Polygamy Versus Democracy - You can't have Both?

[bandecoot]

At the risk of insulting the Original poster. What does a form of government have to do with a form of marriage?

It is comparing apples and hammers. This is total nonsense, I truly feel dumber for having read this drivel.

Oh and the penalty for polygamy is more than one Mother-in-Law.

[Simeon]

Funny, I've heard the same thing about marriage in general from some Femonazis.

The exact same scenario can happen, and has happened, and continues to happen in some parts of the world in monogamous settings as well.

Interesting!? I suppose some women, or men might be forced to marry, or stay married.

But, in discussing Polygamy, are most cases in America forced? Certainly they are hiding from the Law, so the chance of a greater abuse rises dramatically.

Where in the Wolrd do the majority of Polygamous "marriages" occur? Pakistan? Saudi Arabia? Yemen? How would you rate these countries for Women's rights and freedoms vis-a-vis America?

[Simeon]

At the risk of insulting the Original poster. What does a form of government have to do with a form of marriage?

It is comparing apples and hammers. This is total nonsense, I truly feel dumber for having read this drivel.

Oh and the penalty for polygamy is more than one Mother-in-Law.

I can image you would feel dumb and dumber if you haven't read Stanley Kurtz's article? He argues, successful in my opinion, "There is a deep connection between monogamy and democracy..."

Again, in my opinion, and I believe that the evidence is overwhelming, there is a direct connection between Polygamy and Patriarchal (sp?) tyranny!

Would you like to advocate for free and legal Polygamy? On what basis, or what case law would you cite to advance your cause? Under our U.S. Constitution, would you cite the 14th Amendment, as homosexuals do to advance same-sex "marriage"?

Stanley Kurtz reminds us that;

Reynolds v. United States is a landmark decision. It was the first Supreme Court case to clarify the First Amendment's guarantee of religious freedom by limiting that freedom to beliefs, rather than social practices (like polygamy or suttee, the former Hindu custom of burning widows alive on their husband's funeral pyre). Interestingly, Reynolds also defends the idea that American democracy rests upon specific family structures, which are legitimately protected by law.

[Tickle Me Mercury]

Wow, please don't judge anything until you went through the huggy feely process of eating their apple pie. How inane.

The eating apple pie thing was not the best way to put it. However, it is wise not to judge people based on preconceived notions, negative stereotypes, and sensationalist hype. People, even polygamists, are best judged on their individual merit and how they treat others.

[Ryokan]

The eating apple pie thing was not the best way to put it. However, it is wise not to judge people based on preconceived notions, negative stereotypes, and sensationalist hype. People, even polygamists, are best judged on their individual merit and how they treat others.

People. But government policy is rarely helped by that sorta thing. Eating pie with one happy polygamist family while in three others abuse is the rule should not persuade anyone to love polygamy.

[Simeon]

The eating apple pie thing was not the best way to put it. However, it is wise not to judge people based on preconceived notions, negative stereotypes, and sensationalist hype. People, even polygamists, are best judged on their individual merit and how they treat others.

In the USA, Polygamists are criminals. Don't ask, don't tell? Live and let White Bearded Taliban Fundy ex-communicated Mormons be free? Apparently yes. Our Gov' has little interest in following the example of Attorney General Janet Reno, although time will tell. (Note, I do agree that not all Polygamists seek to marry child brides or abuse their wives anymore than Monogamists do.)

[Tickle Me Mercury]

This thread has to do more with the Law, and Freedom.

There is no Freedom in Polygamy. Thus the open opportunity to kidnal child brides and abuse women by forcing them into an unlawful relationship or contract in America and in Muslim Societies, an unbiblical relationship that Mohammed twisted and abused.

Traditionally, polygamy is based off a patriarchial, sexist family and social heirarchy. Show me a polygamist family where a woman calls the shots, and has three men she is married to do her bidding, and we'll talk. As it stands, in the vast majority of cases polygamy seems like a bad deal for women to me.

To answer both of these objections. You are right, in many cases polygamists are abusive to the rights of their wives; quite often polygamy exists only in cultish, inescapable situations, and as a result all sorts of abuses, including the taking of child wives or marriages without the consent of all involved.

However, I think this is a case of confusing correlation with causation. These aren't specifically objections against polygamy itself, but against pedophilia, kidnapping, slavery within marriage, the subversion of human rights, and cults in general. All of these are valid objections with which I doubt you will find any objections among the users on these boards. The onus is on you as the objectors here to prove that these issues are intrinsically connected—or inseparable from—polygamy. Must these horrors always exist in polygamous cultures? Or are they the result of "pariah" status that polygamists have been placed in? (Not that this, in any way, excuses such horrible behavior.)

I know there are horrible things associated with polygamy. However, I have yet to see any evidence that polygamy must be that way. Personally, I have yet to see any evidence presented that proves that polygamy will necessarily lead to these horrors. And, I am forced to say that I think that if free, consenting adults wish to enter into a polygamous relationship, regardless of whether or not I agree with it, I can't see any reason to legislate against it.

[Tickle Me Mercury]

People. But government policy is rarely helped by that sorta thing. Eating pie with one happy polygamist family while in three others abuse is the rule should not persuade anyone to love polygamy.

Is there any way we can move past the eating pie thing? You're right. One good does not excuse three wrongs. My point is that instead of looking down our noses at everyone within our broadly defined group, we should leave the people who live peacefully and harmoniously to their lives and stop the wrongs from happening.

In the USA, Polygamists are criminals. Don't ask, don't tell? Live and let White Bearded Taliban Fundy ex-communicated Mormons be free? Apparently yes. Our Gov' has little interest in following the example of Attorney General Janet Reno, although time will tell. (Note, I do agree that not all Polygamists seek to marry child brides or abuse their wives anymore than Monogamists do.)

Criminality doesn't necessarily mean immorality. I'm sure there are enough arguments over laws being moral that you recognize this as so. Don't ask don't tell can't really apply to human rights issue. However, I think it's a sound policy for the actions of free, consenting, non-criminal adults.

[Conductor42]

People. But government policy is rarely helped by that sorta thing. Eating pie with one happy polygamist family while in three others abuse is the rule should not persuade anyone to love polygamy.

No one is asking you to love polygamy. But, just like monogamy, so long as no one is being forced into such a relationship, the government should not be involved.

In the USA, Polygamists are criminals.

Facist laws do not a criminal make.

Don't ask, don't tell? Live and let White Bearded Taliban Fundy ex-communicated Mormons be free? Apparently yes.

Yes. And au contraire to your perceptions, most of those mormons are actually quite normal.

Our Gov' has little interest in following the example of Attorney General Janet Reno, although time will tell.

Janet Reno was a facist if there ever was one. The massacre at WACO is enough to prove that.

(Note, I do agree that not all Polygamists seek to marry child brides or abuse their wives anymore than Monogamists do.)

So why should the peaceful, liberty-loving polygamists be punished for the sins of others?

But, in discussing Polygamy, are most cases in America forced? Certainly they are hiding from the Law, so the chance of a greater abuse rises dramatically.

You hit the nail on that one. The solution: Either legalize it, or terminate government interferance with marriage. Leave it where it should be : between God and Man - don't replace God with the government! (That's what Stalin did!)

Where in the Wolrd do the majority of Polygamous "marriages" occur? Pakistan? Saudi Arabia? Yemen? How would you rate these countries for Women's rights and freedoms vis-a-vis America?

In areas where liberty and freedom are concepts that are extremely misunderstood. You'll get no argument from me there. As I've said before, it is extremely unwise for a person who does not understand his/her rights to marry. This applies in both polygamous and monogomous marriages.

Actually, now that I think about that, don't stop there. That rule should apply to sexual relationships of any sort. Even if a boy and a girl are simply dating, they need to understand when certain behavior is wrong. When they don't understand that, abusive relationships occur.

[Simeon]

.....Criminality doesn't necessarily mean immorality. I'm sure there are enough arguments over laws being moral that you recognize this as so. Don't ask don't tell can't really apply to human rights issue. However, I think it's a sound policy for the actions of free, consenting, non-criminal adults.

Good point, while the Marriage between one man and one woman appears to be ideal and moral, it is not exactly clear that divorce or Polygamy would always be immoral?

Say you were ship wrecked in an island in the South blue seas with two beautiful ladies (or two handsome men)?

Would it be completely "immoral" to share love between the three of you? Sex? Children? If you would love one more than the other, why?

[Tickle Me Mercury]

Good point, while the Marriage between one man and one woman appears to be ideal and moral, it is not exactly clear that divorce or Polygamy would always be immoral?

Say you were ship wrecked in an island in the South blue seas with two beautiful ladies (or two handsome men)?

Would it be completely "immoral" to share love between the three of you? Sex? Children? If you would love one more than the other, why?

If all the parties were of sound mind and consented to the ordeal, then I can't say it would be immoral.

If I was to somehow coerce or force one of the women to participate in something she did not want to, then that would be immoral. I generally base moral decisions in terms of an individual's free will and choice, and whether or not someone is removing someone's choice by force or trickery.

As far as polygamous marriage being "clearly" moral or immoral, I don't think that a level of clarity is possible when examining and entire institution at all. Gay marriage, hetero marriage, or polygamous marriage in its many incarnations. Can we say whether or not the "ideal" marriage you described above is clearly moral? Not without a lot more information. Is the husband beating the wife? Was the woman forced into the marriage against her wishes? Was there coercion involved?

Obviously, his relates to what I said earlier, that all the issue that people accuse polygamists of are not necessarily issues with the institution of polygamous marriage, but with the specifics analyzed. Monogamous, heterosexual marriages are also rife with these problems. All people have the "potential" to be evil.

[Roy]

Show me a polygamist family where a woman calls the shots, and has three men she is married to do her bidding, and we'll talk.

That would be polyandry, not polygamy. As far as I know, there haven't been many polyandrous marriages for quite some time.

It would indeed be polyandry - and also polygamy.

Polygamy is a state of one person/animal having several (semi-)permanent mates.

One female with several males is polyandry.

One male with several females is polygyny.

Both polygyny and polyandry occur in nature, though polygyny is commoner.

Roy

[Conductor42]

Eh, you're right. I had the definitions of polygamy and polygyny confused.

[sprky777]

It would be better just to get government out of marriage altogether.

People could form private contracts just like joint owners in a business. Even so, some Christians enter covenant marriages. Christians should not divorce but a marriage contract would specify the process required for division of properties and responsiblities.

[Zeluvia]

It would be better just to get government out of marriage altogether.

People could form private contracts just like joint owners in a business. Even so, some Christians enter covenant marriages. Christians should not divorce but a marriage contract would specify the process required for division of properties and responsiblities.

I can definately see an economic and social advantage in multiple partner marriages, especially with raising offspring.

More parents for the kids, more freedom for those that need it for careers, less dramatic sense of loss if one partner dies or leaves...

But as polygamy is practiced most places at this time, it does seem to coincide with a patriachial mindset and loss of female rights.