I don't mean to pick on Mling specifically. This quote just happens to summarize many of the sentiments expressed here in favor of polygamy.
Personally, I don't buy it. I believe the "no one can serve two masters" rule applies here. We're not talking just about sex. We're talking about marriage, which is much more than sex and a very specific type of relationship.
Yup we are. That's an important point that you should remember. I--and the rest of people here--
are talking about marriage and all that entails. We're not just talking about sex. I know what marriage is, and it's what I'm talking about.
As a footnote, that's why I don't get the "civil union" thing. Say what you want, the argument for civil unions basically comes down to arguing that any group of people who is having sex amongst themselves should be considered a "marriage."
This is a completely off topic comment. The argument behind "civil union" is "I suppose I agree that
those types of people have the same civil right to marry as I do, but the idea seems icky to me, so I don't want to anybody to call it marriage. Let's call it something else, so I don't have to think about
those people being in the same type of relationship that I am."
To begin with, I see a lot of "I know best", "I can handle myself" attitudes here.
While it's true that not everybody is the best judge of how to run their life...who else is supposed to be in charge of that? How could you institute a nationwide program in which the extremely personal decisions of every individual are checked for wisdom? Ultimately, the person making the decisions for how to run their life is
that person, and they have to live with the bulk of the consequences. If a person finds that they function best in a certain set of circumstances, and those things that they need don't have any negative affects on others (or the affected people consent to those consequences because they feel like it's worth it) why should they not be allowed to live as the most functional, best person that they can be?
It's like the old joke that 99% of people are above average.
No they aren't, but 100% of people are the person who they are. They live and die in their body, and they face the consequences of their decisions. That means that they are the ultimate decision-maker for the course of their life. I don't believe that anybody has the right to commandeer this role for any other person except under very specific situations. "This is an uncommon decision," or "I find this icky and creepy" aren't sufficient reasons.
Sorry, but the statistics don't work out that way. I don't know which proponents of polygamy would also claim they are "fact driven" or "scientific" or whatever, but so far the only studies I've seen mentioned in this thread are those saying polygamy is harmful
They are also looking at polygamous
societies, not individual polygamous relationships in a broader monogamous society. As I said above, these are two very different things, and the former type of society is irrelevant because there is no reason to believe that America will ever become like that.
... unless I missed something. So, if that's what the facts say, are you willing to subscribe to those facts,
It's that those facts are irrelevant because they describe the sort of harm that is seen in societies that are very unlike America or other modern nations, and there is no reason to think that that will come to pass in the types of countries we're discussing.
or are you just looking for excuses to do what you want to do?
Of course I'm not looking for an excuse for what I want. I support edifying, supportive relationships between consenting adults. That needs no excusing. Besides, who would I even need to get that excuse
from? No, I feel no need to apologize or defend my opinion here. My goal is to help people realize that "edifying and consensual" is a standard they can use to judge the success of their relationships, in addition to, or instead of, the more mainstream standard of "monogamous and life-long."
I remember seeing a documentary on the "free love" trends of the 1960s. The conclusion was that men saw it as a way to escape responsibility, and most of the women felt conned. In my history classes there was much evidence given that as the burden society places on men to take responsibility for their family decreases, the poverty level of women and children increases.
We're talking about making something a legally recognized option, not a society-wide norm. "Free-love" was the first mainstream, normalized expression of a rather extreme idea--of course people got swept up in it that weren't doing it in a healthy way. That
always happens the first time a new idea sweeps through a population. It's 50 years later now, and people are approaching open relationships in a calmer, more thoughtful way. Again, we're not in danger of seeing a wave of polygamy sweep the country.
In regard to that, unless I misinterpreted, there seemed to be sentiments in the discussion of, "Well, we'd need rules to prevent that type of abuse" coming from the same mouths of the people who, with respect to monogamy, said, "Government should stay out of it" - a wish to have your cake and eat it to.
Who's talking about rules to that effect? Partner and child abuse is already illegal and, to some degree, enforced. There wouldn't be any reason to establish new laws to control that. And again, my position has consistently been "consenting adults have the right to make their own decisions about what is best for their life." There's no conflict between that position and supporting laws preventing people from non-consensually abusing people.
I don't know that the Bible explicitly forbides polygamy, but Paul strongly recommends against it in the NT, and the example of what happened with Sarah and Haggai - Isaac and Ishmael shows the types of difficulties you're taking on if you seriously intend to build a polygamous family. It just seems that for each person you to try to graft into the "union", the potential for trouble grows exponentially.
That was not a polygamous family. That was the rape of a slave for the purpose of breeding her.
And yes, there is potential for trouble in poly families. Is that unlike monogamous families? Do people in monogamous families never feel abandoned, neglected or jealous?
Of course they do, and the usual response when problems like that arise is to suggest that those people discuss the causes of those feelings, figure out how to manage time better, how to best express affection and meet the needs of their partner.
It's handled the same way in poly families. Problems can arise, and, just like in monogamous relationships, they don't have to be the end of the world. They can be dealt with.
