[Kolovorotkes]

Certainly this type of marriage should be legal, though the more partners involved the more complicated the legal issues, like responsibility for children or splitting assets of a divorce. A great boon for lawyers everywhere.

[Immonnaornach]

Originally posted by Elok
? They're free to screw whoever they want, of course, but I just can't take these people seriously. Maybe a little more seriously than the Furries.

A little. Assuming there's no dark side to this activity, which is a big if. Multiple marriage has been around for as long as single marriage. Given the reality of marriage was a social contract, therte is no logical reason to have a problem with any form of polygamy, be it polyandry or polygyny.

[favwebbb]

Originally posted by Sava
The objection to polygamy is purely a cultural objection. I would argue that it's a social objection. The dynamic of dual male to female interaction is something that has been deeply embedded in human society since civilization began. Every class below the elite have had strong reactions to polygamysts, mostly due to the relationship between the male and his group of women wives.

The relationship, in most cases, is relegated to a distant one with each wife taking on a specific role in a household. The reality of a polygamyst world is that women are usually relegated to being little more than secondary with men making the decisions entirely regarding the course of a community. I would say that it's a step backward for women as it relegates an individual female's opinion to one of many within a family structure, instead of one of two.

A polygamist community, especially one in Utah, is one where female rights, even human rights, are thoroughly suppressed.

Now outside of the real polygamist society polygamy can be seen as being within the bounds of adult consent. Unfortunately the real situation borders on cultist behavior with the group enforcing moral and societal bounds on their younger members, sometimes leading to criminal behavior.

On a civil level the act of polygamy can be argued as normal and within a person's right to choose, but on a realistic level it presents complications that threaten a modern civilization and a modern society based on human rights. It's roots are buried in ****.

To dumb down my point, rent the first season of Big Love from HBO. The core characters that make up the core family on the show exhibit modern social behavior, albeit stunted by the structure. The kids are free to make up their own minds and are free to grow up to be whatever they want. On the other hand the bad guys, the Commune, suppresses this behavior and even marries off children to its older members.

It ain't good.

[Seiblybiozy]

in polygamy, as it is generally practiced, it is multiple wives marrying the same husband.. they are not all marrying eachother

as such, the wives all have smaller peices of the legal pie

besides the fact that I am against it socially, by the way I don't buy in to this whole "gay's are owed marriage because of natural rights" nonsense, I am in favor of gay marriage because it promotes monogamy (long term 2 person relationships) not because of any 'right' for two people to enter into a contract or any such thing

so basically, I am strongly against it: besides it's being the institution for abuse of kids and women wherever it has existed.. always

this goes for crazy communes, to old school muslim 4 wives ****

JM

[cucceevevaind]

monogamy is a good thing as far as society goes

the government should support it

JM

[namaikaimvputka]

And even male-female marriages were more pwnership of the female than a loving union of two equal partners.

[Ruidselisse]

That being said, I'm confortable with the government defining the number of people involved in a marriage contract -- but not the kinds of people involved (provided they're above the age of consent and mentally competant to enter into a contract). Limiting the number does not strike me as inherently discriminatory against any particular group; limiting marriage only to people of the same race or gender does.

[hs6KnlcW]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


Look at statistics. People who are in a monogamous relationships live longer, report being happier, are more productive, and have more successful children.


JM Compared to lonely romantic failures. We have no comparative statistics regarding long-term polygamy. The one polygamous family I know -- an Arab diplomat and his wives -- seem pretty happy and healthy.

[diplmixxxx]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Look at statistics. People who are in a monogamous relationships live longer, report being happier, are more productive, and have more successful children. Do you see a difference between "marriage" and "monogamous relationship"?

[muytreda]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
The beginning of civilization was marked far more often by polygamous marriage than by a male-female dyad. I beg to differ. While polygamous relationships were sometimes common in nomadic societies it was not the case in static societies. The Egyptian lower class practiced Monogamy. In some cases it is known that while Polygamy was accepted in the Higher classes it was vehemently opposed in the lower.

[loikrso]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
The issue with that sort of relationships have already been addressed. Mainly they are fundamentally (the great majority) nonequal and perpetuates women being lesser members of society.

It is without a doubt that male dominated polygamy is stable. It has some weaknesses (The males without wives...), but the center problem with it is that it is male dominated. 99.99+% of all polygamy is of this type.

JM 99.99% of all monogamous marriages throughout human history have been male dominated, and taken place in societies where women were lesser members of those societies.

You can't have it both ways. If history shows that marriage is good, then it shows that a social organization od systematic male domination is good. If male domination is not good, than marriage has been a bad institution for almost all of human history.

[dupratac]

Polygamy should not be legally recognized, EVER. Not as marriage, anyway. Marriage in the LEGAL sense is primarily if not entirely a financial arrangement allowing a married couple to enjoy certain financial benefits normally not permitted between two people. In fact, this has been and is still the best argument against gay marriage - that those financial benefits are provided for the sole benefit of raising children. (I'm not saying it's a good argument, but it's probably the 'best' argument.)

In any event, Polygamy/polyandry would take unfair advantage of that, in the financial sense, permitting MORE people to take those financial advantages than was intended by the law; either requiring the benefits be reduced (hurting monogamous couples IE 99% of society) or those polygamous/polyandrous couples will be getting extra benefits and thus indirectly hurting the monagmous 99%.

These benefits are things like tax communality (allowing greater pooling of incomes, averaging out a high income with low/zero incomes for a lower tax bracket), health insurance coverage through employers, and estate tax breaks, not to mention the sudden complexity added to various legal permissions and such allowed to spouses such as medical permission, child custody, etc. Divorces would also be much more complex especially if they involved the entire grouping.

I have no problem with de facto polygamy ... but it should never, ever be allowed de jure. You may be legally married to one person and one person only, beyond that it's just sex anyway.

[HOTgirlsXXL]

In fact, this has been and is still the best argument against gay marriage - that those financial benefits are provided for the sole benefit of raising children. (I'm not saying it's a good argument, but it's probably the 'best' argument.)

No, since it lends itself too easily to being reduced to absurdity. The best argument is "I have an illogical and irrational dislike for gay marriage, and you should too." since it avoids all the problems of consistency and non-craziness

[Larisochka]

Originally posted by snoopy369


Except that it's not easily reduced to absurdity, and the latter is not an argument but a basis for an opinion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

Reductio ad absurdum is also often used to describe an argument where a conclusion is derived in the belief that everyone (or at least those being argued against) will accept that it is false or absurd. However, this is a weak form of reductio, as the decision to reject the premise requires that the conclusion is accepted as being absurd. Although a formal contradiction is by definition absurd (unacceptable), a weak reductio ad absurdum argument can be rejected simply by accepting the purportedly absurd conclusion.

So it depends on whether the person in question considers "We should then ban all marriage between people incapable of having children, people who refuse to have children, etc" an "absurd" (ie bad) conclusion or not.

And the argument that they put forth need not be logical - in fact, avoiding logic is really the most logical argument that they can attempt, since because they are not asserting the truth value of their statements but instead expressing a moral value, it cannot be challenged except by some other common value. They are able to hold onto the position while not being subject to logic or reason. Yay!

[medprof]

Originally posted by snoopy369
By your above definition, any argument is reducible to absurdity simply by the fact that the conclusion could be drawn and called absurd. If both parties agree that the conclusion is absurd.

Which is, um, absurd How?

(It might hold true in the land of the Trolls, but beyond that it's a fairly meaningless statement or argumentative style.) If people agree that X leads to something undesired, then they may at least restructure X so that it doesn't lead to the undesired thing...hence being at least somewhat useful when it comes to convincing people that they are wrong. Hence, given that their reasoning leads to a conclusion that both parties agree is morally incorrect, the reasoning needs to be changed. In a morals debate, this is a perfectly fine method of proving your position.

If they say that gay marriage should be banned *because* it does not provide for the promotion of children (which itself is wrong), but they also say that heterosexual couples who cannot have children should be allowed to marry then either
A) They haven't thought about it enough to realise that it is a contradiction.
B) they don't oppose gay marriage at least solely on the grounds of the promotion of children but instead for some other reason, or
C) They bite the bullet and accept the contradiction.

The children argument is simply not a very good argument, because it leads to a conclusion that they themselves find incorrect. Furthermore, on a factual basis it is incorrect.

Hence, if that is the "best" argument against gay marriage...opponents of gay marriage don't have much to stand on

[QysnZWB4]

It isn't absurd. How can polygamy (with single male and multiple wives) not be domination, while traditional two person marriage has shown itself to adopt well to egalitarianism...

Generally, more egalitarian societies have not allowed polygamy.

JM

[CreativeAcrobate]

I am not saying that all polygamous relationships are male domination ones. In an example of one that isn't is this:
Person A really likes and seeks to please Person B
Person B really likes and seeks to please Person C
Person C really likes and seeks to please Person A

This would, as long as the three continued in that course, be a relatively stable, non-dominating polygamous relationship. Not as stable as a monogamous one, because there is more complication (3 body isntead of 2 body) and people tend to want their like/love/care returned.. (so at some point it would generally become unstable)

However, humans being bi sexed, and most being straight, what generally happens is something like this:

Female A likes and cares for Male A
Female B likes and cares for Male A
Female C likes and cares for Male A
Female D likes and cares for Male A
Male A likes and cares for Female D (who is the youngest and prettiest and newest)

Females A, B, and C are left out of the loop.

If you want something more inline of the first example, what generally happens in a 3body relationship is something like this:
Person A really likes and seeks to please Person C
Person B really likes and seeks to please Person C
Person C (often times male) really likes and seeks to please Person A but enjoys the extra attention from B

This isn't fair or stable.

Marriage is a commitment. Divorce is fairly difficult for a reason. It is because marriage exists to promote stable relationships. To introduce it to relationships which are inherently unstable (or gain their stability from (99.999+% of the time in human history) male dominance) removes the entire point of marriage (well, excluding children which most people seem to be in favor of now).

JM

[JosephEL]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar


It isn't inherently domination. In the traditional multiwife polygamous relationship, the wives are all married to the husband, but not to eachother.

Why would all those women agree to just be some peice of a guys harem unless he had some advantage over her.

We already have this enough in egalitarrian society (with dominance relating to money) without giving it the social sanction of marriage.

JM

[PoideAdelereX]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar
Sure. Polygamy tends to create such a situation.
However, people should be allowed to, if they so choose, enter into such a relationship. It simply isn't the place of government to say "No, you don't *really* love each other, so we won't let you get married" Polygamy mainly only exists in situations where women are already being dominated. The government has the responsiblity to it's citizens (Those women) not to aid in their domination.

People can already agree to be second fiddle (and many do, becoming mistresses/etc). Doesn't mean it needs the social sanction of marriage.

What does marriage do? It does two things, it provides social sanction for a relationship (Stability for that relationship) and it provides financial support for the children of such a relationship (should the exist).

It isn't just some contract. Then a lot of women who allow themselves to be dominated will have a lot harder time changing their lot in life, when not only is their male partner dominating them, but the state is aiding sanction to that relationship.

Face it Tass, the mormons were smoking crack.

Jon Miller

[sitescools]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar
What about gays who take multiple partners? Might their relationship be more egalitarian, and hence permissible?
What if the people decide to simply share the man/woman with each other, maybe because they are all really good friends?
What if the people really do love each other?
etc The non Man with multi wives/girlfreinds/mistresses form a very small subset of all polygamous relationships.

Additionally, the 3body relationship is inherently less stable (doesn't take much logic to see this).

Sharing man/woman (Generally two women sharing a man) is generally the person being shared taking advantage of one or both of the people. There can be only one primary (And there is always a primary, even among people who preach free love, or say that everyone should love eachother equally, etc, there is always a primary (do a study of communes/etc of the past 200 years)). Humans are built to have a primary. Even those who seem to be inherently polyarmorous go from primary to primary.. and aren't equal opportunity.

Most people love lots of people, but in any situation where there is more than 2 people, people aren't being loved back as they would wish.

Even monogamous relatiopnsihps have problems with one member or the other not getting enough attention/etc (generally the woman, once more). If this is the problem in monogamous relationships, imagine how much more it is a problem in polygamous relationships (lots of guys don't give enough time to one wife, how many would give enough to multiple wives??).

And you still haven't yet addressed my central complaint. History has showed people are primarily monogamous (communes/etc which tried to eliminate monogamy always failed, generally as a direct result of the attempt to eliminate monogamy), if you allow polygamy the prime benificery will be male dominated polygamous relationships. If even 10% of people are in relationships of this nature, imagine the discontent among the young men.

And there is always (in any polygamous group where the young men aren't weeded down with war/etc) discontent amoung the young men. Once more, look at history.

Jon Miller