Polygamy?

[Shjade]

I was responding to the hypothetical idea that polygamy and rape are comparable activities.

[Jude]

Polygamy is opposed for a multitude of reasons, supposed ethical considerations for example, but a lot of those reasons are poor.  That doesn't mean it should be allowed in the framework of our current culture, however.  As long as being marriage in the US grants extra benefits (sharing insurance and tax brackets/deductions) polygamy would be far too messy to enshrine into law.

If you want to consider yourself married to multiple people, by all means.  If you want to perform religious ceremonies that officiate that in a spiritual sense, sure.  But there is a difference between popular culture's current refusal to confer the benefits of marriage between homosexuals and that refusal to do so for a group of people.  The most obvious difference is numerical, but there are a number of legal problems too.

I pretty much agree with what Trieste said; if we stopped respecting marriage as a government recognized institution, I wouldn't give a crap who marries who, even if there are 4 or 5 whos.

That doesn't mean I necessarily think pologamy would be a healthy or successful arrangement for most people, but hey, if that's what they want to do with their life, who am I to tell them no?

[Myrleena]

Thanks Mormons, for blowing it for the rest of us!

As a lapsed Mormon, I feel a bit...annoyed when people bring things like this up.  I'll point out that, in a number of cases (and my own family history) a good part of why polygamy came about was because there simply were more women than men in the LDS church.  This, likely as not, was what led to the leaders saying that polygamy was a good thing in the Church.

Of course, it wasn't their fault that it became a 'social cause' at the time.  And that the Supreme Court ruled that it wasn't protected under the Constitution.  Or that they were effectively forced to give it up in order to gain support for Utah to become a state. (Some details here).

And, I will add, the Fundamentalist LDS Church is...frightening.  And embarrassing to pretty much everyone who lives in Utah.  When most of the poor children who grow up there don't hear anything about the outside world except for how corrupt it is, and are indoctrinated into it from childhood...it's frightening to me.  Most of them aren't taught anything about the outside world.  No television, save for sermons recorded by their prophet.  Please...don't compare most Mormons to that.  To me, it's just as sickening as comparing most Muslims to members of al Qaeda.  I know that might seem to be hyperbole, but it isn't to me.


As to actual polygamy...I don't see why it shouldn't be allowed.  As long as those participating know what they're getting into, and are of appropriate age...why should we stop them?  *shrugs*

[Yorubi]

So long as both parties consent to it (and not for 'extra benefits' alone as its mentioned) then really I see no reason for a person to be denied their right to do so. If its not causing actual harm to people (and no, the fact that it exists doesn't cause harm to you, don't pull that bs on people) then there is no reason it can't be accepted by society. Its just like gay marriage where there are about a dozen reason why it shouldn't happen and most are just fake excuses. I remember that opera moment (shhh my mom watches it I just happened to see it) where a woman stood up about gays and said that the little boys would be raped by the older men if it happened, and opera stood up and went "what about the straight guys doing it?" which I found hilarious (yes I know its not a 'nice' subject by the context of that point was just ridiculous).

As i said before, if all parties consent to it and are of legal age to decide on their own, they are within their own right to do so.

[Martee]

My apologies - I should have been more specific in that flippant comment. I thought it was obvious that I meant the fundamentalist LDS who marry underage girls and abandon their young men. I certainly don't have that opinion of all Mormons.

I'll be more careful in the future.

As a lapsed Mormon, I feel a bit...annoyed when people bring things like this up.  I'll point out that, in a number of cases (and my own family history) a good part of why polygamy came about was because there simply were more women than men in the LDS church.  This, likely as not, was what led to the leaders saying that polygamy was a good thing in the Church.

Of course, it wasn't their fault that it became a 'social cause' at the time.  And that the Supreme Court ruled that it wasn't protected under the Constitution.  Or that they were effectively forced to give it up in order to gain support for Utah to become a state. (Some details here[/url).

And, I will add, the Fundamentalist LDS Church is...frightening.  And embarrassing to pretty much everyone who lives in Utah.  When most of the poor children who grow up there don't hear anything about the outside world except for how corrupt it is, and are indoctrinated into it from childhood...it's frightening to me.  Most of them aren't taught anything about the outside world.  No television, save for sermons recorded by their prophet.  Please...don't compare most Mormons to that.  To me, it's just as sickening as comparing most Muslims to members of al Qaeda.  I know that might seem to be hyperbole, but it isn't to me.


As to actual polygamy...I don't see why it shouldn't be allowed.  As long as those participating know what they're getting into, and are of appropriate age...why should we stop them?  *shrugs*

[Star Safyre]

I have to echo the sentiments of Jude and Trieste.  I, like many others here, have no issue with polyamory and any variety of open relationship, however it's the legality of entitlements, insurance, and inheritance that seem an impossible tangle.  Such things are complicated enough with ex-spouses and children by multiple couplings.  Would child paternity need to be confirmed via DNA with every birth?  How would the law handle, for instance, if A is married to B, C, and D, and D is married to E who is married to F.  If D dies, who has rights to D's assets?  D's children?  D's entitlements?  A and E?  Would F get any share?  What about D's sibling spouses?

Also, unlike marriage between homosexuals, I don't think the majority would demand such a right, as a few have pointed out the unpopularity of the concept based on negative attitudes toward the religious groups who have practiced it or based our culture's seeming monogamy-normative morals (regardless of popular habits).  I say let any adult bed, love, and share their lives with any other consenting adult(s), but, legally, I don't think the law could handle the tangled weave of polygamy.

[Myrleena]

My apologies - I should have been more specific in that flippant comment. I thought it was obvious that I meant the fundamentalist LDS who marry underage girls and abandon their young men. I certainly don't have that opinion of all Mormons.

I'll be more careful in the future.

Eh, it was just the vague feeling in the thread that got to me.  I didn't mean to call you out in particular.  To put it mildly, everyone in Utah suffers the dual stigma of both the misunderstandings involving the LDS Church, which is the dominant religion, and the FLDS.  When I moved to California for a time, you wouldn't believe the shit that I got for being from Utah.

Although I have to say, there are plenty of reasons the Federal Government did what they did.  Brigham Young was setting himself up as effectively a ruler out here...and it's kind of creepy when you start looking at what he was doing. *shivers*

[Will]

I was responding to the hypothetical idea that polygamy and rape are comparable activities.

In the public consciousness, they are.  That's my point.

[Belladonna1]

As long as being marriage in the US grants extra benefits (sharing insurance and tax brackets/deductions) polygamy would be far too messy to enshrine into law

Yes! I think that THAT is the true bottom line and I can perfectly understand it NOT being recognized by the government- at any level ( local, state, federal) - like a traditional marriage between a man and a woman is -  but it leads back to my original issue/question of not seeing why it should be deemed a punishable offense ( against the law).  Someone earlier made a comment about infidelity NOT being against the law- which, to me, would be in the same catagory of things the government should NOT be involved in-   

[Star Safyre]

I think its punishment is based in the assumption that having multiple marriages either involves duplicity and romantic dishonesty or religious behavior the majority deems cult-like.  Now both of these reasons are barring marriages in which minors have been coerced into the union.

[Oniya]

Just to weigh in on the legality issues, all of the inheritance issues can be dealt with by having a decent will, which is something that anyone with assets and a family should have in the first place.  Paternity issues may not need to be dealt with by tests as long as the people who are 'fluid-bonding' keep track of who they're with and when - and if there's any confusion, then a paternity test might be advisable, if only for medical reasons (if Person D fathers Child M, and has a history of prostate cancer, but Person B as another potential father in the poly-group has no such history, Child M should have an accurate family medical history to go by.)

[little princess]

I still think everyone,no matter of gender should have the right to marry.some people are against polygamy because in the past many of the husbands would have wives as young as 8 or 9  and as many as 16 or more and they would brain wash their wives into what of them that escaped called slaver where they wouldn`t be allowed to leave the house without them, they could only talk to the people their husbands approved and many times they even had to marry off the young daughters to their husbands friends or sometimes even their own husbands themselves. But the only reason the sister wives show was started was to some people out there that its not always like that
I support them

[samantha_cs]

I think the original reason polygamy was made illegal was because the wives (and it was almost always wives of one husband) were often coerced into marrying. That's not a bad reason to make the practice illegal, especially in a time when women had a much more difficult time standing up for their own rights.

That said, it seems to me that in the modern first world, such concerns are dramatically reduced. I don't have a problem with fully consenting adults multiple-marrying one another.

However, I will point out that some of the polygamous/polyamourous relationships I've seen, have been far more prone to be unstable and have detonated in truly spectacular fashion when things went wrong.

[Oniya]

The potential for instability and detonation increases exponentially with the number of people in the relationship, but that's almost to be expected.  With two people, there's one 'relationship' that you're dealing with.  With three people, you have the three 'pair' relationships (A with B, B with C, and A with C) and the triad as a whole.  With four - yeah, it starts getting complex really quick.  If one of those relationships goes sour, it can spread through the whole group in no time flat unless there's a solid base of communication from the start.

[Belladonna1]

And then you add a bunch of kids on top of that...... :-\

[Ashleebabe]

I have to agree with Myrleena. I am close to people who used to be or are still in the Mormon church who find that particular area almost insulting. They are always defending themselves against it. I have even read a book on the concepts and find that it is not too related to the LDS teachings.

I got to visit a little town in Utah on my trip there which was prodominantly polygamists and they seemed friendly enough. I think the whole idea of having multiple wives and famiies was to strengthen the church but the moral aspect of it was not the greatest.

There are more women to men in the LDS church so the ideal situation, according to Brigham Young, was to create a God's army with the women. They would be known as the life-givers. It is just a joke how they demoralized the sanctity of marriage as well as their views on women's roles.

[Oniya]

If we want to blame anyone for 'ruining it for the rest of us', I think Mormons and non-Mormons alike might get behind the nomination of Warren Jeffs?

[Myrleena]

Not specifically just Warren Jeffs (though he has definitely done an enormous amount of damage himself) but those who set things up to where he could manage the things he did as well.  The entire FLDS crowd gives me chills.

[Miss Lilly]

I love the idea of polygamy. Done properly, I can imagine that it'd be a fantastic way to live and bring up children.  I'm in a polyamorous relationship, although we don't all live together, and we make that work well. Sure...there's friction at times, but there was friction at times when it was just the two of us.  Get more than one human in a relationship, there's going to be friction.  It's how you deal with that that matters.

I certainly don't think it should be a criminal offense to have more than one spouse.  Honestly, don't the lawmakers and enforcers have bigger fish to fry?

[Anjasa]

I would imagine that, if polygamy were illegal for reasons other than moral, it would simply be practicality wise. I imagine a divorce between a polygamous couple to be a lot more complicated that between a monogamous couple, not to mention the fact that a polygamous marriage would be harder to maintain that a polygamous marriage.

Overall, however, I don't feel the law should interfere with personal choices like that, even if it does mean that divorce will become a more complicated matter. I don't understand why there's laws prohibiting people's sexual choices and options at all, though, so there is that bias of mine.

[Martee]

One of the reasons why divorce is so complicated is because a lot of the rules and ideas behind it are based on archaic expectations of a husband supporting his wife, and of course, the rest of the family.  I recognize why that was necessary, but in the society we live in now, it's really unconscionable for a woman to expect a lifetime of support simply by virtue of being married for a period of time - in my opinion.  I know not everyone will agree with that and certainly, you are entitled to a differing view.  There are always exceptional circumstances.

I managed to have children and keep my career.  It isn't easy.  It's a downright struggle at times.  But I will be damned before I find myself entirely dependent on my husband.  Its not fair to either of us - marriage is a partnership -  and if I am going to have expectations of him helping around the house and raising our children, he should certainly not have to bear the entire financial burden of our household himself.

Going back to the original point - treating all parties as equal should allow for the dissolution of a household regardless of the number of spouses.  The difficulty arises from expectations that are not equal. I am a huge proponent of prenuptial agreements for that reason alone.  I wouldn't take a new job without a contract spelling out expectations and limits. Why treat a marriage with less import?

[Anjasa]

Unfortunately people really don't get into marriage with the right mindset. I think a lot of people feel the need for instant gratification and if they're no longer getting that from a marriage, instead of making it work, they feel that they pretty much have to get a divorce.

I'm not against divorce - again, I think people should be free to make personal choices for themselves - but I really have to wonder how many people have tried to actually work out the problems in their relationship. All will say they do, but from my anecdotal evidence of the people I've met in my life, I have to say, their idea of trying is 'bringing it up once, then when their partner doesn't immediately change to suit them, the consider the matter done'.

But I'm in agreement with Savage Love's take on Polygamous and Polyamorous relationships - they are difficult, and adding an additional person into a couple is difficult, and disagreements are more difficult. However, the blind acceptance of pure monogamy being the answer isn't accurate as well. Monogamy isn't working for a lot of people - they're serial monogamists, serial cheaters. The two people relationship just isn't working for a lot of people, and if people were more upfront about their desires and wants for a relationship, some of these problems can be helped.

Of course, it's complicated and there's a lot of variables, as with all things, but overall I find people are too afraid to admit to the one person they should talk to about these things about what they really want from life and from their relationship.

If people can make polygamy work, more power to them. It can't be easy.

[stormkitten]

I think polygamy is great for some people, some couples. It certainly can fulfill certain aspects of life. I tend to lean toward the idea that if people want to bring another partner into the marriage, the way to do it is not to marry this new person, but keep them under the same roof as a "common law" wife.

I think part of what makes polygamy difficult as a law is people abusing it. People having multiple families that do not know about each other. Partners that did not consent previous to the second or third marriage. Partners that have been abused by their spouses and forced into consenting because they are afraid for their life or believe a new face will make things better.

How do you write a law that says you can have multiple spouses... but they all have to have written consent before the second or third wedding... maybe mandate counseling for everyone.... possibly limit the number of spouses... Possibly everyone must live under the same roof... that you can only have as many spouses as you can provide for.

How do you divide assets when there are multiple people involved. Its hard to give a partner half of everything, when the other partner still has another family or two to provide for.

With the way divorce rates are these days... adding another spouse to the  mix is going to make things difficult. Whats the top reasons for divorce? Sex (or lack of) and money. Two things that are strained even further by more mouths to feed and eyes looking for attention.