posted
I'm hearing a lot of "if gay marriage is ok why isn't polygamy ok" arguments.
Well, heck, why do we still have laws against polygamy? If a group of people love each other, why shouldn't we give them the right to marry?
The only thing I worry about is the exploitation of women in such marriages. But given the advances we have made in gender equality, is that still a huge concern? Please share your views on why polygamy should not be legal.
edited to add: No, I'm not looking to practice polygamy myself. I have enough trouble pleasing one woman, the thought of having a couple around the house absolutely terrifies me.
posted
I have to point out that, even though Saints was written by a Mormon, that book gave me the WORST vibes about polygamy. All I could think about was how much all the women suffered, (and the men too). It made me cry more than any other book.
Not that it explains why I think it should be illegal. I just don't see how ANYONE benefits.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
In the last century, the only polygamist marriages had unequal rights for women. Look at all the polygamists in the nation these days: an older man married to one or two women and four children. In fact, outside of Islam (which is also heavily debatable), polygamist marriages throughout history have gone hand in hand with unequal treatment of women.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, by definition, polygamist relationships are not equal for the men and the women.
But John, if those people don't want to live in equal relationships, who are you to force them? How is that different from forcing your religious beliefs on someone else?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, one of my friends had to read an essay about how great polygamy was, written by a woman whose husband had several wives. I read it too (yes, I do read textbooks for fun, your point?) and it really made polygamy seem quite attractive.
EDIT: It was some kind of required tolerance class for the dorm she was living in.
Do you think our society will ever reach a point where women have enough equality so that a legalization of polygamy would not result in the marginalization of women.
If so, how far do you think we have to go before that happens?
Posts: 1592 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yes, by definition, polygamist relationships are not equal for the men and the women.
I can understand that polygamy can be unequal if it is practiced within a society where women do not have equal rights. But there is nothing inherently unequal about the concept of polygamy (i.e. women can have multiple husbands as well).
Posts: 1592 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The thing that worries me about polygamy, at least as it seems to exist in the groups that practice it in this country today, is that they seem to have this habit of marrying off fourteen and fifteen year old girls and not giving them any choice in the matter. I have a huge problem with that.
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:But John, if those people don't want to live in equal relationships, who are you to force them? How is that different from forcing your religious beliefs on someone else?
People already live that way. Making inequality legal is unconstitutional. And if it were constitutional, this would not be a country I would be proud to be a part of. In fact, endorsing such a thing would make it equitable to Iraq, a country a lot of people in this one fought so hard to kick the despots out of.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
John, so you are saying that because the constitution ensures everybody equality, we should NOT legally recognize relationships that are inherently unequal. While I don't agree, that is a valid point.
Please tell me if I am putting words in your mouth. I am honestly trying to understand your view.
quote: Widows who have children to raise would benefit.
They would benefit from marrying single men as well.
Beren:
Saints described many women in different situations involved in polygamy.
One was a wife that "couldn't be told" about her husband's other wife. Everyone else in town knew though, and when she found out it almost killed her.
One was a woman that couldn't tell anyone that she was married and suffered for it.
Two were women that had to learn to share the same husband, each knowing that he loved the other and shared secrets with her that first could never understand.
quote:John, so you are saying that because the constitution ensures everybody equality, we should legally recognize relationships that are inherently unequal. While I don't agree, that is a valid point.
Actually, there are laws in every single state that strictly prohibit unequal treatment, especially in marriage. And I never said that the relationships that exist—even the polygamists in the SouthWest (they exist, look them up)—are legally endorsed by those laws. In fact, those people are breaking those laws. Yet they aren't prosecuted until they do something that can be used against them in court, so don't begin to turn this into some "unfairly prosecuted" argument, either.
And don't twist what I say. Don't play ignorant, either. It's condescending and just an indicator that you have no real argument.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
This has nothing to do with it being legalized, but I just don't see widespread polygamy working well in any situation except where there are many more females than males, such as war.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd hate to be in a polygamous marriage. It seems like it would not be much fun... Then again...
My only problem is that polygamy would: Produce way too many children, resources are dwindling enough as it is. That it would not be completely about love... but something else. Orginally it was more about getting a son any way possible.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What does unequal treatment in marriage entail? Is that like divorce laws that favor one sex over the other?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think you guys are using the historical examples of multiple partner marriage a bit too rigidly.
In this day and age I can easily imagine situations where there are two bisexual women and one man. Or even two bisexual men and one woman. Is there really anything we can think of wrong with that situation if all parties involved were happy?
I do agree that the set-ups with a man in his 40s and a bunch of women, most often underage, is a terrible thing.
Are there any cultures in the US which would really do this though? I mean, the fundamentalist Mormons in Utah maybe, but I can't even see the LDS church bringing them back.
So yeah, I don't see anything wrong with them being legal really. I am on the fence as to whether our society is ready though. I'm leaning toward it not being ready. Maybe in 20-30 years.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Does this mean I can rest assured that if gay marriage will be legalized there is still a snowball's chance in my microwave that polygamy will be? Huzzah!
quote:In this day and age I can easily imagine situations where there are two bisexual women and one man. Or even two bisexual men and one woman. Is there really anything we can think of wrong with that situation if all parties involved were happy?
Yeah, when it's imaginary. Imaginary, meaning not real. In the real world, things are much, much different.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
*shrug* Personally, I don't see any obvious argument against polygamy that holds up to logic. As it doesn't seem to involve any inherent harm to society, I don't see anything wrong with it -- provided, of course, that typical rules involving consent are applied.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well John, your modern day abusive polygamous relationships are imaginary too, beyond rural Utah. Do you really think that what happens there is indicative of what it would be for the rest of the country?
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, actually, I do. Mostly because they were before, and they are in other parts of the world. In other words, your hypothetical, imaginary situation has no example to back up its assertion. Until I can see otherwise (maybe swingers? nope.), then I remain unconvinced.
[ March 08, 2004, 11:54 PM: Message edited by: John L ]
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's hard for me to imagine polygamy ever being politically correct like homosexuality has become. I don't know why I think that. Maybe because right now it's pretty much only followed (in the states) by Christians.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No for the vice-versa question. And I say this because polygamy, unlike homosexuality (which was obviously where this was headed), has had its chance and fallen short of treating everyone in the relationship as equal citizens.
And once again, I am not against polygamy as a theory. I'm against every institution in which it has been used, and see no example or logical way to reinstate it without it turning into the same thing all over again. If that could be avoided, then polygamy wouldn't have the current stigma it has.
[ March 09, 2004, 12:07 AM: Message edited by: John L ]
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I don't see how that's true. There have been many cultures that practiced polygamy. It's not always a religious thing. It's a marriage thing.
Name each one, and you will find religious precedence used in each one.
Leto, that seems illogical to me. Let's take a Godless view for a moment. Polygynous groups are quite natural in the animal world. Most if not all apes organize themselves thus. Do you believe we are glorified apes? If so, it stands to reason that polygyny was the way things were done. Monogamy would have come into practice at some point, but polygyny seemed to be widely accepted as a valid form of marriage in numerous histories.
From this Godless viewpoint, it makes more sense to say that as religions developed, many of them addressed polygamy in one way or another, not to preserve it, but to deal with it as a practice already widely accepted. LDS polygamy is the only instance I can think of of polygyny being introduced to a society that only accepted monogamy. So how do you come to the conclusion that people thoughout history practiced polygamy for religious reasons?
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Our society is amongst the most equal ever in the history of the world. If polygamy were ever to be practiced in a mature, respectful way, now would be a great time.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
heh. You'd probably get people saying, "God created Adam and Eve not Adam, Eve, Lois, Jane, Clara, Stella...." Then other people would point to, say, Solomon and his many wives and the argument would go on for hours... I'm way more likely to support monogamy (hetero or homo), but what about polyandry?
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting, the famed "Song of Solomon" grew out of a polygynous marriage. Many people look upon it as awfully romantic.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
*shrug* I look at it as a metaphor . . . but in any case, it is addressed to only ONE woman, is it not?
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmm. Ok, I'll have to look again. (It has been a while.) Can you point me at particular chapters and/or verses?
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Synesthesia, while it is truthfully less common, I know of polyandrous groups out there. In fact, I can't remember the source now, but there was at one time an Asian culture that practiced polyandry fairly commonly. Not what you would expect, huh?
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
What about Abraham, Issac, and Jacob? Didn't all of them have more than one wife? The 12 tribes of Israel were born of Polygamous relationships. I think David and Solomon are used as examples of using poligamy for your own lusts (and then extended as an argument against poligamy altogether while ignoring the Patriarchs).
As for polygamy as less stable and equal than monogamy, the current institution of marriage isn't faring too hot either. All the problems I have heard polygamy causes happen just as much in monogamous relationships. Its not the system that is the problem, it is the people.
quote: As the Bible's primary example of this consider the Song of Songs. This Bible book is the only Bible book exclusively written as a love story and as such is a unique Biblical statement defining the joys of marital love. In the Christian world the book is seen as a representation of Christ's love marriage to the Church. Of course, traditional Christians thus see the book through a decidedly monogamous lense. In terms of the relationship between Solomon and the Shulamite who are the principles of the story this is superficially justifiable. Their statements to and about each other reveal a deep and passionate union that most modern Christians would see as the Christian monogamy ideal.
Yet, we all know that Solomon had multiple wives - and did during the time of the relationship with the Shulamite as celebrated within the book that he wrote. In fact, within the book Solomon includes reference to his already many "queens" and "concubines" as part of the love story, saying:
"There are threescore queens, and fourscore concubines, and virgins without number. My dove, my undefiled is but one; she is the only one of her mother, she is the choice one of her that bare her. The daughters saw her, and blessed her; yea, the queens and the concubines, and they praised her." Songs 6:8, 9
Thus, Songs sees no conflict whatsoever between the integrity of Solomon's marriage to the Shulamite and his other existing marriages. In fact, the praise of the existing wives for the new bride is so easily brought into the story without disruption to the general theme of the love story between Solomon and his new bride that it is almost breathtaking when viewed from the modern perspective. Here no "polygamy conflict" is in view. It is just marriage brought into focus as viewed within Solomon's larger family.
From this website. If I find more info, I will post it.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it would set a dangerous precedent: if we legalize polygamy, next thing you know gays will use this as an argument to legitimize gay marriage.
Stay away from slippery slopes!
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Occasional, Abraham took a second wife only when his first was barren AND told him to do so; Isaac had one wife; Jacob took his second wife when he was tricked out of marrying her in the first place, and third and fourth at the behest of the first and second. None was polygamous by original preference or as a preferred arrangement.
David was polygamous both as a political tool and by preference, but never to the excesses that Solomon took it.
beverly, that's more "off in the wings" then I thought you meant. Remember, most of Solomon's wives were for political reasons, or other reasons having little to do with a deep relationship. Only the Shulamite was his beloved -- and so one man and one woman is STILL seen as the ideal, even in Solomon's many-wived life.
IMO, of course. And as I said, I find Song of Songs far more beautiful on a metaphoric level.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
John L, I would like to see some evidence to back up your assertion that in the last century, the only polygamist marriages had unequal rights for women. All marriages in the 1800's had unequal rights for women so the only fair comparison is between women in monogomous marriages in the 1800s and women in polygamous relationships in the 1800s.
Study's of this nature have been done and do not support your contention\. All the evidence suggests that LDS women in polymist marriages in the 1800s were better educated, more independent, more likely to be involved in community, had fewer children and were in most ways more "equal" to men than women in monogomous relationships at the time.
This stands in stark contrast to women who participate in polymist sects today.
I can see no logical reason to legally prohibit polygamy as long as the women and men involved in the relationships are consenting adults and the men in the relationships are held to the same standards for child support as men who divorce one wife and marry another.
But then of course, I think that the government should get out of the marriage business all together. Marriage has the unfortunate position of being both a religious/moral institution and a legal institution. Legally, marriage brings with it finanical and social rights and responsibilites, but it also carries a historic religious conotation which endows moral legitimacy to the sexual relationships within a marriage. From my perspective, the government does not and can not have the moral authority to decide what human relationships are legitimate and which are not. The morality and ethics of our personal relationships can not be decide by either majority vote or executive order. If we continue to allow the government to decide who can marry and who can not marry, we move what should be a personal and religious decision to the political realm. Both those who wish to protect the traditional ideal of marriage and those who want to see the legal rights associated with marriage extended to all commited adult relationships, stand to loose by politicizing the issue.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Hmm. Ok, I'll have to look again. (It has been a while.) Can you point me at particular chapters and/or verses?
I just skimmed through shir hashirim, and I can see what beverly is talking about. In several places, the plural is used, which only makes sense, since Shir Hashirim is an allegory for the love between Hashem and Bnei Yisroel.
quote:What about Abraham, Issac, and Jacob? Didn't all of them have more than one wife?
Isaac had only one wife, and only the child that Abraham had with Sarah was the grandfather of the twelve tribes.
Posts: 196 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am not arguing that polygamy is an ideal. I am only arguing that there is nothing inherently wrong with it, if one uses the scriptures to condemn the practice.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Remember, most of Solomon's wives were for political reasons, or other reasons having little to do with a deep relationship. Only the Shulamite was his beloved -- and so one man and one woman is STILL seen as the ideal, even in Solomon's many-wived life.![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
IMO, of course. And as I said, I find Song of Songs far more beautiful on a metaphoric level.
