Polygamy

[Eudaimonist]

I´m not seeing the point to this social structure.

I'm not seeing what you think is wrong with such a social structure.

Family trees are also complicated. I have or have had a brother, parents, cousins, aunts, uncles, grandparents (two sets), etc. That is complicated too. What's wrong with complexity?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[quatona]

I'm not seeing what you think is wrong with such a social structure.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I didn´t say there was something wrong with it. I said I didn´t see the point of it. I asked for enlightenment.

It doesn´t seem to serve any of the (traditional or not so traditional) purposes of marriage - all of which, to my knowledge, are circled around some exclusivity or enhanced mutual responsibility/comittedness.
While I can see this idea still being present in concepts of either polyandry or polygyny, it seems to completely dissolve itself into arbitrariness in the scenario I posted.

 

[Dave Ellis]

An interesting article on polygamy (or rather polygyny) here: blogs.discovermagazine.com

Monogamous societies superior to polygamous societies

The title is rather loud and non-objective. But that seems to me to be the upshot of Henrich et al.’s The puzzle of monogamous marriage (open access). In the abstract they declare that “normative monogamy reduces crime rates, including rape, murder, assault, robbery and fraud, as well as decreasing personal abuses.” Seems superior to me. As a friend of mine once observed, “If polygamy is awesome, how come polygamous societies suck so much?” Case in point is Saudi Arabia. Everyone assumes that if it didn’t sit on a pile of hydrocarbons Saudi Arabia would be dirt poor and suck. As it is, it sucks, but with an oil subsidy.
​

Polygamous societies (which are usually polygynous - one man with several wives) have a very poor track record: women are often treated quite badly and wealth distribution is very uneven.

The only reason people say they support polygamy is so they can get their leg over without feeling any guilt.

That's a fairly weak argument... Just because countries which allow polygamy generally happen to be poor, does not mean polygamy is the cause of those nations poverty.

If a western nation allowed polygamy, I doubt it would have a major impact at all on the general operations or wealth of that country.

 

[SithDoughnut]

I´m not seeing the point to this social structure. Maybe I am missing something, and you can help me see it.

So if polygamy became legal, you would instantly start to have polygamous relationships? I doubt the legalisation of polygamy would change anything except for people who practice it for religious or cultural reasons.

 

[quatona]

So if polygamy became legal, you would instantly start to have polygamous relationships?

No, I doubt that I would marry more than one person, particularly since I have never strived to be married to even only one person.
Would you like me to clarify my question?

 

[Mling]

No.

No.
Things will become extremely complicated, and pretty soon everyone will find themselves married (in the second, third or fourth... degree) to everyone else.
Think it through. Let´s imagine, everyone has only two first degree spouses. You and I are married, I have a second wife, you have a second husband. My second wife has a second husband, your second husband has a second wife and so forth....

I´m not seeing the point to this social structure. Maybe I am missing something, and you can help me see it.

Adultery has been legal for quite a while now (I have no idea, but was it ever illegal in the 20th century?) and since couples stopped needing grounds for divorce, there has been no law that penalizes having extra-marital partners in any way. And yet, the vast majority of people either don't have them or consider it cheating. What's holding them back, if it isn't the law? Lack of desire. Not lack of sexual desire, but lack of desire to be in open relationships.

Even among openly poly people, you very often see people forming strong couples and then having a few other partners on the side. The types of networks you're talking about do happen, but they're limited. They involve maybe 5-20 people, not hundreds. And even then, not everybody involved considers themselves spouses. It's not "here's my husband, my wife, my other wife, my other husband, my first wife's other husband, my second wife's wife...etc," it's, "this is my husband, my boyfriend, his wife and her girlfriend."

Basically, there doesn't have to be a "point," to the social structure, because it wouldn't be a social structure. Not enough people want it at all, and the ones who do don't want it the way you're describing.

It's the same reason why we don't have to worry about everybody in the country going on an ice-cream binge all at once. There's no laws to prevent it, and it could easily cause riots if it happened, but we trust that people just aren't that uniform in their desires.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

That's a fairly weak argument... Just because countries which allow polygamy generally happen to be poor, does not mean polygamy is the cause of those nations poverty.

I gather you didn't read the study the discover magazine blog link was discussing. Here is it: LINK
And here's the abstract (my emphasis):

The anthropological record indicates that approximately 85 per cent of human societies have permitted men to have more than one wife (polygynous marriage), and both empirical and evolutionary considerations suggest that large absolute differences in wealth should favour more polygynous marriages. Yet, monogamous marriage has spread across Europe, and more recently across the globe, even as absolutewealth differences have expanded. Here,we develop and explore the hypothesis that the norms and institutions that compose themodern package of monogamous marriage have been favoured by cultural evolution because of their group-beneficial effects—promoting success in inter-group competition. In suppressing intrasexual competition and reducing the size of the pool of unmarried men, normative monogamy reduces crime rates, including rape, murder, assault, robbery and fraud, aswell as decreasing personal abuses. By assuaging the competition for younger brides, normative monogamy decreases (i) the spousal age gap, (ii) fertility, and (iii) gender inequality. By shifting male efforts from seeking wives to paternal investment, normative monogamy increases savings, child investment and economic productivity. By increasing the relatedness within households, normative monogamy reduces intra-household conflict, leading to lower rates of child neglect, abuse, accidental death and homicide. These predictions are tested using converging lines of evidence from across the human sciences.​

​

He's basically arguing that "group selection" is why monogamous societies are more successful.

If a western nation allowed polygamy, I doubt it would have a major impact at all on the general operations or wealth of that country.

Judging by how badly polygamous countries are when it comes to wealth distribution, that's not a risk we should be willing to take.

 

[Glas Ridire]

So if polygamy became legal, you would instantly start to have polygamous relationships? I doubt the legalisation of polygamy would change anything except for people who practice it for religious or cultural reasons.

That is exactly why the impact would be so low. The anti-polygymy laws are really just an outdated excuse to persecute Mormons for their religious beliefs. . . The legal excuse for the Klan to burn their homesteads, just as Jim Crow laws helped the Klan persecute blacks. Broader society would see little or no impact, perhaps the inclusion of an addendum page on insurance forms and the like, for extra spouse info.

This is an issue I have been exposed to by african friends. One had three wives, had difficulty getting the second two through immigration. How is that fair to them? I know others who had to leave one or more wife behind. Imagine being left behind . . . For no other reason than the U.S. having Puritan based religious marriage laws.

 

[Mling]

So, what is marriage to you?

People committing to entwine their lives together--to share each others' joys and sorrows and, taking into consideration that a person is directly influenced by those closest to them, making the decision that you want the future "you" that you will grow into to be the "you" you will be with the influence of the person/people you are marrying.

I don't think it is. We're talking about introducing non-traditional relationships into society. Does your "consenting adults" rule not apply to civil unions? In several places you attribute to me things I did not say and do not think. Rather than me trying to answer each of your strawmen, please just respond to what I said.

I'm opposed to "civil union," because I think same-sex couples deserve to be recognized as being in the same type of relationships as opposite-sex couples. I support allowing same-sex couples to participate in marriage. The only people I know of who support "civil unions" are people trying to fight their own homophobic nature, who can just barely tolerate the idea that same-sex couples shouldn't be discriminated against legally, but can't stomach the idea of calling it marriage. The argument for "civil union" is that people are too bigoted to call it marriage, so they want to call it something else.

If you're talking about the basic reality of letting same-sex couples marry, then yes, the "consenting adults" rule applies here too, though it has never been about "hey, we're having sex, so let us marry." Speaking of strawmen.

It's done all the time in other situations. For example, that's what parents (and other elders and authroity figures) are for. When parents dump their kids at 18 and never again help them, I feel sorry for those kids ... although I suppose in some cases it's better that way.

No, parents advise. They sometimes give orders. They sometimes give ultimatums. They sometimes make threats. But nobody has the capability of commandeering another person's brain and living their life for them.

That's my point. People might sometimes make bad decisions, but ultimately, every individual is going to make their own decision and live with the consequences of it, and short of imprisonment or sneaking drugs into their food, there is nothing anybody else can do to stop that.

Again, it's been done for millenia. My church still counsels every couple that marries, and the pastor can refuse to marry them if it's necessary. Are you saying you've never seen romance lead to bad decisions? I've seen it happen too many times. But this isn't something where a stranger intrudes in your life - a faceless government agency. It's a community of people who have known both bride and groom for many years.

Again, you're talking about advising.

I'm talking about laws. If we're talking about the legal status of polygamy, and your argument is that people shouldn't be legally allowed to make their own choices just because they think that that choice is what's best for them, then you need to contend with the alternative--yes, a government force that checks each individual's personal life for the wisdom of their choices. I'd rather live in a world where people are allowed to make bad personal choices than one in which they are not.[/quote]

It is interesting that "rights" so trump all else in contemporary thinking that we have lost the principles that make a society what it is. It basically comes down to Locke's ideas on government. An individual can refuse to conform to the norms of society, but if they do, then society owes them no "rights." At one time that was understood. Thoreau thought society was wrong, and he was willing to pay the penalty that comes with protesting that wrong.

America was founded on the basic idea that as long as one respects the rights of others to make their own choices, people have the right to live their own life as they see fit.

George Washinton:

The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.

Along with being a vague criteria that won't judge anything, I think that is very naive. It assumes everyone is honest and supportive, or at least that if they're not it will be easy to tell.

How does it assume anything like that? I mean, you do need to trust that when your partner says, "Yes, I'm happy," or "no, I'm not," they're being honest, and yes, those conversations take some work. But other than that...why would judging a relationship by whether the people involved are happy with it and feel that they are living well, rather than by whether it ends in one party's death, be so vague, useless or naive? Why would it assume anything about everybody?

Yes, of course. Anything that turns out badly shouldn't be labeled as polygamous - only the good relationships.

No, I've seen bad poly relationships. But comparing any consensual relationship to any non-consensual relationship is invalid. Voluntary open relationships are as different from raping a slave as monogamous marriage is from...let's say, raping a slave.

Of course they do, but you miss my point.

No, I don't. You were arguing that there is a problem with polygamy because of the potential for it to cause "problems." And yet, the only types of problems it could cause arise naturally in monogamous relationships, are considered a natural consequence of interacting with other people, and don't have to be the end of the world.

It's generally recognized that many monogamous relationships involve strife, and that many people can work through the problems and build healthy relationships anyway. And that when they can't, it's not because monogamy failed. It's due to the severity of the problem, or an irreconcilable difference between the people, or deep, personal flaws in one or both parties. Why judge polygamy any differently, when it involves the same sorts of humans, with the same sorts of flaws, having the same sorts of problems?

Very much so. In a monogamous family are the children usually given equality in making decisions? No. At the moment when my children were born, they had zero say in what happened to them. As they've grown, I take their opinions into consideration more and more. But at no point, as long as they live under my roof, will they ever trump the decisions of me and my spouse - or be our "equal."

And that has nothing to do with my craving for power. It's for a very practical reason: too many cooks spoil the pot as the saying goes. As they start to build their own family, my role will transition into one of giving advice rather than making decisions. And over time I expect my children will ask less and less for advice as they become more confident. Actually, at some point, I'll enter dotage, and I'll need to defer to the decisions of my children. But we will never be "equals."

Idealizing polygamy the way you are mistakenly believes group-think without rules will work. I see no evidence in the past that such an idea has ever worked, and I've never had personal experience of it working - in my family, at my job, or in any civic group I've been involved with.

Where have I idealized it? Where have I claimed group-think or anything like it?

The best, most stable poly relationships I've seen work because they have "rules" (not legally binding ones, but ones recognized as important and worth following by the people involved.) But they are rules chosen by the people involved because they enhance the relationship, not by outside society because they're what the lowest common denominator can stomach.

I've never claimed anything more than "this can work, for a minority of people." That's not idealizing. That's recognizing the facts in front of my face. Some people have stable, multiple relationships. It enhances their lives. They make it work. I've seen it happen. It is complicated and difficult, and the stakes are high (higher than in monogamous couples, certainly), but that doesn't stop many people from doing all sorts of other complicated, difficult, high-stakes things, like building rockets, pursuing careers, or raising children. Why should difficulty and complication be an argument for legally restricting this one thing, when it isn't in any other situation?

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

This is an issue I have been exposed to by african friends. One had three wives, had difficulty getting the second two through immigration. How is that fair to them? I know others who had to leave one or more wife behind. Imagine being left behind . . . For no other reason than the U.S. having Puritan based religious marriage laws.

I'm not sure changing the law for the convenience of other nations matters much. If for example an adult immigrant was married to a minor (which a problem in several African countries) would we consider his marriage legal, even if it meant she would be left behind?

 

[Glas Ridire]

I'm not sure changing the law for the convenience of other nations matters much. If for example an adult immigrant was married to a minor (which a problem in several African countries) would we consider his marriage legal, even if it meant she would be left behind?

Why would she be left behind? I am saying rather that we should recognize all out of country marriages. It is a first ammendment rights issue. The government does not have the right to validate "western chistian" marriage values at the expense of other religion's marriage.

Yes I realize that might mean a minor would have sex with her husband. Plenty of minors having sex, sex with a husband seems . . . Like something bad? I don't think so.

 

[Resha Caner]

No, parents advise.

No, parents are legally responsible for their children. I would have expected that you knew that. My 16-year-old just opened a checking account at the bank. I had to co-sign. What does that mean? That if he overdraws the account, I am legally liable to pay back the bank. As such, I also have legal rights for controlling his finances. That is only one of many examples.

Again, you're talking about advising.

Again, you don't understand how these relationships work. Note that I said the pastor could refuse to marry them. Yes, they could go around that and obtain a civic marriage. But that means they have removed themselves from the church community. The pressures of that community, while not legally binding (only because of how laws in the US are structured), are binding to those who value those relationships.

It's much more than just advice.

I'm sure you want to focus on the bad that can come from community pressure, but it is necessary. Since you like to quote George Washington, I'll note again that the foundations of society that they understood were expressed by Locke - namely that if someone does not conform, they have no recourse to demand their rights. They are free to leave society, but not free to make demands of it.

How does it assume anything like that? I mean, you do need to trust that when your partner says, "Yes, I'm happy," or "no, I'm not," they're being honest, and yes, those conversations take some work. But other than that...why would judging a relationship by whether the people involved are happy with it and feel that they are living well, rather than by whether it ends in one party's death, be so vague, useless or naive?

Person A: I love you, Person B.
Person B: I love you, too. OK, I'll sleep with you.
Person A: That wasn't good for me. I think we need to see other people.
...
Person A: I love you, Person C.
Person C: I love you, too, but I heard about Person B.
Person A: Yes, I was immature, and I regret that, but I've grown.
Person C: OK, I'll sleep with you.
Person A: That wasn't good for me. I think we need to see other people.
...
Person A: I love you, Person D.
Person D: Yes, but ...
Person A: The next excuse. I'm not good at conning people, but you get the idea.
Person D: OK.

Whereas, under monogamy, that pattern would have stopped long ago.

This, "we've matured in the last 50 years," and "these won't be wide-sweeping problems in a modern society" arguments are nonsense. You seem to be assuming that ancient socities weren't familiar with predators. They very much were, and that was the reason for enforcing monogamy. Human society has existed for what? at least 10,000 years? And now in the last 50 years we've figured out what they couldn't in 9500 years? I don't buy it. It's the "I'm excluded from that" special pleading fallacy again.

I've never claimed anything more than "this can work, for a minority of people." That's not idealizing.

So you would recommend that most people not pursue polygamy (of course you're not in that group)? What way do you have for determining who can do it and who can't?

People committing to entwine their lives together--to share each others' joys and sorrows and, taking into consideration that a person is directly influenced by those closest to them, making the decision that you want the future "you" that you will grow into to be the "you" you will be with the influence of the person/people you are marrying.

That doesn't tell me anything. This time you didn't even say "adult." So is the parent/child relationship a marriage? Let me ask some questions to see if we can clarify.

When in a polygamous marriage agreement (PMA), can one of the partners in that agreement make a "personal" decision to take another partner, or must all partners in the PMA give their consent?

 

[Mling]

No, parents are legally responsible for their children. I would have expected that you knew that. My 16-year-old just opened a checking account at the bank. I had to co-sign. What does that mean? That if he overdraws the account, I am legally liable to pay back the bank. As such, I also have legal rights for controlling his finances. That is only one of many examples.



Again, you don't understand how these relationships work. Note that I said the pastor could refuse to marry them. Yes, they could go around that and obtain a civic marriage. But that means they have removed themselves from the church community. The pressures of that community, while not legally binding (only because of how laws in the US are structured), are binding to those who value those relationships.

It's much more than just advice.

I'm sure you want to focus on the bad that can come from community pressure, but it is necessary. Since you like to quote George Washington, I'll note again that the foundations of society that they understood were expressed by Locke - namely that if someone does not conform, they have no recourse to demand their rights. They are free to leave society, but not free to make demands of it.

Nothing you've said contradicts what I've said. Yes, you are legally responsible for your child. Yes, people are subject to pressure from those close to them. But you know.what neither you note your pastor can do? Hijack another person's brain and truly *force* them to live the way you want. Your son has the physical option of running away. As you say, the parishoners have the ability to leave the church if they are willing to.

I think the point I am making is so simple it's hard to see. This line of thought originated with you criticizing the attitude of "I can do this my way because i know best."

My point was simply that the person doesn't *have* to know best, because they have the ability to make.that decision regardless of whether it's a wise one or not. My point is that a single person inhabits a single body (multiple personalities being an irrelevant exception) and the person who owns the body is the ultimate sovereign "decider" of what they will do. You are talking about using the law to attempt to deny people this natural role in their own life, when their decisions do not infringe on other people's rights. This is wrong, and it is dangerous. If a harmless choice can be illegal simply because a governing body doesn't think it's the best way for a person to be, then *anything* can be illegal. Religions included, if you think this doesn't apply to you.

Person A: I love you, Person B.
Person B: I love you, too. OK, I'll sleep with you.
Person A: That wasn't good for me. I think we need to see other people.
...
Person A: I love you, Person C.
Person C: I love you, too, but I heard about Person B.
Person A: Yes, I was immature, and I regret that, but I've grown.
Person C: OK, I'll sleep with you.
Person A: That wasn't good for me. I think we need to see other people.
...
Person A: I love you, Person D.
Person D: Yes, but ...
Person A: The next excuse. I'm not good at conning people, but you get the idea.
Person D: OK.

Whereas, under monogamy, that pattern would have stopped long ago.

Um, this could *easily* be a "serial monogamy" sort of relationship. And...I'm not actually sure what type of mindset you're trying to depict here. It strikes me much, much more like the actions of a cad who is preying on people who want to be monogamous, than anything similar to poly.

And, by my standard of "edifying and consensual" this is a very unhealthy series of relatuonships, as it's based on deception and (you seem to he presuming) leaves people more hurt than happy.
[/quote]
This, "we've matured in the last 50 years," and "these won't be wide-sweeping problems in a modern society" arguments are nonsense. You seem to be assuming that ancient socities weren't familiar with predators. They very much were, and that was the reason for enforcing monogamy. Human society has existed for what? at least 10,000 years? And now in the last 50 years we've figured out what they couldn't in 9500 years? I don't buy it. It's the "I'm excluded from that" special pleading fallacy again.[/quote]

You keep bringing up irrelevant topics out of the blue that I'm losing track of what I'm supposed to have said. I'm guilty of extrapolating from what people have said to what some unseen implications are, but at least I explain what the connection is. Now, how did ancient societies not being familiar with predators have to do with the free love movement of the 1960's America?

I'll remind you though, that the predator you described above relies on other people's assumptions of monogamy in order to prey on them.

A truly poly scenario would look more like this.
Person a) Hey, I like you. Want to have some kind of relationship?
Person b) sure. Here's.the type of relationship I'm open to having right now (describes limits...negotiation ensues..relationship ensues.)
Person a) hey, my main partner and i are having a cook out this weekend. Wanna come? You can bring your other partner of course.
Person b) *gulps* meet your primary? But...what if they...don't like me?
Person a) oh, of course they will!
Person a and c) have a cook out. B and d arrive, there's a bit of awkward conversation because everybody involved is a socially awkward nerd and then they bond by discussing the details of an alternate history in which Atilla the Hun lived much longer.

So you would recommend that most people not pursue polygamy (of course you're not in that group)? What way do you have for determining who can do it and who can't?

I dont make any such recommendation. I acknowledge the fact that it's an unpopular decision in the developed world, and see nothing that would suggest this is going to change any time soon.

As for determing who can/can't, that's not my decision to make. I think anybody who feels like they'd benefit from it is free to try, with the consent of their partner. If the people involved all feel like it's working out, then great. If not, then not. You know...the same way monogamous couples do it--by dating and staying in good relationships and breaking up bad ones.

That doesn't tell me anything. This time you didn't even say "adult." So is the parent/child relationship a marriage? Let me ask some questions to see if we can clarify.

Saying "person" instead of adult was a slip on my part--I did mean adult. That makes me more conservative than US law, though. And yeah, I assumed you'd have some *basic* concept of marriage, so I wrote what I felt was significant, not an exhaustive list of every required characteristic. Marriage is a legal relationship. The people involved must consent. They must identify it, *themselves* as a marriage. It gives each person involved some degree of legal rights over the others' life (this is minimal in modern America, though a person's spouse is assumed to inherit their property in the absence of a will, and they have the right to make medical decisions for.their spouse if they are not able to do so themself).

When in a polygamous marriage agreement (PMA), can one of the partners in that agreement make a "personal" decision to take another partner, or must all partners in the PMA give their consent?

This is the sort of thing that I meant by people having rules.that serve their own needs, rather than arbitrary ones. This would be entirely up to the people in the relationship. The most common I've seen is that casual flirting is fine, but sometime before the first date with somebody else, the people in the primary relationship chat about it. Other options are, "if you have sex with somebody else, I want to be informed. Before or soon afterward." "Do what you want, and I don't need to know. I trust your judgement." "Do what you need, and please don't tell me," "we'll meet any new prospective partners together," "no more partners--our family works the way it is and any more would throw us off," (lightly called being "polysaturated") and probably tons of other approaches I havent heard or thought of.

Other considerations would be, "what do we need at this point in our relationship?" For example, if the people in the core relationship are having trouble, it might not be the best time to add in a new relationship. Or, if.the stress.is coming from one having needs that the other(s) can't fulfill, a new relationship might be exactly the right fix.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Yes I realize that might mean a minor would have sex with her husband. Plenty of minors having sex, sex with a husband seems . . . Like something bad? I don't think so.

If you don't see a problem with a minor having sex with an adult (and keeping in mind that some girls are as young as 11 when they marry) then frankly I don't want to talk to you.

 

[Glas Ridire]

If you don't see a problem with a minor having sex with an adult (and keeping in mind that some girls are as young as 11 when they marry) then frankly I don't want to talk to you.

You are perhaps, under the impression that only married girls have sex at rediculously young ages . .. . Okay.


On the otherhand, if a girl finds herself married at a rediculously young age, wouldn't it be nice for her to still be a wife (with legal rights and entitlements) when she came to another country . .. . instead of, being scrapped. Because cultures that marry girls that young are famous for understanding when girls are married (inelligible to remarry) but recieving no support from their husbands who've gone to the U.S. Such girls are for sure not condemned to a life of poverty or prostitution. . .

What was your alternative solution? Is it going to involve impossing western values internationally? That has historically . ..

 

[Resha Caner]

You are talking about using the law to attempt to deny people this natural role in their own life, when their decisions do not infringe on other people's rights. This is wrong, and it is dangerous. If a harmless choice can be illegal simply because a governing body doesn't think it's the best way for a person to be, then *anything* can be illegal. Religions included, if you think this doesn't apply to you.

You've done nothing to establish that this is "natural," (and by that I assume you mean good) nor that it is "harmless." Regardless, the behavior of some alcoholics is "natural" in the sense that there is evidence of a genetic predisposition, but that doesn't make alcoholism a good thing.

Since you seem to be having trouble remembering, I will remind you that in my very first post I noted that I don't see anywhere that the Bible explicitly rules out polygamy. If you don't understand what I mean to convey by that, I'm saying that I don't necessarily see polygamy as a moral evil. The Bible does, however, seem to indicate that there are added (and usually unnecessary) complications such that it should be discouraged. The Bible plainly states that some things may be permissible, but not beneficial (1 Cor 10:23). I realize that means nothing to you - just trying to clarify my position since you're having trouble grasping it.

Um, this could *easily* be a "serial monogamy" sort of relationship. And...I'm not actually sure what type of mindset you're trying to depict here. It strikes me much, much more like the actions of a cad who is preying on people who want to be monogamous, than anything similar to poly.

And, by my standard of "edifying and consensual" this is a very unhealthy series of relatuonships, as it's based on deception and (you seem to he presuming) leaves people more hurt than happy.

My only purpose was to make a point about your "edifying and consensual" comment - not specifically about polygamy. I'll try to be more explicit from now on to help you out. But it seems you got the point. Your "edifying and consensual" phrase is such a vague idea that it leaves room for all types of cads to abuse it. So far, everything you have said to me conveys casual, recreational relationships - not serious relationships: Hey, you want to come over for a barbeque and whatever else might happen after that? (a reference to your little scenario if you didn't catch that).

You keep bringing up irrelevant topics out of the blue that I'm losing track of what I'm supposed to have said.

OK, since you can't keep track of what you said. Your comment about how society has supposedly matured in the last 50 years came in post #18 ... as well as your comment about "modern nations." I suppose I may have read too much into what you meant by a "modern nation," but I wouldn't think you would say ancient societies were modern nations.

I dont make any such recommendation ... As for determing who can/can't, that's not my decision to make.

Mmm, I don't buy it. Too often these are just euphimisms for, "I don't want the hassle of that responsibility." And yet earlier, in the infamous post #18, you were all about teaching people about polygamy, saying, "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.'"

This is the sort of thing that I meant by people having rules.that serve their own needs, rather than arbitrary ones. This would be entirely up to the people in the relationship. The most common I've seen is that casual flirting is fine, but sometime before the first date with somebody else, the people in the primary relationship chat about it. Other options are, "if you have sex with somebody else, I want to be informed. Before or soon afterward." "Do what you want, and I don't need to know. I trust your judgement." "Do what you need, and please don't tell me," "we'll meet any new prospective partners together," "no more partners--our family works the way it is and any more would throw us off," (lightly called being "polysaturated") and probably tons of other approaches I havent heard or thought of.

Other considerations would be, "what do we need at this point in our relationship?" For example, if the people in the core relationship are having trouble, it might not be the best time to add in a new relationship. Or, if.the stress.is coming from one having needs that the other(s) can't fulfill, a new relationship might be exactly the right fix.

Again, it seems that most of what you're talking about is the romantic/sexual aspect of these relationships. Plus, you're now indicating that there is a "primary" relationship. Do you mean that is the only one that you expect to last? Why is it "primary"? Are you saying there is a bond between two people that can't be shared by multiple people? What you're describing sounds more like swinging than polygamy.

If someone in modern America wanted to live in a truly polygamous relationship, I doubt anyone would stop them - as long as there is no blatant physical abuse.

But if these are "personal" decisions and rules that only meet "their own needs" (which sounds more like selfishness than actually establishing a lasting relationship), why do you care if society acknowledges your polygamy at all?

Marriage is a legal relationship. The people involved must consent. They must identify it, *themselves* as a marriage. It gives each person involved some degree of legal rights over the others' life (this is minimal in modern America, though a person's spouse is assumed to inherit their property in the absence of a will, and they have the right to make medical decisions for.their spouse if they are not able to do so themself).

You're getting closer to the heart of the issue now. What about property and medical issues? What about family businesses? Are the people you know actually signing contractual agreements on those types of things as they get "serious" about relationships other than the "primary" one?

With all that said, I've yet to see how is it a legal relationship if this is only a pinky-swear made by the people involved. A legal relationship means you are submitting yourself to a higher authority, which you seem to advocate against. So what do you expect the government to do for you? Are you expecting tax breaks? Are expecting subsidized veneral testing so you know if all your new partners are clean? Or health care if they weren't? Or subsidized condoms to reduce the spread of disease? Are you expecting subsidized DNA testing so that you know who fathered a specific child ... or legal enforcement of some kind of poly-parenting? Child support? Welfare support if you're not a "primary," but you were dependent on your polygamous partner for income and they dump you?

I've worked with foster and adopted children. One big problem for them - even if they are placed in a stable monogamous household at a very young age - is the "who am I?" question that can cause serious confidence problems. Polygamy just seems rife for that along with increased sibling rivalry problems - especially if you're not a child of a "primary" relationship.

Would you be OK with actuarial studies on polygamy? And if it is determined that the swinging style you're advocating is at higher risk for depression - which often leads to higher rates of alcoholism, drug abuse, etc. - higher rates of veneral disease - or whatever they might find - that you'd be willing to pay higher insurance rates?

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

You are perhaps, under the impression that only married girls have sex at rediculously young ages . .. . Okay.


On the otherhand, if a girl finds herself married at a rediculously young age, wouldn't it be nice for her to still be a wife (with legal rights and entitlements) when she came to another country . .. . instead of, being scrapped. Because cultures that marry girls that young are famous for understanding when girls are married (inelligible to remarry) but recieving no support from their husbands who've gone to the U.S. Such girls are for sure not condemned to a life of poverty or prostitution. . .

What was your alternative solution? Is it going to involve impossing western values internationally? That has historically . ..

Yes, it's evil to impose our Western idea that pedophilia is wrong. We must respect cultures which force young girls to marry and have sex with men far older than they are. Sex with children is only wrong if it happens to a white child in civilised countries - it's OK if it's one of those brown kids from one of those backwards nations.

Your icon says you're a Celtic christian - and I thought only Catholics were kiddy-fiddlers. Please do everyone a favour and never have children.

Also - "Such girls are for sure not condemned to a life of poverty or prostitution. . ."? What, child prostitution bothers you but underaged marriage doesn't? What's wrong with you?

 

[Mling]

You've done nothing to establish that this is "natural," (and by that I assume you mean good) nor that it is "harmless." The behavior of some alcoholics is "natural" in the sense that there is evidence of a genetic predisposition, but that doesn't make alcoholism a good thing.

No, I never use natural to mean good. You've dragged this tangental point on far too long. The only thing I've ever meant by this was.that what controls a hand is the brain in the skull connected to.spine that connects to.the hand. The most that any other person can do is influence--they can't grab the controls.themselves. some parasites do.have the ability to infiltrate another organism's brain and steer them like a robot, but humans don't have.that ability, much as we'd like it when we're sure we know better than somebody else how to run their life. That's why I'm wary of laws based on the premise that the government or the lowest common denominator dislikes somebody's personal choice, so it shouldn't be legal. Once that precedent is established, it can apply to anything that any future governing body doesn't like.

Since you seem to be having trouble remembering, I will remind you that in my very first post I noted that I don't see anywhere that the Bible explicitly rules out polygamy. If you don't understand what I mean to convey by that, I'm saying that I don't necessarily see polygamy as a moral evil. The Bible does, however, seem to indicate that there are added (and usually unnecessary) complications such that it should be discouraged. The Bible plainly states that some things may be permissible, but not beneficial (1 Cor 10:23). I realize that means nothing to you - just trying to clarify my position since you're having trouble grasping it.

Your position so far has been that you find polygamy unwise because it's complicated, then some unfounded accusations, misrepresentations of.things you don't understand and rapid, out of the blue subject-changes just to keep things exciting. My position has been two-fold: that it doesn't matter if it's unwise for some people because that's not a.sufficient reason to ban something legally, and that it *is* what works best for some people.

My only purpose was to make a point about your "edifying and consensual" comment - not specifically about polygamy. I'll try to be more explicit from now on to help you out. But it seems you got the point. Your "edifying and consensual" phrase is such a vague idea that it leaves room for all types of cads to abuse it.

How exactly is.that? If a relationship is abusive, it's not edifying and it's likely not consensual. Abusive relationships fail that test.

So far, everything you have said to me conveys casual, recreational relationships - not serious relationships: Hey, you want to come over for a barbeque and whatever else might happen after that? (a reference to your little scenario if you didn't catch that).

Why do those descriptions sound casual to you?

OK, since you can't keep track of what you said. Your comment about how society has supposedly matured in the last 50 years came in post #18

I never said.that. I said that when people first try a new thing,.they tend to overdo it. Our society has matured in some way, regressed.in others, but that's irrelevant. My only point was.that the shine is off this particular thing. It's not a new fad anymore.

... as well as your comment about "modern nations." I suppose I may have read too much into what you meant by a "modern nation," but I wouldn't think you would say ancient societies were modern nations.

I suppose developed nations might have been a better wording. I was drawing a comparison between England andcurrently existing tribes of outer Mongolia and the Amazon, not between England and the Celts.

Mmm, I don't buy it. Too often these are just euphimisms for, "I don't want the hassle of that responsibility." And yet earlier, in the infamous post #18, you were all about teaching people about polygamy, saying, "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.'"

What about that standard makes you think it excludes monogamy? There are plenty of people who look at their monogamous relationships and say, "Yup, this is working well for us. We both like who we are and what we have." That passes the "edifying and consensual" test. Why would you think it wouldn't?

Again, it seems that most of what you're talking about is the romantic/sexual aspect of these relationships.

I very carefully avoided any reference to sex and deliberately spelled out that negotiating the nature of.the relationship is a part of the process (indicating that there are lots of ways a relationship could happen). If you're just seeing sex and romance, that's because your own brain is full of it, because my writing is *not*.

Plus, you're now indicating that there is a "primary" relationship. Do you mean that is the only one that you expect to last? Why is it "primary"? Are you saying there is a bond between two people that can't be shared by multiple people? What you're describing sounds more like swinging than polygamy.

Some people use the language of "primary," "secondary," etc. Some don't. It usually indicates time commitment (out of hours in the day/week, not years out of life), or how much energy is being devoted to.the relationship. It doesn't have to just be two people. If you have, for example, two people who've been together for ten years and are married, and their other two partners who've been with them for five years, and they all live together, and support each other financially and emotionally, and share their lives as a group in the ways normally associated with marriage (actual relationship of people I know), you'd be hard pressed to untangle who is "primary," and it would be fair to treat the group as.if.they are all primaries to.each other.

And, the people i've been describing through this thread would be more likely to identify as polyamorous than polygamous, but that seems like a fairly minor nuance in the context of.this conversation. Were polygamy to be legalized, and the people involved got married, it would become polygamy.

Polyamory is somewhere between what polygamy is today and swinging. Or what I understand swinging to be. I have not been part of.the swinging community and know only vagueries about the dynamics.

If someone in modern America wanted to live in a truly polygamous relationship, I doubt anyone would stop them - as long as there is no blatant physical abuse.

While I dont generally support the.fundamentalist Mormon approach to polygamy, the way they are prosecuted is disgusting. One couple is legally married. The other wives have no legal bond to their husband. So you'd.think there wouldn't be any problem with this, legally, right? No. The police declare that because they all live together, they are common-law married, and then charge.them with bigamy.

But if these are "personal" decisions and rules that only meet "their own needs" (which sounds more like selfishness than actually establishing a lasting relationship), why do you care if society acknowledges your polygamy at all?

Why is it selfish to base the rules of.a.relationship on how well it meets the needs of the people involved?

As for the question: see above.

You're getting closer to the heart of the issue now. What about property and medical issues? What about family businesses? Are the people you know actually signing contractual agreements on those types of things as they get "serious" about relationships other than the "primary" one?

Everybody has.to make.that choice already. Who's your medical POA? Your mother or your spouse? My mother is divorced, so.she had to choose.between her.children. nothing new.here.[/quote]
[/quote]
With all that said, I've yet to see how is it a legal relationship if this is only a pinky-swear made by the people involved. A legal relationship means you are submitting yourself to a higher authority, which you seem to advocate against. So what do you expect the government to do for you? Are you expecting tax breaks? Are expecting subsidized veneral testing so you know if all your new partners are clean? Are you expecting subsidized DNA testing so that you know who fathered a specific child ... or legal enforcement of some kind of poly-parenting? Child support? Welfare support if you're not a "primary," but you were dependent on your polygamous partner for income and they dump you?
[/quote]

It isn't a legal relationship.yet. that's.the topic of the thread, remember? We're discussing whether.it ought to be allowed.

The details of how it would work have not been worked out, and I do not know half enough about economics to be able.to answer the financial questions. That would be a complicated.discussion, but i don't think that's a good.excuse for not.having it.
and I do not advocate against government. I advocate against governments overstepping their bounds.

I've worked with foster and adopted children. One big problem for them - even if they are placed in a stable monogamous household at a very young age - is the "who am I?" question that can cause serious confidence problems. Polygamy just seems rife for that along with increased sibling rivalry problems - especially if you're not a child of a "primary" relationship.

Why do.you think that being bounced among different families is comparable.to being a part of one, large family?
I'm not sure when people got.this.idea that children are damaged by having more.or.fewer than two adults caring for.them. it used to.be the norm, and still is in many cultures, for extended families to all live together, and for a child to have 3, 4, 5 adults playing some kind of parenting role in their life. Would it be damaging for.a.child to live with their parents, grandmother and aunt? Would.they wonder who.they really were or feel inferior because their mother gave birth to.them and not their aunt? Well...maybe, if something unhealthy is going on, but i wouldnt assume it right off the bat.

Would you be OK with actuarial studies on polygamy? And if it is determined that the swinging style you're advocating is at higher risk for depression - which often leads to higher rates of alcoholism, drug abuse, etc. - higher rates of veneral disease - or whatever they might find - that you'd be willing to pay higher insurance rates?

I'd be interested in seeing *well done* studies on the various forms of non-monogamy and how it is correlated with other quirks.

Would you be willing to pay a higher insurance rate if it turned out monogamy was more associated with those things than non-monogamy?

The insurance industry is far too screwed up to have a meaningful conversation about it.

 

[Glas Ridire]

Yes, it's evil to impose our Western idea that pedophilia is wrong. We must respect cultures which force young girls to marry and have sex with men far older than they are. Sex with children is only wrong if it happens to a white child in civilised countries - it's OK if it's one of those brown kids from one of those backwards nations.

Funny you should say that . .. 3 out of five of my children are "brown". My point, unless we want to enforce our laws on foreign nations, we have to find a "best ways forward" when dealing with child-marriages that have already happened. Yes, we can prevent them on our shores. We can't without military takeover prevent them in other countries (while they retain their sovereign nation status) therefore, how do we most humanely deal with these girls? Set up redtape barricades so they can't get in to our country and strand them in the third world. . . is the only solution you have offered. Maybe you should read what you wrote and see if your own sarcasm cuts you deeper than it did me.

Your icon says you're a Celtic christian - and I thought only Catholics were kiddy-fiddlers. Please do everyone a favour and never have children.

Way out of line! Slamming Roman Catholics is uncalled for and unrelated to this thread. I am not one to go crying to mods, just be advised, your comments were unwarranted flame. Father's day tomorrow . ..

Also - "Such girls are for sure not condemned to a life of poverty or prostitution. . ."? What, child prostitution bothers you but underaged marriage doesn't? What's wrong with you?

The funny thing is, what is wrong with me is, I can disagree with the rightness of something (like underaged brides) without needing to dehumanize the people it happens to. It is terrible that I'd like underaged wives and second+ wives to be treated as people .. . you are right. I must be sick in the head to think they shouldn't be left behind to fend for themselves and ought to be able to travel with their husbands with full rights as a person.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Funny you should say that . .. 3 out of five of my children are "brown".

You have children? This makes the fact that you see nothing wrong with underaged marriages all the more worrying.

We can't without military takeover prevent them in other countries (while they retain their sovereign nation status) therefore, how do we most humanely deal with these girls? Set up redtape barricades so they can't get in to our country and strand them in the third world. . . is the only solution you have offered. Maybe you should read what you wrote and see if your own sarcasm cuts you deeper than it did me.

First of all yes, many people support intervention from forgein nations if they suspect human rights violations are taking place. Clearly you only think harming others is wrong if it's one nation against another - when they are harming people in their own nation you couldn't care less. Obviously all those charities campaigning to stop underaged marriage are a bunch of culturally-insensitive bigots ...

Second, if you think that it is wrong for one nation to impose its own sense of morality on another - that it's "wrong" for us to impose our Western ideals of marriage onto foreign nations - then I argue it is wrong for them to impose their ideals on us. If we cannot force them to make underage marriage illegal, then they cannot force us to make it legal to suit them.

The funny thing is, what is wrong with me is, I can disagree with the rightness of something (like underaged brides) without needing to dehumanize the people it happens to. It is terrible that I'd like underaged wives and second+ wives to be treated as people .. . you are right. I must be sick in the head to think they shouldn't be left behind to fend for themselves and ought to be able to travel with their husbands with full rights as a person.

Frankly if you are more concerned about offending people who support pedophilia than you are about the welfare of girls too young to consent to sex then yes, you are sick in the head. A father should know better.