Polygamists argue gay marriage defence

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

history says the consenting adults you speak of turn into the exploitation of woman,young girls and sexual abuse

As someone who's heavily into social history, that's a really anachronistic reading of history.

First of all, it's not like exploitation of women and young girls, and sexual abuse are gone without polygamy. In fact I think it would be tough to prove that polygamy has a significant effect of this sort. (Which is not to say that there's no connection, just that it's hard to say how significant it really is.)

More importantly though, when people are considering the possibilities of legalizing polygamy these days, it's without exception for both genders, which immediately changes the power dynamic.

There are also now laws protecting women from sexual abuse even in marriage and laws prohibiting marrying minors. There are also social norms prohibiting sexual relationships in situations of inbalanced power (such as sex between a teacher and a student) and shunning huge age differences in relationships.

Besides, the law didn't stop Winston Blackmore and James Oler as linked above. They were at it for over a quarter of a century. A-holes cult leaders are gonna be a-hole cult leaders.

how would a judge rule if the man had 5 wife's? give her 10% and kiss on the cheek?

Maybe? It's already legal to make such agreements when entering marriage.

What you're talking about is setting new default settings for divorce, but it's not really otherwise that new.

I can't imagine it being a good thing for children’s mental health either.

First of all, let's remember that polygamy is simply about the legal situations. People are already perfectly free to live an essentially polygamous life if they can find people to do it with. What legal marriage brings into the equation is mostly a lot of rights to both parties and essentially stability. Stability is generally considered good for children.

Second, as someone who has lived in a polyamourous situation with a child, and who knows several families who have some arrangements of this sort, I would say the children have zero problems with this stuff. The biggest deal is having to explain to them at some point that how their parents live isn't considered normal by most, so they should probably think twice before talking about some things to, say, friends.

The legal status of a childs biological parents and the other partners of those parents have little impact on the well-being of the child one way or the other.

What does matter is the problem that if something happens to the biological parents, the childs other significant adults suddenly have no relationship to the child according to law.

Besides, it's not like monogamous marriage has much to do with responsible parenting. The law let's parents get money and meeting rights to the child from each other by force if necessary. While I'm not against it, I would argue those rights are created for the benefit of the parents, and have very little to do with the wellbeing of children.

[Snuffleupagus]

Ok Itse since you're a social doctor, I "may" have a few or more questions for you but I'll start with one.

Are you for or against polygamy? just a simple Y/N on this one please

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Itse

First of all, it's not like exploitation of women and young girls, and sexual abuse are gone without polygamy

Not eliminating a crime entirely is definitely not a good reason to go without law. Meh people still murder so why bother charging anybody with it.

More importantly though, when people are considering the possibilities of legalizing polygamy these days, it's without exception for both genders, which immediately changes the power dynamic

Yet only one gender does it so there is an even greater power imbalance. Polyandry is exceptionally rare. You have to go to other parts of the world and times in history to find more than an occasional example of it.

There are also now laws protecting women from sexual abuse even in marriage and laws prohibiting marrying minors. There are also social norms prohibiting sexual relationships in situations of inbalanced power (such as sex between a teacher and a student) and shunning huge age differences in relationships

Right. And these are important. It's not just creepy to marry your sibling, it's dangerous. Polygamy is no different. It's weird but it's also detrimental to society.

First of all, let's remember that polygamy is simply about the legal situations. People are already perfectly free to live an essentially polygamous life if they can find people to do it with.

Totally wrong. The whole reason polygamy exists is because people are not free to have relations with whoever they want. God needs you to be married so religious people need to get married to accomplish what you say people can do for free.

What legal marriage brings into the equation is mostly a lot of rights to both parties and essentially stability. Stability is generally considered good for children.

In what world is 142 siblings, 23 mothers and one father stable?

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Itse

As someone who's heavily into social history, that's a really anachronistic reading of history.

First, I really like getting into issues with you Itse. You bring a different perspective and make people work to make their points. Thank you for that.

Now, to your point, is it anachronistic ? It seems that the history of polygamy and the current state of polygamy seem to support the claim that polygamy does result in greater subjugation of women and their rights, and does indeed result in much greater instances of abuse of women and children. The literature is extensive, across not only studies of Middle Eastern, North African and sub-Saharan cultures, but also North American and polygamous sects like the FLDS.

First of all, it's not like exploitation of women and young girls, and sexual abuse are gone without polygamy. In fact I think it would be tough to prove that polygamy has a significant effect of this sort. (Which is not to say that there's no connection, just that it's hard to say how significant it really is.)

There is no doubt that domestic violence exists in all cultures, but in those where polygamy is allowed, the instances of domestic violence are astronomically higher in cultures where polygamy are legal. Statistics are hard to verify this because in many countries that support polygamy, it is legal to beat or rape your wife and children. Having said that, the statistics from these countries are still staggering. Polygyny definitely leads to greater instances of violence against women.

More importantly though, when people are considering the possibilities of legalizing polygamy these days, it's without exception for both genders, which immediately changes the power dynamic.

Let's get serious here. Are you suggesting the power dynamic that exists in polygyny, polyandry, and polygynandry are all the same, especially since polyandry, and polygynandry are pretty much non-existent? Look at domestic violence statistics and tell me you did not just a massive false equivalency here.

There are also now laws protecting women from sexual abuse even in marriage and laws prohibiting marrying minors. There are also social norms prohibiting sexual relationships in situations of inbalanced power (such as sex between a teacher and a student) and shunning huge age differences in relationships.

Those same laws extend to men, but what is your point? The fact that the laws on the books seems to indicate that there is a social problem where the legal system was forced to put protections in place to protect possible victims and discourage such behaviors.

First of all, let's remember that polygamy is simply about the legal situations. People are already perfectly free to live an essentially polygamous life if they can find people to do it with. What legal marriage brings into the equation is mostly a lot of rights to both parties and essentially stability. Stability is generally considered good for children.

No, people are not allowed to "legally" live in polygamous situations. Rights and access to services are greatly restricted based on marital status. With no legal right to access, the family and child suffers.

Also, what stability does this relationship provide? Social? Economic? Cultural? It seems the literature again works against your perspective.

Second, as someone who has lived in a polyamourous situation with a child, and who knows several families who have some arrangements of this sort, I would say the children have zero problems with this stuff. The biggest deal is having to explain to them at some point that how their parents live isn't considered normal by most, so they should probably think twice before talking about some things to, say, friends.

While there is a major difference between polygamous and polyamourous relationships, the literature again does not support your claims. Children do problems with this stuff and the problems that result from non-monogamous marriages/relationships. Children suffer a lot of challenges in their development and maintenance of relationships, as a result, according to the seminal work by Al-Sharfi, et al. The Effect of Polygamous Marital Structure on Behavioral, Emotional, and Academic Adjustment in Children: A Comprehensive Review of the Literature and a second study The Effects of Polygamy on Children and Adolescents: A Systemic Review. Children in these types of relationships experience greater instances of problems with self-esteem, anxiety, depression, and personality development issues.

The legal status of a childs biological parents and the other partners of those parents have little impact on the well-being of the child one way or the other.

I would agree that the marital status of the biological parents is irrelevant, and that having nurturing parents is key to child development. But I will also argue that traditional child-parent relationship leads to better outcomes for the child than non-traditional settings. The literature in the social sciences definitely supports that stance. Can you reference any literature that shows children in polygamous or polyamourous settings have similar or greater developmental outcomes over traditional settings?

What does matter is the problem that if something happens to the biological parents, the childs other significant adults suddenly have no relationship to the child according to law.

Besides, it's not like monogamous marriage has much to do with responsible parenting. The law let's parents get money and meeting rights to the child from each other by force if necessary. While I'm not against it, I would argue those rights are created for the benefit of the parents, and have very little to do with the wellbeing of children.

Argue away. I think we only have to look at other cultures where polygamy is allowed to see how quickly children are cast aside when the "marriage" fails.

[Itse]

Damn and wow, that's a lot I need to get back and process into some answers.

I'm going to be spending the rest of the week doing other stuff (local role-playing convention AKA. biggest social event of the year coming up.) But I'll get back to this if the conversation hasn't moved on.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by New Era

*SNIP*

I have nothing to add to this discussion, but this is a quality post. Well done.