Polygamists argue gay marriage defence

[photon]

Originally Posted by peter12

As for where I stand, polygamy is a crime against women. It may not have direct effects, but I believe that it does stand as a sign of long-term social degradation.

Well polygamy doesn't have to be one man with many women, there are instances of the reverse in society.

But what makes you say this? Do you have any support for that view?

If someone uses their marriage to control their wife does that mean marriage is a crime against women too?

Originally Posted by peter12

However, the vast majority of polygamous relationships, certainly in the case of Blackmore, are strictly about power and harem-building. They are intrinsically unequal in regards to women who are treated, essentially, as property.

Can you demonstrate that's in fact the case for the vast majority of polygamous relationships?

If the problem is power and harem-building and women as property, then polygamy is an effect not a cause.

[photon]

Originally Posted by peter12

But we have pretty tight domestic laws to deal with them. A lot of people are concerned about the long-term effects of legal polygamy. Ie. Women are essentially property.

Those domestic laws somehow don't apply to a polygamous arrangement?

Polygamy doesn't implicitly mean woman being property. There is a society where there's women with multiple male partners with no abuse type problems from the setup.

[Tron_fdc]

If it's all between consenting adults, I say go for it. Any man that controls more than one woman and can keep them all happy is top notch in my books.

It would be funny if there was multiple divorces though. What do you do, split it all up into thirds or something?

[Gozer]

I think marriage is no longer public domain. The gov't should have zero involvement, zero say.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by photon

Well polygamy doesn't have to be one man with many women, there are instances of the reverse in society.

But what makes you say this? Do you have any support for that view?

If someone uses their marriage to control their wife does that mean marriage is a crime against women too?



Can you demonstrate that's in fact the case for the vast majority of polygamous relationships?

If the problem is power and harem-building and women as property, then polygamy is an effect not a cause.

Polyandry is almost entirely due to economic scarcity. Many men and one women is very uncommon. I think the only place where it is instituted is/was Tibet... due to the harsh climate and difficulty of survival.

As for the effect/cause, polygyny almost certainly comes from the reproductive imperative that comes out of a sexually dimorpheous species, such as humans. Control women for your own benefit, but more importantly, control them so other men do not have reproductive opportunity.

What do you think happened to the young men of Bountiful?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by photon

Those domestic laws somehow don't apply to a polygamous arrangement?

Polygamy doesn't implicitly mean woman being property. There is a society where there's women with multiple male partners with no abuse type problems from the setup.

Are you kidding me? A polygamous relationship, such as the one in Bountiful, is partriarchal. Even if there was abuse, there is certainly not going to be anyone complaining.

Once again, polyandry is very, very rare.

[photon]

Originally Posted by peter12

Polyandry is almost entirely due to economic scarcity. Many men and one women is very uncommon. I think the only place where it is instituted is/was Tibet... due to the harsh climate and difficulty of survival.

That's the one I was thinking of. Not directly comparable to our current situation no, but neither are historical cases of polygamy since the circumstances are different now as well.

Originally Posted by peter12

As for the effect/cause, polygyny is almost certainly comes from the reproductive imperative that comes out of a sexually dimorpheous species, such as humans. Control women for your own benefit, but more importantly, control them so other men do not have reproductive opportunity.

What do you think happened to the young men of Bountiful?

Just because there's a biological imperative doesn't make something right or wrong.

So your argument is that polygamy if legalized would result in too few males having "control" over too many females? I don't think that flies since "control" of females isn't something that our society supports, how would allowing different arrangements all of a sudden make that allowed again?

EDIT: I'm still missing the point where polygamy would cause harm.

[Gozer]

I find photon's avatar adds to this discussion's entertainment value.

[Russic]

I personally have nothing against polygamy but there is certainly something wrong with the abuse of woman. I wish the focus in this case would be the fact that these women we abused rather than the polygamy.

Special thanks to ResAlien for the new sig.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by photon

That's the one I was thinking of. Not directly comparable to our current situation no, but neither are historical cases of polygamy since the circumstances are different now as well.



Just because there's a biological imperative doesn't make something right or wrong.

So your argument is that polygamy if legalized would result in too few males having "control" over too many females? I don't think that flies since "control" of females isn't something that our society supports, how would allowing different arrangements all of a sudden make that allowed again?

Rape is a biological imperative. I think it's good that modern societies have said that rape is wrong.

I think if polygamy is legalized, you set a very dangerous precedent for our society. It's the institutions that arise out of a society's ethics. Polygyny stems, historically and biologically, from a desire to control male and female reproductive opportunities. As I said before, look at what happens to competing males in the Bountiful community. They are kicked out. This is not consensual, at all, in its true essence.

EDIT: When you compare the institution of polyandry to polygyny, polyandry is almost always done to secure economic status or to avoid male competition and violence. Look at bonobos. To a limited extent, they have avoided the endemic violence of their close cousins, the chimpanzee, by opening up promiscuity and availability of females. In some cases, this has been observed to lead to polyandry. Good enough. Bonobos don't seem to engage in the same brutal inter-group warfare as chimpanzees.

Polygyny is the standard for the other social primates, especially gorillas. It is fair to draw comparisons between other primates and ourselves, so we can examine how sexual inequalities impact males and females. Weaker males are pushed out, often killed, giving them no opportunity to form sexual relationships. Females are intimidated by force by the silverback. It's even worse with chimps. Males use infanticide as a means of intimidation and power.

Now it's not totally fair to draw absolute lines with human beings, but the comparison is still relevant. In the history of human political systems, there has not been a single democratic society that practices polygamy within their marriage institutions. If this was to become socially accepted, a free society takes a step backwards.

[photon]

Originally Posted by peter12

Are you kidding me? A polygamous relationship, such as the one in Bountiful, is partriarchal. Even if there was abuse, there is certainly not going to be anyone complaining.

So, there are many marriages where the relationship is strictly controlled by the man and the woman is subservient. Or abused but she doesn't complain out of fear. By the same logic marriage is just as flawed.

You seem to be making the claim that polygamy implicitly means a patriarchal relationship, am I right? If so, you have to demonstrate that claim.

[habernac]

I think India is another place where some women have multiple husbands. Can't remember for certain, but I read it recently.

Peter, I think most of us can agree that what is going on in Bountiful is more than a little shady (teenagers being "arranged" into marriages with much older men, etc). But regular marriages also have their share of problems.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by habernac

I think India is another place where some women have multiple husbands. Can't remember for certain, but I read it recently.

Peter, I think most of us can agree that what is going on in Bountiful is more than a little shady (teenagers being "arranged" into marriages with much older men, etc). But regular marriages also have their share of problems.

Absolutely. Thankfully, we have a very comprehensive legal system, as well as a multitude of recovery options, with which to address the problem.

I don't see these same institutions meant to deal with the problems in monogamy transferring over to polygamy.

[photon]

Originally Posted by peter12

Rape is a biological imperative. I think it's good that modern societies have said that rape is wrong.

Of course, that's what I said; we don't base right and wrong on biological imperatives.

Originally Posted by peter12

I think if polygamy is legalized, you set a very dangerous precedent for our society. It's the institutions that arise out of a society's ethics. Polygyny stems, historically and biologically, from a desire to control male and female reproductive opportunities. As I said before, look at what happens to competing males in the Bountiful community. They are kicked out. This is not consensual, at all, in its true essence.

Interesting. So in essence society couldn't operate with polygamy in a fair and equitable manner to everyone involved so the opportunity shouldn't be allowed? What if at some point we thought that power structures like Bountiful were uncommon enough that it wouldn't be an issue?

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by peter12

It's the institutions that arise out of a society's ethics.

I think that is an argument FOR polygamy, old taboos regarding polygamy are not relevant because our society has progressed past those issues.

Originally Posted by peter12

Polygyny stems, historically and biologically, from a desire to control male and female reproductive opportunities.

Do you concede that our society has quelled such desires, or at least the willingness to act upon them?

At least in my circle of friends, getting your rocks off is not associated with controlling/conquering your partner.

I think male domination is a product of a that society's ethics, polygamy is merely a tool used to accomplish it.

Historically and biologically, men use physical violence to control females. Taking away their "beatin' stick" isn't a solution, it just requires he use different means to accomplish his goal.

[habernac]

Originally Posted by peter12

Absolutely. Thankfully, we have a very comprehensive legal system, as well as a multitude of recovery options, with which to address the problem.

I don't see these same institutions meant to deal with the problems in monogamy transferring over to polygamy.

These institutions can evolve to tackle the issues in polygamy as well.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by photon

Of course, that's what I said; we don't base right and wrong on biological imperatives.


Interesting. So in essence society couldn't operate with polygamy in a fair and equitable manner to everyone involved so the opportunity shouldn't be allowed? What if at some point we thought that power structures like Bountiful were uncommon enough that it wouldn't be an issue?

I just disagreed with your approach. The drive to be ethical may have roots in biology, but the cognitive framework of morality is what's important.

A constitutional democracy, with a bill of rights, bases its notions of justice upon the Roman maxim, "Do justice and let the sky fall." That is, an injustice to one, is an injustice to all. It's the role of an independent court system and an engaged citizenry to determine balances and proportion.

In the case of Bountiful, what it represents is far more damaging and dangerous than simply the direct harm it imposes upon the individuals involved in that relationship. It is the institutional demonstration of gender inequality.

[maverickstruth]

I think the distinction made earlier in the thread between polyamory and polygamy is an important one to keep in mind. There are a suprising (?) number of people who are involved happily in polyamorous relationships, some of which involve marriage, others of which involve children, others of which are primarily emotional rather than sexual, etc. Some of you may have heard of Steve Pavlina (regarded as either a kook or personal growth "guru" depending on who you ask) -- he's been investigating polyamory recently on his blog and his comments have certainly given me a lot to think about in this area, in ways I hadn't considered before.

For my part, I don't have any problem with polyamory, so long as the relationships are honest and open. I suppose I should add "equal" to that, too, as my personal belief is that love is about trying to raise the other person up, rather than making them subservient (that's just how I view it). If people treating others badly, it doesn't matter if they're married or not -- it still stinks. However, I think in this area like in many others, we only really ever hear about the when it "goes wrong". We don't hear about all the happy polyamorous folks out there, or the ones who have made it work. Not only that, but apparently there are many different types of polyamory recognized within the polyamorous community. Just like you can't say that all monogamous relationships are the same, you can't say that all polygamous relationships are the same, either.

On the flip side, I do think that polygamy could cause some legal issues -- I certainly wouldn't want to have to rewrite (for e.g.) the tax laws to consider multiple partners, etc. In many ways, we're societally "set up" for two partners, be they married or common-law, or whatever. I would imagine that extending legal benefits to multiple partners could cause some headaches insofar as the implementation goes. Dunno -- maybe the government should just get out of the marriage (and the associated benefits) altogether.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Gozer

I think that is an argument FOR polygamy, old taboos regarding polygamy are not relevant because our society has progressed past those issues.



Do you concede that our society has quelled such desires, or at least the willingness to act upon them?

At least in my circle of friends, getting your rocks off is not associated with controlling/conquering your partner.

I think male domination is a product of a that society's ethics, polygamy is merely a tool used to accomplish it.

Historically and biologically, men use physical violence to control females. Taking away their "beatin' stick" isn't a solution, it just requires he use different means to accomplish his goal.

You have to explain that point. I don't understand where you are going with it.

To answer your second point, I think that to some extent we have "progressed" past this point. You're probably a good person (at least, I'll assume so). I'm sure you are just in it for the fun of it. The thing is, so are most women.

In our society, promiscuity is different, especially when females are allowed to be promiscuous. Availability of birth control and condoms actually adds to women's freedoms as they are not obliged to be tied to a man's reproducitve whims.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by peter12

You have to explain that point. I don't understand where you are going with it.

Basically what I'm getting at is that women have the freedom and the means to do whatever* they please, archaic rules for the purpose of protecting them from their "male masters" are obsolete.

* I.E. women are not limited by society because they are women. Obviously they can't do whatever they please.