Polygamy

[Guest MickeyMoosie]

How many people here believe that marriages between more than two adults should be recognized by the state?

 

If so, what's the maximum number of partners you believe should be allowed?

 

If you don't believe polygamy should be a constitutional right, please explain your hatred of these people who merely want to have a loving family comprised of more than two adults.

 

I await rational responses.

[orbital sander]

Cue Final Jeopardy tune....

[Guest ncm2169]

< I await rational responses.

 

You might await a long time.

 

Dull posters who post dull posts tend to be magnets for dull responses. x(

 

Surely you, who brags of being a longtime lurker here, are astute enough to know that.

 

Oh, yeah, sorry to disappoint about your "hop to it boys" admonition, "I await rational responses." I guess you're not in charge of schedules around here. Get some Kleenex.

[pegasian]

NATURE prefers a PAIR. There is a reason that it was two by two. HOWEVER, science has documented that same-gender pairing occurs in almost all animals. Therefore, IT MUST be PART OF THE MASTER PLAN. HOMOPHOBES should OPEN THEIR EYES and see THE SIGNS GOD GIVES THEM!

[Guest zipperzone]

>NATURE prefers a PAIR. There is a reason that it was two by

>two. HOWEVER, science has documented that same-gender pairing

>occurs in almost all animals. Therefore, IT MUST be PART OF

>THE MASTER PLAN. HOMOPHOBES should OPEN THEIR EYES and see

>THE SIGNS GOD GIVES THEM!

 

And what does the above have to do with Polygamy?

[Samai139]

Disagree with the "nature prefers pairs" comment. Not always---there are many instances of multiple pairings among mammals---I believe that monogamy is rather rare in nature.

But to get back to the original question:

I believe that polygamy should NOT be classed as illegal in any state of the United States, and if that takes a constitutional amendment to ensure that polygamy is recognized, so be it.

If a recogized world religion allows polygamy then surely people who practice that religion and live in the United States should be able to follow the practices of their religion. I'm not a constitutional scholar/lawyer, but I don't understand how the laws which declare polygamy illegal can stand under the constituion. Surely, that document does not establish Christianity, Judaism as the only acceptable/legal moral precepts, does it??? I believe that polygamy being illegal dates to the increasing popularity of the LDS(Mormom) movement in the 19th century. In fact, I think Utah was only admitted to the union with the agreement that the Church of LDS would outlaw polygamy.

In the 21st century, I believe that a belief system should be allowed to be the primary "decider" when it comes to morals, not the federal government. We as Americans have adjusted rather easily to the majority of children being raised in homes where the biological parents are not married, and in the past would have been considered bastards; we have adjusted to divorce being more common than stable marriages; we have adjusted to legal abortions. Surely we can adjust to polygamous Americans.

[Guest Merlin]

Moosie, I disagree with the form of your question. To you, people either agree that Polygamy is a constitutional right or they hate people who practise it. The authors of the Constitution would have been appalled to think their writing might be used to legallize polygamy and the Constitution would never have been adopted if people has believed it would do so. And no doubt an overwhelming majority of people today would want it to be illegal. The Constitution belongs to the people and is not your personal plaything.

Not just Christianity but must cultures have believed that society is best served by the traditional family, for practical reasons, such as: the mother and children need the support, love and protection of the father, which is best when undiluted by being spread over multiple families and wives. It is inherently abuse, relegating the wives to second class status or worse, as young wives replace older ones in the husbands favor. Few men can support multiple families. Multiple wives for some will result in the unavailability of wives for other men, which most societies have considered unhealthy. And, many more such considerations.

The point is the prohibition is not based on Hatred as you insist, but upon practica considerations. You of course will argue with them, but in a Democracy, the majority are generally entitled to embody thier concerns in the law.

[+ Charlie]

The term polygamy technically refers to one man/multiple wives. This works OK in a culture in which woman have few rights, but in our society of equal rights, one would also have to have polyandry: one woman/multiple husbands. But then, why shouldn't a woman's husbands include the husband of another woman, and why shouldn't he have a wife who is also married to another man, etc.? (Some might say that, without the legal ties, this happens all the time in the gay world.) To whom does the community property belong in a divorce? Who gets visitation rights in the hospital? Who collects the Social Security Death Benefit? It's all too complicated.

[Samai139]

I agree that polygamous/polyandrous relationships could cause chaos in our lawyer-centric culture---very, very complicated. That being said, why should Muslims--- naturalized or native-born, be restricted in their cultural traditions while living in the United States? Is it because we are fearful of the introduction of another set of laws? Couldn't traditional Islamic courts deal with the unique situations that polygamy presents, at least for Mulsims? Many African traditional societies also recognize polygamous arrangments--even among so-called Christian groups. I believe the man who is to be the next President of South Africa recently married his second wife---she really is his third, but one died.

Not sure if I agree that in cultures where polygamy is practiced that all women are second-class citizens. In many West Africans ethnic groups, the women play a very, very important role, not only in the home, the marketplace but in politics as well---and still practice polygamous relationships. When a man can afford multiple wives, he is bound to treat them equitably, even though the first or senior wife is usually the one "in charge." There are many advantages to having several women in a household, as well as possible difficulties. Who said that marriage was easy? Monogamous or polygamous.

The only polyandrous relationship I ever enountered in West Africa was a pair of identical twins who shared a wife---I'm not sure if this was unique to their ethnic group or is practiced by others.

The rigidity of marriage patterns seems to have lessened in the last two centuries for monotheistic religions. Perhaps it's time we examined other ways of doing things, and still caring for society's children. I'm not sure we (meaning the USA) are doing a wonderful job right now with millions of children the product of casual relationships.

[GloriousGodfrey]

>How many people here believe that marriages between more than

>two adults should be recognized by the state?

>

>If so, what's the maximum number of partners you believe

>should be allowed?

>

>If you don't believe polygamy should be a constitutional

>right, please explain your hatred of these people who merely

>want to have a loving family comprised of more than two

>adults.

>

>I await rational responses.

 

If one expects a rational response, one must first pose a rational question. It speaks VOLUMES of your intellect, or lack thereof, that you can only posit one scenario for those who might be opposed to polygamy. Fascinating.

 

To quote the Governator, "I don't do requests."

 

(P.S. If you have an interest in polygamy, you might want to check out HBO's BIG LOVE)

 

As for you Mickey, the Billy Goat Gruff are looking for you.

[Guest MickeyMoosie]

>The authors of the

>Constitution would have been appalled to think their writing

>might be used to legallize polygamy and the Constitution would

>never have been adopted if people has believed it would do so.

 

 

The same thing can be assuredly said for gay marriage.

 

The point I'm trying to make is that when you start redefining marriage, then you open it up to any definition that ANYONE wants to make it. A majority of Americans have clearly said they don't want gay marriage yet the courts are discovering a "right" that was clearly not the intent of those who wrote both the federal and state constitutions.

 

The activists who are pushing gay marriage say that anyone who opposes it is a homophobic bigot who wants to deny a loving gay couple the same "right" as a straight couple.

 

Well why stop at gay couples? Why not people who want multiple husbands or wives? Are those who support gay marriage willing to say that polygamous (and let's not split hairs with what the term means) should not be accorded the same rights they are demanding themselves?

 

Have you noticed how the "usual suspects" are silent on this question? You know why? Because it's a no-win question.

 

If you're for gay marriage and against polygamy then you'll have to use the exact same arguments that are used against gay marriage and it destroys their argument.

 

If you're for gay marriage AND polygamy then there's the issue of how many wives/husbands should be legal and that's a slippery slope. If two wives are ok then why not three? And if three, then why not four? And if four, then why not five? You can just keep moving the numbers up. What's too many and who's to say what is too many? Who's to say 435 adults can't be in a loving relationship? One can point to the Arab countries and say: "Well look at them! THEIR society isn't falling apart if someone wants to have 435 wives! Who the fuck are YOU to judge them??"

 

The thing activists ignore are the legal repercussions that will accompany gay marriage. One legal decision can easily lead to something no one wants.

 

A perfect example is when the Supreme Court "found" a right to privacy in the Constitution. The Constitution is silent on privacy. No one is against privacy but when it was defined as a "right" it opened a can of worms that, to this day, creates bullshit cases that clog the courts. But that's another subject for another time.

 

So, once again, I would like to ask the "usual suspects" (and you know who you are) - what's your position on polygamy?

[Guest MickeyMoosie]

>>I await rational responses.

>

>If one expects a rational response, one must first pose a

>rational question. It speaks VOLUMES of your intellect, or

>lack thereof, that you can only posit one scenario for those

>who might be opposed to polygamy. Fascinating.

 

 

This is what passes for intellectual discourse on this forum.

 

A simple question is asked and I'm attacked.

 

Godfrey is now added to my list of mental defectives I will never respond to.

 

He's an idiot and should be denied the right to vote.

[Guest MickeyMoosie]

>To whom does the community property belong in a divorce? Who

>gets visitation rights in the hospital? Who collects the

>Social Security Death Benefit? It's all too complicated.

 

 

All of that would be for the courts and legislatures to figure out. Whether it's complicated or not has nothing to do with its legality or constitutionality.

 

If multiple adults want to live in a loving and supportive relationship that doesn't hurt anyone else or scare the horses then who are we to deny them that? Who says marriage should be limited to only one man and one woman?

 

Keep in mind, the state only recognizes the legal contract between one man and one woman. The church has nothing to do with it. So, if we support the idea of the separation between church and state, then the morality of the arrangement is irrelevant.

 

If the activists say it's an abomination that two people of the same sex are denied the same right as two people of the opposite sex then to say 3, 4, 5 or even 435 shouldn't be allowed to marry is an indefensible position whether they like it or not.

[Guest zipperzone]

I find it interesting that as we speak - so to speak - there is a situation in Canada that is about to test the legality of Polygamy.

 

Two weeks ago the British Columbia Attorney General issued an arrest warrant for a man in a town called "Bountiful" who is a Mormon and is practicing Polygamy and has been for many years. I forget how many wives he has but I think it is reported that he has about 100 children. The government has had him in their sights for 10 years but only recently decided to take action against him.

 

This will probably wind it's lengthy (and costly) way to the federal Supreme Court. But the court of public opinion is saying that the government will loose this case.

 

The final outcome should be interesting - if I live long enough to hear it.

[OneFinger]

>How many people here believe that marriages between more than two adults should be recognized by the state?

 

Well, since your phrased your question looking for a number (how many...), I'll guess there are 3. Do I win the prize? :+

 

But I'll read between the lines and "assume" you really want to know WHICH POSTERS support the legal recognition of polygamy. To that I'd respond that I could support the legalization of polygamy with some restrictions.

 

I live in Utah and have known (and worked) with many polygamist families. In addition, a good friend of mine is the head of a gay church that performs polygamist gay marriages. The majority of polygamists I know are excellent people, great neighbors, and not a burden to society.

 

However, in "compounds" and isolated areas (non-mainstream society), there are things I find very problematic.

 

If gay marriage is legalized, then I believe it would set a precedent that could benefit polygamists.

 

But, currently there are significant problems with polygamy that need to be addressed:

 

[ol]Limit to Consenting Adults: Polygamist marriages (gay or straight) should only be among consenting adults. The idea of marrying off children 12-18 years old to older partners is illegal. But, within the polygamist community, the states have been unsuccessful in preventing under-age marriages. It's my personal belief that these "forced / arranged" marriages are not welcomed by the young victims. So, I only support polygamy among consenting adults.

 

Address Welfare Fraud: Under the current law, polygamist marriages to wife #2, #3, etc. are not recognized by the state (but they are considered spiritual marriages recognized by a church). This means that wife #2, #3, etc. are legally considered unwed mothers by the state. This makes them eligible for welfare, food stamps, and a plethora of government-paid benefits. In polygamist compounds (and to a lesser degree among non-compound polygamists) this results in an enormous drain on precious tax dollars. The government needs to figure out how to define, administer, and / or limit benefits so it can be universally enforced and there is equity for all tax payers.

 

Resolve the Tax Disparity in Domestic Partner Benefits: I believe that domestic partner benefits are considered taxable income to those that receive it. A legally married family can pay for their employer-provided medical benefits with pre-tax dollars resulting in a tax advantage. But domestic partner benefits cannot be paid with pre-tax dollars. In addition, I believe the cost of that benefit is added to your taxable income at the end of the year. So, if polygamy is legalized, would employers treat them as domestic partner benefits or would everyone (gay of straight) get the pre-tax benefit?

 

Address the Supportability Issue: Currently, there is no requirement to ensure a married couple can support themselves. But, I believe there is a requirement to show the ability to provide support for immigration purposes. Polygamist marriages, due to their resultant large families, have the potential for severely impacting our school systems and government services. Before legalizing polygamist marriages, I believe we need to address who (besides) the government will be responsible for people. I know this is a very slippery slope. We don't require monogamous straight couples to provides proof of supportability. But, should we? [/ol]

>If so, what's the maximum number of partners you believe should be allowed?

 

This answer is EASY. As many as they can support without government assistance.

 

I'm totally in favor of allowing any family (gay, straight, or polygamist) to educate the first 2 children free. After that, the 3rd and all successive children should result is a $1000 per year per child head tax.

 

Likewise, let someone have as many partners as they want providing they can provide ALL the necessary support. There was one man is southern Utah that had 10 wives and many children. He was elected Mayor of the town and served in that capacity for about 10 years.

 

http://www.mormonfundamentalism.com/ChartLinks/AlexJoseph.htm

 

But, his was not a "typical" polygamist. Most of his wives were professional women and brought home the bacon. One was a lawyer, another a doctor, and I "think" one was a former Playboy bunny.

 

I have not issue with his brand of polygamy. }(

 

>If you don't believe polygamy should be a constitutional right, please explain your hatred of these people...

 

Sorry, you've gone over the edge on this one. People can oppose polygamy and yet not hate "these people". You said, "I await rational responses" yet how can someone respond rationally to something as off-the wall as that comment??

[GloriousGodfrey]

>This is what passes for intellectual discourse on this forum.

>

>A simple question is asked and I'm attacked.

>

>Godfrey is now added to my list of mental defectives I will

>never respond to.

>

>He's an idiot and should be denied the right to vote.

 

Playing the martyr is very unbecoming.

 

You didn't ask a simple question, you asked a stupid question. You put simple minded conditions on the response you expected, making the "simple" question a stupid one.

 

Here's Mickey at home:

 

http://homepage.mac.com/dunestrider/Adventure/troll.jpg

[Guest Ca Robert]

I'll bite

 

Polygamy is not a victimless crime. As a former Mormon, I can tell you that polygamy harms its women and children victims. Contrary to what the Mormons tell you about their polygamous past, it was hardly without controversy.

 

The polygamous cults that sprang from Mormonism all have a dark, sinister history of underaged marriage, incest, and violence. Moreover, welfare fraud and other criminal acts are fairly common. The Mormons try very hard to separate themselves from these groups, but Warren Jeffs did not do anything Joseph Smith did before him.

 

And if you want to argue the biblical reasons for polygamy, there isn't a single episode where polygamy had positive outcomes. Every polygamous relationship in the old testament is negative.

[Guest MickeyMoosie]

>This answer is EASY. As many as they can support without

>government assistance.

 

Since when is it that the government's business? There are plenty of people who are on government assistance who are allowed to get married. I would suspect you believe that government should stay out of people's personal lives and this would be an evasion.

 

Do you also believe that women who can't support their children should have them taken away or prohibited from getting pregnant?

 

 

>Sorry, you've gone over the edge on this one. People can

>oppose polygamy and yet not hate "these

>people". You said, "I await rational responses"

>yet how can someone respond rationally to something as off-the

>wall as that comment??

 

 

I'm not the one going "over the edge". I was merely using the language that gay marriage activists wield against those who oppose them. Frankly, I don't believe someone must "hate" the other person if they differ on gay marriage. However, activists call for boycotts and invade churches (of course not mosques) and scream at them about how they "hate" gays. I guess you missed the nuance of my statement.

[Guest MickeyMoosie]

>Well, since your phrased your question looking for a number

>(how many...), I'll guess there are 3. Do I win the prize?

 

To incorporate your premise, what do you have against four or five or even twenty financially independent people being married. Why do you want to deny them the same right accorded to two people of the opposite sex? Why does it matter to you? Does their marriage diminish your marriage?

 

 

 

>But I'll read between the lines and "assume" you

>really want to know WHICH POSTERS support the legal

>recognition of polygamy.

 

 

Actually, no, However, it's interesting that the most vociferous advocates of gay marriage are conspicuously silent on this issue.

 

Maybe they're coming home from the weekend.

[Guest ncm2169]

Is it the job of a troll to stir up needless controversy?

 

If so, congrats, Mousie.

 

What a bunch of garbage about nothing. x(

 

I'm not sure who to disparage more, the poster who formulated the question, or those others who let themselves get sucked into the idiotic dialogue. x( x(

[GloriousGodfrey]

>I'm not the one going "over the edge". I was merely

>using the language that gay marriage activists wield against

>those who oppose them. Frankly, I don't believe someone must

>"hate" the other person if they differ on gay

>marriage. However, activists call for boycotts and invade

>churches (of course not mosques) and scream at them about how

>they "hate" gays. I guess you missed the nuance of

>my statement.

 

Why would anyone expect "nuance" from someone who posts with the tact of Ann Coulter? We expect you to say stupid things, so that's naturally how everyone here perceives what you write.

[GloriousGodfrey]

>Actually, no, However, it's interesting that the most

>vociferous advocates of gay marriage are conspicuously silent

>on this issue.

>

>Maybe they're coming home from the weekend.

 

I'm sure you'll know when their car drives over your bridge.

 

http://www.seaserpentproductions.com/images/TrollBridgeGoldenGate_Design.jpg

[+ Tom Isern]

RE: I'll bite

 

One of the things I love about "Big Love" is that it shows how the human spirit transcends any sex/gender system. There are "healthy" and "normal" families among the polygamists on the show just as there are dysfunctional families and evil people among them. The monogamous pairs on the show have their saints and sinners as well.

 

There is nothing inherently sinister or evil about polygamy. Just as there is nothing inherently sinister or evil about prostitution, celibacy, polyandry, and many other alternative social arrangements.

 

Foucault speculated (if I remember correctly) that the reason we have "only" monogamous marriage and almost no other options is basically because the state is lazy. It's a lot easier to manage and keep track of one system.

 

I wish I could marry my boyfriend, my dog, my refrigerator, and my mattress. Freedom to choose. That would be nice. And if some multimillionaire wants to have three wives and each of them consents--who the hell should care?

[kjun]

I usually dodge the posts of ncm2169 but in this case I cannot agree more with him.

 

the Cajun