon them so that it makes the elect few alpha males able to grapple with more wives. This social structure has long standing degenerative effects on societies. Look towards what happened to the success of Utah as a state after the abandonment of polygamy the same with the Mormons who moved to Mexico. Rather they created an entire system that includes a culture of success as well as one of the largest private charity systems in the US.
Equally, we see the abandonment of polygamy as a biological strategy in isolated villages of Tibetan regions. Prior to roads and bridge constructions, polygamy was high because of the amount of males or females born. So to decrease competition, men and women were able to marry multiple partners. Women could have multiple husbands, and men the inverse. I don't know how bisexuality and homosexuality worked there but let's go towards male-female marriage for now. After the amount of gender related mates evened out, pair bonding remained mostly two and polygamy decline sharply after one generation.
Equally, whenever we consider say Biblical polygamy or other forms of polygamy such as African. Marriage is used as a tool for social mobility and politics. You see this explicitly in the "foreign wives" of Solomon, to give you a Biblical idea and commonality.
Another point to look at is the cycle of fratricide for caliphs and harem politics through the Ottoman Empire. Since there could only be one alpha male, Ottoman sibling rivalries became basically Highlander.. except no swords and just strangulation.
So we have a power structure system in place to exhibit prolonged polygamy or cultural systems or geographical difficulty explaining multiple factors towards sustained polygamy.
Whereas pair bonded homosexuals with long term committed relationships has been more accustomed to their birth homes likely arranging from hedrosexually dominated households. Which basically maintains the social norms of the original models with some particular changes. This pair bonding strategies has worked in tribes where gender ratios and power structures remain even.
So the question of health and sustainability comes into the game on feasibility for polygamy and thus far. There just isn't a huge amount of would-be polygamists pushing for it, and the ones who do push for it in the US at least are considered uncouth with their cult, male dominated social hierarchies that create far reaching deleterious effects on external communities.
Therefore, polygamy experimentation in the US failed and elsewhere is declining, while monogamous hedrosexual relationships have so far thus shown stability and growth no similar nor different than that of anyone else.
We must also consider that the lack of "being married" means little for sexual morality these days. So as a person can get "more ass than a toilet seat" while single, the need for a person to accumulate marriages to increase sexual satisfaction among others is relatively low. Then there's also pornography, sex toys, and other factors to come into compliance with as well. Which would point towards more consumption of prostitution than one of multiple spouses.
We must also consider the complexity of polygamist relationships, where women or men have to take turns sleeping with their spouse and learn to live together. This creates multiple problems and room for arguments. There have been some people who have tried polygamy and "going in with an open mind" to in the end have hated it.
We must also consider living arrangements where multiple girlfriends or boyfriends live with someone, which does happen from time to time. Yet, those situations have yet to become normative because of the sheer complexity of sexual and economic reasons as well as the cultural impulse to get married to that "special one."
It's not really hypocritical, it just doesn't make any sense when you consider the logistical reasoning and the socio-cultural baggage. Whereas a handful of Biblical references doesn't make for secular democracies to make laws to abide with the Bible. As we have a long standing tradition for British Commonlaw and Roman Commonlaw in the west, to which the western tradition has indeed had some reluctant tolerance for homosexuality. Christianity did not actively persecute homosexuals until the 1300's.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_War_(1838)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_War
The question is also related to the the past history of the United States with polygamy. We had Mormonism here in the US entertain polygamy for quite sometime, we even had wars over it cited above since I'm lazy.
Now the problem with leftists is also that they do indeed fight polygamy cults in the US that create what are called Lost Boys:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_boys_(Mormon_fundamentalism)
In short, the Mormon cults will cull their young males during adolescence and abandon them so that it makes the elect few alpha males able to grapple with more wives. This social structure has long standing degenerative effects on societies. Look towards what happened to the success of Utah as a state after the abandonment of polygamy the same with the Mormons who moved to Mexico. Rather they created an entire system that includes a culture of success as well as one of the largest private charity systems in the US.
Equally, we see the abandonment of polygamy as a biological strategy in isolated villages of Tibetan regions. Prior to roads and bridge constructions, polygamy was high because of the amount of males or females born. So to decrease competition, men and women were able to marry multiple partners. Women could have multiple husbands, and men the inverse. I don't know how bisexuality and homosexuality worked there but let's go towards male-female marriage for now. After the amount of gender related mates evened out, pair bonding remained mostly two and polygamy decline sharply after one generation.
Equally, whenever we consider say Biblical polygamy or other forms of polygamy such as African. Marriage is used as a tool for social mobility and politics. You see this explicitly in the "foreign wives" of Solomon, to give you a Biblical idea and commonality.
Another point to look at is the cycle of fratricide for caliphs and harem politics through the Ottoman Empire. Since there could only be one alpha male, Ottoman sibling rivalries became basically Highlander.. except no swords and just strangulation.
So we have a power structure system in place to exhibit prolonged polygamy or cultural systems or geographical difficulty explaining multiple factors towards sustained polygamy.
Whereas pair bonded homosexuals with long term committed relationships has been more accustomed to their birth homes likely arranging from hedrosexually dominated households. Which basically maintains the social norms of the original models with some particular changes. This pair bonding strategies has worked in tribes where gender ratios and power structures remain even.
So the question of health and sustainability comes into the game on feasibility for polygamy and thus far. There just isn't a huge amount of would-be polygamists pushing for it, and the ones who do push for it in the US at least are considered uncouth with their cult, male dominated social hierarchies that create far reaching deleterious effects on external communities.
Therefore, polygamy experimentation in the US failed and elsewhere is declining, while monogamous hedrosexual relationships have so far thus shown stability and growth no similar nor different than that of anyone else.
We must also consider that the lack of "being married" means little for sexual morality these days. So as a person can get "more ass than a toilet seat" while single, the need for a person to accumulate marriages to increase sexual satisfaction among others is relatively low. Then there's also pornography, sex toys, and other factors to come into compliance with as well. Which would point towards more consumption of prostitution than one of multiple spouses.
We must also consider the complexity of polygamist relationships, where women or men have to take turns sleeping with their spouse and learn to live together. This creates multiple problems and room for arguments. There have been some people who have tried polygamy and "going in with an open mind" to in the end have hated it.
We must also consider living arrangements where multiple girlfriends or boyfriends live with someone, which does happen from time to time. Yet, those situations have yet to become normative because of the sheer complexity of sexual and economic reasons as well as the cultural impulse to get married to that "special one."
It's not really hypocritical, it just doesn't make any sense when you consider the logistical reasoning and the socio-cultural baggage. Whereas a handful of Biblical references doesn't make for secular democracies to make laws to abide with the Bible. As we have a long standing tradition for British Commonlaw and Roman Commonlaw in the west, to which the western tradition has indeed had some reluctant tolerance for homosexuality. Christianity did not actively persecute homosexuals until the 1300's.
We must ask a more simpler question; why haven't polygamist activist groups been more successful? The simplest answer; there aren't any. Seriously I can't name one. Certainly I can name women's organizations, some gay rights organizations, and of course NAMBLA thanks to South Park. But beyond that, the polygamist right's movement sucks. When was the last time there was even a polygamist right's march? I can't even think to happen to know of one. And when we consider the Tibetan regions pre-roads and post-roads that actively practiced polygamy, we can presume safely that polygamy isn't a well supported strategy that will unlikely be accepted in the near future. My guess is until gay marriage is normal, and someone from Africa pushes for it under cultural reasons and wins through a court case. Or we have a massive influx of African polygamists.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
It also had to do with theocracy. At the time, most Americans still didn't want a church to control the government, yet one of the central goals of LDS is to establish a society modeled after ancient Israel, including a theocracy.
My own personal issue with Mormons is that they not only colonize the future, but the past. And the whole Mountain Meadows thing. (Which is kinda hilarious, when you consider the Reichstag fire conspiracy theory.)
But if they want, I'll buy them some steaks. (And see if anyone gets that joke.)
On phasing:
Same-sex marriage is sticky enough with full faith and credit and the SCOTUS not taking a side due to the alleged lack of ripeness.
Came to post this. How in the hell would the state work out the income tax breaks and homestead exemptions in plural marriage?
If polygamy were legalized we'd have more cases like Terry Schiavo's because you'd have at least three other people who had their own opinions about what should happen should a husband or wife become incapacitated without a living will or medical power of attorney.
And many other cases like the ones we mentioned.
So... we should throw people in jail because their lifestyle is a paperwork mess?
If you didnt read the thread.... a man simply living with multiple wives (having a common law marriage) can face up to 20 years in prison.