General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsPeople who compare same-sex marriage and polygamy need to fuck off
Sadly, this idiotic talking point is being raised by clickbaiters, wingnuts, and other ignoramuses trying to hijack or delegitimize an historic victory for civil rights. Please give it rest.
1. The issue has been raised consistently by rightwing bigoted assholes who oppose marriage equality. It is an argument that has been weaponized against the movement for equality.
2. The countries in black are those where polygamy is allowed--countries like Uganda, Afghanistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia. The ones in blue are where it is banned.
You will note that the ones that permit polygamy are also the most heinously homophobic, whereas the ones in blue are the ones that have embraced or are on the way to embracing legal equality for their GLBT citizens.
Unsurprisingly, the countries that permit polygamy are also the worst ones for gender equality. It is perverse to hijack the cause of equality by comparing it to something that's inherently anti-equality.
Polygamy is anti-equality and rooted in backwards patriarchal practices.
3. Polygamy is really fucking awful for women and children.
http://news.ubc.ca/2012/01/23/monogamy-reduces-major-social-problems-of-polygamist-cultures/
That is a key finding of a new University of British Columbia-led study that explores the global rise of monogamous marriage as a dominant cultural institution. The study suggests that institutionalized monogamous marriage is rapidly replacing polygamy because it has lower levels of inherent social problems.
Our goal was to understand why monogamous marriage has become standard in most developed nations in recent centuries, when most recorded cultures have practiced polygyny, says UBC Prof. Joseph Henrich, a cultural anthropologist, referring to the form of polygamy that permits multiple wives, which continues to be practiced in some parts of Africa, Asia, the Middle East and North America.
The emergence of monogamous marriage is also puzzling for some as the very people who most benefit from polygyny wealthy, powerful men were best positioned to reject it, says Henrich, lead author of the study that is published today in the journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. Our findings suggest that that institutionalized monogamous marriage provides greater net benefits for society at large by reducing social problems that are inherent in polygynous societies.
Considered the most comprehensive study of polygamy and the institution of marriage, the study finds significantly higher levels rape, kidnapping, murder, assault, robbery and fraud in polygynous cultures. According to Henrich and his research team, which included Profs. Robert Boyd (UCLA) and Peter Richerson (UC Davis), these crimes are caused primarily by pools of unmarried men, which result when other men take multiple wives.
The scarcity of marriageable women in polygamous cultures increases competition among men for the remaining unmarried women, says Henrich, adding that polygamy was outlawed in 1963 in Nepal, 1955 in India (partially), 1953 in China and 1880 in Japan. The greater competition increases the likelihood men in polygamous communities will resort to criminal behavior to gain resources and women, he says.
According to Henrich, monogamys main cultural evolutionary advantage over polygyny is the more egalitarian distribution of women, which reduces male competition and social problems. By shifting male efforts from seeking wives to paternal investment, institutionalized monogamy increases long-term planning, economic productivity, savings and child investment, the study finds. Monogamys institutionalization has been assisted by its incorporation by religions, such as Christianity.
Monogamous marriage also results in significant improvements in child welfare, including lower rates of child neglect, abuse, accidental death, homicide and intra-household conflict, the study finds. These benefits result from greater levels of parental investment, smaller households and increased direct blood relatedness in monogamous family households, says Henrich, who served as an expert witness for British Columbias Supreme Court case involving the polygamous community of Bountiful, B.C.
Monogamous marriage has largely preceded democracy and voting rights for women in the nations where it has been institutionalized, says Henrich, the Canadian Research Chair in Culture, Cognition and Evolution in UBCs Depts. of Psychology and Economics. By decreasing competition for younger and younger brides, monogamous marriage increases the age of first marriage for females, decreases the spousal age gap and elevates female influence in household decisions which decreases total fertility and increases gender equality.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22794315
4. The Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples may not be denied the benefits available to heterosexual couples as that is improper discrimination based on who they are. And, it does nothing to change the legal meaning of heterosexual marriages. It just means same-sex couples get the same benefits. Granting poly marriages full legal effect means blowing up the current legal definition of marriage and rewriting our entire legal code regarding divorce, child support, child custody/decisionmaking, tax, inheritance, property, employee benefits, etc. It would also change the fundamental assumption underlying marriages as they currently exist--that two people commit to one another and place the other before all others.
That would be an attack on the institution of marriage itself, which is why the alarmist bigots make the comparison in the first place.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)bigwillq
(72,790 posts)Seen so many folks make that comparison.
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)The only music I like is classical, so I see no difference between rap, rock, jazz, etc.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)BILLINGS -
Given the U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling that same-sex marriage is legal in all 50 states, a Lockwood family is now looking to solidify rights of its own.
We first told you about the Colliers in January of 2015 when the polygamist family appeared on an episode of the TLC show, "Sister Wives."
The polyamorous movement is a national push to allow marriage between multiple partners.
http://www.kxlh.com/story/29450937/montana-polygamist-family-applies-for-marriage-license
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)will get exactly nowhere in the court system except maybe a trip to jail.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)As I understand it, the decision was based on the argument that marriage is a fundamental right and thus, that it could not be denied to someone based on gender. I may be wrong, but I think that is the decision.
The decision did not change the definition of marriage as recognizing only unions between two people.
The decision was more about gender discrimination than about changing the definition of marriage as a union of two people.
So I don't think that at this time the polygamy and polyandry arguments will be based on discrimination. I don't see how that would work.
There is no discrimination in limiting the number of people in a marriage. There is discrimination in limiting the genders of the parties to a marriage.
I could be wrong, but I think the polygamy and polyandry claims would take a sea change in social and cultural thinking. And I doubt that will happen. But, who knows???
Paradigm Shift
(2 posts)In reality there is discrimination in limiting the number of people in a marriage. It's hard for you to see because you're part of the belief system that defines marriage as only between two people. I'm of the belief if something is preventing us from exploring what makes us happy, as so long as we are not violating other's property or persons, then that something is discrimination by proxy. This conversation will soon reach mainstream as it's the next phase of moral awakening in this country. Peace.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)It means differentiating based on some inborn and unchangeable, some immutable, that is unchangeable characteristic or based on religion or the exercise of some fundamental right.
If society wants to redefine marriage to include polygamy or polyamory, it can.
But for many reasons, I don't think it will in the near future.
In more detail:
Marriage is defined as a commitment between two people.
The problem with the bar against gay marriage was that it defined the two people by gender and thus discriminated based on gender.
The right to marry one person (of a different race) was deemed fundamental in a case entitled Loving v. Virginia. Race is considered to be an immutable characteristic. We are born into a particular race supposedly. (Actually, most of us in the US, depending on how long our families have been in this country are probably multl-racial.) So the right to marry could not be refused by the government on the basis of race.
Gender is also an immutable characteristic. Therefore, the fundamental right to marry (one person) cannot be denied based on gender.
Society changed its attitude toward gay marriage and that paved the way for the cases and the changes in laws in certain states. But the basic legal principle that played out in the gay marriage case before the Supreme Court was there beginning with Loving v. Virginia.
Society has not changed its attitude toward polygamy and polyamory. But the right to marry as defined as a union between two people has also not changed. And I don't think it will in the near future. Only if there were for some reason such as war, a lack of men, do I think it would change. The economic aspects of polyamory and polygamy and the social consequences would not be accepted widely. Not now.
But I could see that families might choose to live in communities of couples who give each other support in many respect. I especially do not think that polygamy will ever be accepted in the US unless we have a situation in which the disparity in wealth becomes very, very great and women seek a rich man to support their children. In that case, poor men would not be able to marry. Or if we had a situation in which there was a scarcity of men due perhaps to war or imprisonment or disease or something. This is hard to imagine.
asturias31
(85 posts)It details the real-life application of polygamy in America.
I understand your point: why not have plural marriage if all parties agree? But do you understand mine: that the "agreement" is usually gender-based exploitation by another name. Look around the world. You want to reinvent a very crappy wheel?
( It's like saying that labor protections should be abolished because, if workers "agree" to work sixteen hour days for twenty cents an hour, heh, that's their choice and we shouldnt obstruct this fine ard voluntary arrangement.)
People who want to have creative lifestyles should be left alone to enjoy themselves. Nothing less. Nothing more.
B2G
(9,766 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)None of my business as long as everyone involved is good with it. I have friends who have been in long term poly relationships.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)they don't need the government to legalize it
B2G
(9,766 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)or any kind of penalties.
B2G
(9,766 posts)But polygamy isn't legally recognized marriage.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)It's not legally recognized marriage. So what?
B2G
(9,766 posts)Really? News to me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas
This is pretty common knowledge amongst folks who decide to discuss marriage equality and its place in society/history
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Seriously, how do you not know about that? The police used them to terrorize the LGBT community for decades.
B2G
(9,766 posts)I just don't recall any states actually enforcing them.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Creative movement of the goalposts...
I seem to recall a case not too long ago where cops broke into a house where two gay men were having sex and arrested them.
Gay bars and nightclubs have been raided and the men or women there arrested. If you're completely unaware of this, you need to do a little research. Or ask older gay men and lesbians about what they faced.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)States which repealed their adultery laws in recent years include West Virginia in 2010,[137] Colorado in 2013,[138] and New Hampshire in 2014.[139]
Adultery remains a criminal offense in 21 states, although prosecutions are rare.[140][141] Massachusetts, Idaho, Oklahoma, Michigan, and Wisconsin consider adultery a felony, while in the other states it is a misdemeanor. It is a Class B misdemeanor in New York[142] and Utah, and a Class I felony in Wisconsin.[143] Penalties vary from a $10 fine (Maryland)[144] to life sentence (Michigan).[145] In South Carolina, the fine for adultery is up to $500 and/or imprisonment for no more than one year [South Carolina code 16-15-60], and South Carolina divorce laws deny alimony to the adulterous spouse.[146][147][148]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adultery#United_States
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)still_one
(92,397 posts)ad declaring how it infringes on their so-called "religious belief", urging idiots to call a number to fight it.
WTF is wrong with these people? Why do they care how someone lives their lives, and who they choose to share it with?
It is troubling that the SC court ruling was that close
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)What if in a 3-way relationship A wants a divorce from B, but wants to stay with C, and B and C also want to stay together?
Seems like legal polygamous marriage would just open up a whole can of worms.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)by all means turn it into a series of mergers, acquisitions, and spin-offs.
Nobel_Twaddle_III
(323 posts)Last edited Thu Jul 2, 2015, 08:04 PM - Edit history (1)
Nevernose
(13,081 posts)It's allowed in Brazil, Switzerland, and Holland. It's a weird technical legalization, but it counts. It's illegal but ignored in many Asian countries, too, because of cultural traditions.
It's illegal but ignored in America, too: there hasn't been a polygamy trial since the forties or fifties.
My radically leftist wife literally wrote a book on the legal aspects of polygamy, so I've been hearing about it for years. I'm not such a big fan myself, because of the treatment of women and children (which often, but does not always, suck), but I'm a big fan of letting consenting adults do what they want as long as no one gets hurt. Women and children always seem to get the shit end of the deal regardless of how many people are in the relationship.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)Cite your sources or stop making false claims.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)I love both Bianca and Mirjam, so I am marrying them both, Victor said. He had previously been married to Bianca. Two and a half years ago they met Mirjam Geven through an internet chatbox. Eight weeks later Mirjam deserted her husband and came to live with Victor and Bianca. After Mirjams divorce the threesome decided to marry.
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/301
A quick Google search brought this. So they don't have marriage but apparently have civil unions.
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)Please note that the article is 10 years old, and not from a very noted source. In fact, the journalist just didn't do her homework.
There is a law for civil unions in the Netherlands, first introduced in 2000, but that one
a) does explicitly NOT presuppose a sexual relation between the two civil partners (which is why the LGBT community was not overjoyed when it was introduced as "gay marriage"
b) does not allow any contemporaneous unions or marriages on the part of either partner, so still enforces the laws against bigamy
The Dutch law does allow a private contract between more than two individuals. And just like the Mormon marriages, these have absolutely no recognition as marriage OR civil union, but they are not outlawed either, since - and this is the important part - no civil servant is asked to warrant the validity of the contract.
So what these three have (or had*) is nothing more than a private contract between three citizens.
* Dan Savage: "I've been to a few poly-amorous weddings, but I've never been to a poly-amorous fifth wedding anniversary."
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)I read about it already
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samenlevingscontract
It does sound functionally like a civil union
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)But that is an entirely private matter. Legally, it has no recognition from the state.
Marriage is about recognition.
Nevernose
(13,081 posts)It's marriage in all but name (or can be), except in the eyes of the church. What makes it different than American "domestic partnerships" is that it not only includes statutes governing joint property, but wills, estates, taxes, and child custody. It might have a different name, but that's not "domestic partnership" in the American sense, it's marriage. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
Plus, they recognize other nations' polygamous marriages (as do many countries in Europe, although not the United States).
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)Marriage means recognition. Private arrangements between consenting adults are undoubtably a great thing, but unless a civil servant warrants it, it is NOT a marriage.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)Both reflect the sexual norms established by those societies. Gay marriage became more accepted and therefore went from illegal to legal.
The same is happening with polygamy. Already there are open polygamists on reality tv shows. Like gay relationships 30 or 40 years ago, it's gone from a criminal offense to unenforced law.
Society in the west is becoming more sexually liberal with no sign that it will stop any time soon.
The2ndWheel
(7,947 posts)According to Henrich, monogamys main cultural evolutionary advantage over polygyny is the more egalitarian distribution of women, which reduces male competition and social problems.
Meaning women are objects required to make men docile? Should each man be guaranteed a woman by the state then? If it's for the greater good and all that.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)We want to be more like Norway, less like Saudi Arabia.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)and Russia and China are securely in the blue zone--and China stopped *castrating gay men for being gay* in either '82 or '87, I can't remember
Treant
(1,968 posts)Louisiana went blue, but I imagine the map hasn't been updated just yet.
WDIM
(1,662 posts)And these consenting adults should have the same protections if they chose to marry as anyone else.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)express a number of these things via contact.
but they're not entitled to rewrite the entire US legal system
it's a novelty, clickbait discussion point, not a civil rights issue
WDIM
(1,662 posts)Almost word for word.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)craigmatic
(4,510 posts)we're called homophobic(I'm glad gays got the right to marry btw). The point is you don't get to say where the social acceptance movement stops. It's no telling where we go from here. 2004 wasn't that long ago and I remember bush running on hating gays. Oh what a difference a decade makes.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)battle for civil rights.
One isn't a homophobe for pointing that out.
If someone says same-sex marriage isn't a matter of civil rights, or that same-sex marriage is bad for society and an attack on marriage itself, well then they probably are a homophobic asshole, regardless of race or ethnicity.
Polygamy is a culturally backwards, anti-equality practice. Look at the map and read the studies. Getting rid of polygamy is a step forward for equality. No reason to revisit that decision.
craigmatic
(4,510 posts)Sounds pretty euro-centric to me and just because it's not something you want to do doesn't automatically make it wrong.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)as the US and Canada.
It's illegal in China. It's illegal in India. It's illegal in Brazil. It's illegal in South Africa.
I'm biased against backwards cultural practices and goverments that deprive women and GLBT citizens of their civil and human rights.
craigmatic
(4,510 posts)these countries wrong for holding on to their traditional cultural practices which is not wrong and at the same time you're trying to condemn them for not embracing gay marriage when we just got it here last week ourselves.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)because they're "traditional cultural practices."
What the fuck are you doing on a liberal discussion board?
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)But it seems the "we should allow polygamy too" is a way to stigmatize marriage equality... It's akin to asking why somebody can't marry their mom if they are both of the age of majority.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)the same continuum of corrosive practices that have been rightfully identified as harmful and detrimental to the institution of marriage.
mostly it's people who are royal assholes making the argument (see the four dissenting opinions from last week) but occasionally some dimbulbs and clickbaiters try to make the argument 'from the left'
craigmatic
(4,510 posts)theirs too, why stop them if they're adults?
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)craigmatic
(4,510 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)You seem to be arguing that polygamy is just another lifestyle so why isn't marriage between an adult parent and adult child just another lifestyle?
Isn't that just an extension of polygamy, it wouldn't even require the mom or dad to divorce.
craigmatic
(4,510 posts)but if they're adults they're going to be having sex anyway and now that I think about it marriage wouldn't be necessary for them to share benefits but if they want to do it anyway well that's them.
craigmatic
(4,510 posts)I'm saying if people don't like polygamy they shouldn't do it and that if they are involved in it they should get divorced if the don't like it. It's not our job as Americans to force our will on the rest of the world. That's what neocons do. Oh and this isn't really a liberal discussion board it's a democratic one.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)partners. the government is not regulating that.
what the government is not doing is opening up the legal can of worms of poly marriage, nor is it encouraging people to adopt a practice with a long and really shitty track record, one that was rightfully dumped.
And, to address another one of your stupid fucking arguments, supporting women's rights and GLBT rights as universal human rights does not make one a Neocon imperialist.
craigmatic
(4,510 posts)And, to address another one of your stupid fucking arguments, supporting women's rights and GLBT rights as universal human rights does not make one a Neocon imperialist.
no it doesn't but going around the world forcing your will on others does.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)state?
craigmatic
(4,510 posts)Incest is wrong because the offspring are at high risk for inherited genetic disorders but in the past the state has condoned it for the nobility. To answer your question I don't know. Probably not although it did seem to work out well for the Roosevelts.
kcr
(15,320 posts)So what if they're consenting adults? The marriage contract should not be dismantled and completely reorganized in order to accommodate them simply because they're consenting adults.
craigmatic
(4,510 posts)together they can get this made into the new status quo.
kcr
(15,320 posts)That's a rule?
craigmatic
(4,510 posts)asturias31
(85 posts)We are talking about US law.
And I feel perfectly free to criticize the abuses other cultures visit on some of their own (usually the female, the poor, the minority). That's not "telling people how to live", it's recognizing injustice.
craigmatic
(4,510 posts)It's like saying oh you people don't have the ability to reason issues out like rich Americans because you're not smart enough so we'll decide things for you even though you didn't ask for our help.
asturias31
(85 posts)Last edited Sun Jul 5, 2015, 08:00 PM - Edit history (1)
me how to live: I must live by the laws which they (the government) see fit to impose on women in the name of their theocracy. In china or Ghana or France I must abide by local laws. So yes: 'people do it to Americans.'
And, you really don't think other governments and people in other lands criticize Americans, or decry our uncovered women and heathen ways, or our kapitalist exploitation of the proletariat, or our shallow Karsashian lifestyle? Of course they do. Various governments and and movements work very hard at criticizing American behaviors - and while this is generally propaganda meant to manipulate their own follpwers, more than actual concern or desire to improve our sorry American lives, it is atill their right to spout anti-American criticism.
More to the point: surely there are people out there in Ecuador or Thailand or Sri Lanka, shaking their heads over the plight of American old folks in nursing homes or Ametican families in which upward mobility has replaced kinship bonds. And I might or might not agree with them - but I would still think it nice that they care about America's problems, like I care about problems in their countries, too.
craigmatic
(4,510 posts)insulted if somebody came here and tried to do that to us. Sure care what other countries do but don't try to tell them what to change culturally. It only creates backlash and makes them cling to it harder. Change has to come from within to be effective anyway.
asturias31
(85 posts)Are based on enforced sex discrimination: women in such societies have far less freedom than men to choose their own spouses or make their own living or defy parents and tradition in order to achieve happiness; they are also trained to obey and submit and not fight God's will, etc. They are also living in poor countries with scant resources, and the poorer they are the more exploitable they are.
(Women who have a choice generally will not choose to have a husband only half-time or less, and see him spend half his money and energy on another wife-and-kids set, and see her own children get less money and less attention and a dimmer future, etc.)
And - if you don't care about women - as the OP points out, polygamy also is lousy for poor men, and for the polygamist society.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)You're taking cultural relativism to an absurd degree.
craigmatic
(4,510 posts)whoever they want as long as it's consensual. I'm also not one of these people who feel like we have this duty to uphold the white man's burden of trying to go around the world and tell others how to live.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)craigmatic
(4,510 posts)do things our way. I dislike that way of thinking because it leads to cultural imperialism and as a minority in this country I'm sensitive when white people think it's ok to strip other peoples of their traditional way of life and cultural identity. It's been done to blacks and natives here and aboriginals in Australia. You might see this as a positive thing you're promoting but to be it's the same attitude in a different shiny box. Let other people figure this out for themselves we did and it didn't take outsiders coming in to tell us right from wrong to do it.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Confederates of their traditional way of life and cultural identity by ending slavery.
Are you upset that we're oppressing ISIS?
Believing in human rights is not a white people thing.
People like you are the enemies of women in Afghanistan, and Saudi Arabia, and GLBT activists in Uganda, fighting for their human rights. You side with the oppressor against the oppressed.
craigmatic
(4,510 posts)saying that this fight for LBGT rights should be decided by the people in their own countries so good on the activists.
asturias31
(85 posts)people how to live.". (Though it's nice when we tell folks that rubbing mud on a cut umbilical cord isn't a great way of cleaning it. I am guessing they appreciate reduced child mortality, yes?)
We should, however, demand that in our land, abusive cultural practices are legislated against and equal rights and opportunities are protected as much as we can protect them.
Perhaps you like female genital mutilation, forced marriage, child marriage, wife beating, child labor, slavery, apartheid, religion-based and tribe-based discrimination, and bushmeat imports that risk Ebola?
These are all cherished cultural practices. In many cases the victims do not even protest - they want to fit in and obey, to avoid the punishment and ostracism their family and community inflicts on nonconformists.
You seem to believe that if other societies abuse their weakest members, we should allow them to do so even in America.
Please give it some thought.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Done.
Just done.
WDIM
(1,662 posts)Polygamy is a culturally backward male dominated oppression of women. The women have no choice in Saudi Arabia for example. The men dominate the relationship and women cannot have more than one husband.
Polyamorous is consenting adults who love eachother all members have a voice and equailty.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)Without directly saying it in a reply which would obviously be alerted on?
you rule bender you LOL
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)will be disappointed with the results.
Though I had two people suggest that it was racist to point out that Sweden has a better gender equality record than Saudi Arabia.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)I hope some admins start to read the threads from today.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)The former is an innate characteristic. The latter is a choice.
I was born heterosexual but I can choose to marry as many women at one time as would let me.
WDIM
(1,662 posts)Women can have more than one husband too. But all members to the marriage must be of full knowledge and consenting.
Now people having secret lives and marrying multiple people without the knowledge of all involved should be illegal. Or people being coerced, manipulated, or taken advantaged of should be illegal.
But if its done for true love then i see no reason why i or you or the state should refuse them the same rights as anybody.
uppityperson
(115,679 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)that's how it's practiced here, anyways.
"I love you, you're in a three-way tie for first in my heart" isn't quite the same institution.
uppityperson
(115,679 posts)You don't need to love them, or commit to any period of time or emotions or anything. It is about the legal protections of stuff during and after the partnership.
My mother could not understand why I divorced since I'd "committed" to my ex. I read the marriage statutes and was surprised at what I'd signed as it was about stuff. Assets, debts, children.
Consenting adults should be allowed the same rights regardless of sexual orientation or gender.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)it's not just about love--you certainly don't need a certificate from the state to marry someone. But when you do marry, you're making it difficult/complicated to leave.
Even people with modest assets have a ton of complications when divorcing--how to divvy up retirement plans, who decides the school or the church, etc etc etc etc.
I can't imagine what that would be like with 3 people, or five--trying to sort things out. I'm married to divorce lawyer, and man the headaches.
Absolutely agree with the last sentence, can't improve on it.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)I've known I'm non-monogamous as long as I've known I'm sapiosexual and attracted to both feminine females and feminine males.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)like you did in the other thread.
ncjustice80
(948 posts)Why are you against marriage equality?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)And now we have marriage equality.
Poly marriage is anti-equality.
ncjustice80
(948 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)ncjustice80
(948 posts)Everyone can marry someone of the opposite gender! Its EQUALITY! (NOT!!!)
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)If three men are in a sexual relationship with one another, they choose to be poly, they don't choose to be gay
polyamoury is strictly behavior, people aren't born that way and there is no discernible class of polyamoury people that's separable from their behavior
ncjustice80
(948 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Most things are choices. Sexual orientation is in the rare category of things that are not choices.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)DeadLetterOffice
(1,352 posts)ncjustice80
(948 posts)Quixote1818
(28,968 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Being unmarried by necessity is bad for us.
treestar
(82,383 posts)consents to that.
Most people have enough self respect not to want to be a second husband or wife.
asturias31
(85 posts)people "consent" to a lot of things they actually find humiliating or hateful. They do it when they are poor and desperate. They do it when the other party is stronger and threatens violence. They do it when their culture or religion teaches female submission, and punishes women who rebel.
The fantasy is of happy middle-class threesomes or foursomes in an equitable plural marriage. The reality is, and has always been, very different.
craigmatic
(4,510 posts)I'm ok with polygamy if they're all consenting adults and yes that includes women with multiple husbands and men with multiple wives. You might scoff at it now but given the right push by social media there's no telling what the next big social movement might be.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)to claim that it is. Take CA for example, legalized any sexual activity between consenting adults in 1975, CA made same sex marriage legal in 2007, then CA passed Prop 8 making it illegal again until 2013. So marriage came nearly 40 years after the legalizing of 'what adults do in the bedroom' and that sort of makes it obvious that the two things are not the same. It should also be obvious that any sort of poly-relations are also perfectly legal.
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)Just nobody out there lives their life like you and Pat Robertson want us to. Perhaps you two can comfort each other.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)on the similarities between same-sex marriage and polygamy as well as the acceptability of polygamy.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/30/pat-robertson-gay-marriage-destroyed-_n_6969602.html
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/pat-robertson-polygamy-was-ok-old-testament-now-its-wrong
Those of us who care about inequality reject that stupid bullshit.
If people want to have 10-person orgies in their bedroom every night, so be it. Not society's business. Doesn't bother me.
But it's not a civil rights issue.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)Because you say so? I think not.
Why are you threatened by my desire to someday marry both of the women I love?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)argument that monogamous marriage laws are unconstitutional.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)That's not your place to decide...it's the judiciary's.
Ultimately, I believe justice will prevail over polyphobes.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Response to geek tragedy (Reply #203)
asturias31 This message was self-deleted by its author.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)No, folks, you're not the tip of the spear of a new social movement. You've been duped and magnificently trolled.
uppityperson
(115,679 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)that the two have any meaningful similarities, I am attacking that argument.
uppityperson
(115,679 posts)Do you mean those who say marriage equality and polygamy have meaningful similarities can fuck off?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)that we are compelled to re-legalize polygamy, that the two involve the same civil rights concerns etc etc are the ones who need to fuck off.
that's pretty clear from the OP/
uppityperson
(115,679 posts)clear as people think they are.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)I wanted to say "those who imply same-sex marriage is no more of a civil rights issue than polygamy is need to fuck off"
Pacifist Patriot
(24,654 posts)You didn't compare dogs to fish, you contrasted them.
uppityperson
(115,679 posts)Off for dictionary definitions:
google says
estimate, measure, or note the similarity or dissimilarity between.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/compare
1.
to examine (two or more objects, ideas, people, etc.) in order to note similarities and differences:
to compare two pieces of cloth; to compare the governments of two nations.
2.
to consider or describe as similar; liken: Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?.
3.
Grammar. to form or display the degrees of comparison of (an adjective or adverb).
verb (used without object), compared, comparing.
4.
to be worthy of comparison; be held equal:
Dekker's plays cannot compare with Shakespeare's.
5.
to appear in a similar standing:
His recital certainly compares with the one he gave last year.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/compare
: to look at (two or more things) closely in order to see what is similar or different about them or in order to decide which one is better
: to be as good or as bad as something else : to be on the same level or in the same category as something else
Full Definition of COMPARE
transitive verb
1
: to represent as similar : liken <shall I compare thee to a summer's day? Shakespeare>
2
a : to examine the character or qualities of especially in order to discover resemblances or differences <compare your responses with the answers>
b : to view in relation to <tall compared to me> <easy compared with the last test>
3
: to inflect or modify (an adjective or adverb) according to the degrees of comparison
The Blue Flower
(5,444 posts)Polygamy was acceptable in biblical times as well.
ismnotwasm
(42,011 posts)cwydro
(51,308 posts)Thank you.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Don't read further if you have better things to do.
So, my husband and I were students in France, and we ate in the student lunch rooms. One day, over lunch, we spoke to a student from, I think Togoland.
He explained to us that his father had five wives. We asked him how that was possible, how did it work? He said that each of the wives had her own house and her own business, and his father visited them in succession, a night with the first, then with the second, etc., spending one night of the cycle with each. It seemed very bizarre to me. But it is now clear to me that this multi-married man was trying to deal with jealousy among his wives in a fair way. Must have been exhausting having that many wives each I suppose with at least one child.
Anyway, I think that polygamy or polyandry would not be good for America. A lot of men, as the OP states, would be very lonely, and a lot of women would be very unhappy. I was not impressed by this student's story about his father's and his mother's lives.
DesMoinesDem
(1,569 posts)hughee99
(16,113 posts)then how can you be sure that it's the polygamy that's the problem and not the general culture? In those same countries, they have monogamous marriages where the wife and children are also treated poorly. Does that mean monogamy is also awful for women and children?
I'm sorry, but after reading your explanation of the differences here's what I see...
Right wingers use it as an argument.
It's practiced mostly in countries where women and children are treated badly.
Women and children are treated badly in countries where it's practiced.
And a "look at all the logistical problems" argument with respect to our laws.
None seems to be sufficient justification as to why people who want to be married shouldn't be able to get married.
So basically what I see here is a "poisoning the well" fallacy, a circular argument, and a logistical issue addressing family law.
I thought you might make a clearer argument so I read a bunch of your follow up posts, but mostly what I saw was a bunch of "see the title of my OP", veiled misogyny claims and circular arguments. You may be right that the two are not comparable, but you did nothing to help that argument here.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)causal links in bold
3. Polygamy is really fucking awful for women and children.
http://news.ubc.ca/2012/01/23/monogamy-reduces-major-social-problems-of-polygamist-cultures/
That is a key finding of a new University of British Columbia-led study that explores the global rise of monogamous marriage as a dominant cultural institution. The study suggests that institutionalized monogamous marriage is rapidly replacing polygamy because it has lower levels of inherent social problems.
Our goal was to understand why monogamous marriage has become standard in most developed nations in recent centuries, when most recorded cultures have practiced polygyny, says UBC Prof. Joseph Henrich, a cultural anthropologist, referring to the form of polygamy that permits multiple wives, which continues to be practiced in some parts of Africa, Asia, the Middle East and North America.
The emergence of monogamous marriage is also puzzling for some as the very people who most benefit from polygyny wealthy, powerful men were best positioned to reject it, says Henrich, lead author of the study that is published today in the journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. Our findings suggest that that institutionalized monogamous marriage provides greater net benefits for society at large by reducing social problems that are inherent in polygynous societies.
Considered the most comprehensive study of polygamy and the institution of marriage, the study finds significantly higher levels rape, kidnapping, murder, assault, robbery and fraud in polygynous cultures. According to Henrich and his research team, which included Profs. Robert Boyd (UCLA) and Peter Richerson (UC Davis), these crimes are caused primarily by pools of unmarried men, which result when other men take multiple wives.
The scarcity of marriageable women in polygamous cultures increases competition among men for the remaining unmarried women, says Henrich, adding that polygamy was outlawed in 1963 in Nepal, 1955 in India (partially), 1953 in China and 1880 in Japan. The greater competition increases the likelihood men in polygamous communities will resort to criminal behavior to gain resources and women, he says.
According to Henrich, monogamys main cultural evolutionary advantage over polygyny is the more egalitarian distribution of women, which reduces male competition and social problems. By shifting male efforts from seeking wives to paternal investment, institutionalized monogamy increases long-term planning, economic productivity, savings and child investment, the study finds. Monogamys institutionalization has been assisted by its incorporation by religions, such as Christianity.
Monogamous marriage also results in significant improvements in child welfare, including lower rates of child neglect, abuse, accidental death, homicide and intra-household conflict, the study finds. These benefits result from greater levels of parental investment, smaller households and increased direct blood relatedness in monogamous family households, says Henrich, who served as an expert witness for British Columbias Supreme Court case involving the polygamous community of Bountiful, B.C.
Monogamous marriage has largely preceded democracy and voting rights for women in the nations where it has been institutionalized, says Henrich, the Canadian Research Chair in Culture, Cognition and Evolution in UBCs Depts. of Psychology and Economics. By decreasing competition for younger and younger brides, monogamous marriage increases the age of first marriage for females, decreases the spousal age gap and elevates female influence in household decisions which decreases total fertility and increases gender equality.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22794315
hughee99
(16,113 posts)The study took a significant look at polygamous cultures. As you pointed out, polygamous cultures are based in countries that also have significant other cultural differences, and while there certainly may be issues with polygamy (I'm sure there are), this study does little to demonstrate that the argument for having multiple spouses in the US is completely unlike the argument for having a same-sex spouse in the US.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)for women, and harmed the welfare of children.
They traced the very mechanisms by which this operates. They noted that institutionalized monogamy precedes the increase in women's equality.
They did NOT attribute it to general cultural dynamics. They found that polygamy CAUSED problems.
It's antithetical to social equality. Its track record is undisputed. That map did not happen by accident.
So, there's really no decent argument for legalizing it here. It's not a civil rights issue implicating constitutional concerns, and even if it did (say under a religious freedom challenge) there is enough justification to satisfy not only rational basis but strict scrutiny analysis by a court.
If you want to see what polygamy could do for America, go talk to the victims of Warren Jeffs.
Or look north of the border in Canada:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/24/world/americas/british-columbia-court-upholds-canadas-polygamy-ban.html?_r=0
The law seeks to advance the institution of monogamous marriage, a fundamental value in Western society from the earliest of times, Justice Bauman wrote. It seeks to protect against the many harms which are reasonably apprehended to arise out of the practice of polygamy. He also made reference to reports of plural marriages among Muslims in Canada before concluding, There is no evidence that it is a widespread or mainstream phenomenon.
Certainty of harm: great. Benefit to legalizing: non-existent.
Great idea!
hughee99
(16,113 posts)because crime will go up? See, this is what I'm saying. If you want to go with the "what's best for society" argument to determine what someone's civil rights should be, is divorce good for society? How about drug use? Smoking? Guns? Alcohol? Is unregulated procreation what's "best for society"?
Benefit to legalizing it: people get to marry who they want to marry
Some people used to think that was important. Some people used to think that was a civil right.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)to address them. Polygamy has been judged by centuries of human behavior to be really fucking awful and antithetical to human progress on gender equality, as well as harmful to society's welfare.
You are certainly free to try to argue to your fellow citizens that we should adopt the Saudi model of marriage. But, society has spoken and the laws are on the books for a very good reason.
There is a generally recognized right to marry, but it is subject to rational restrictions, reasonably related to their goals.
That is an easy bar for institutionalized monogamous marriage to clear. As noted above, polygamy is a well-known destructive force and the limitation of marriage to that of monogamy is reasonably related to preventing that practice and institutionalizing monogamy.
Similarly, bans on marrying siblings or parents also meet that very low threshold.
Same-sex marriage bans did not meet that threshold, because they were so indefensible. There was no justification in withholding those benefits other than discriminatory animus.
So, no, there is no civil right to poly marriage, just like there's no civil right to marry one's sister or one's lawnmower. The state could make it legal, but it's certainly not obligated to.
maybe you had the US confused with a libertarian paradise?
prayin4rain
(2,065 posts)restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)it isn.t all like sister wives. many young girls are forced to marry older men in sick cults where the men have multiple wives. the girls have babies while they are still practically babies themselves. they have basically no rights. boys are taught to treat women like property. sometime, read up on women that have escaped polygamy. it might give you something to think about.
Bonx
(2,075 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)get the red out
(13,468 posts)I agree completely. Everything you said is spot on.
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)and let's also be honest, those who would do this are
A) right wing assholes trying to make stupid and ignorant people go "oh no, we have sinned, we must repent before my daughter decides she can marry her cat!"
B)Creepy people in the mode of "sister wives" who would love to have a harem to gain power and procreate a bunch of blue eyed babies to take back this country.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)There is both an explicit legalisation of polygamy in some Muslim communities and a sort of "blind eye" approach like the US takes in some Hindu communities. There's a push among some women's NGOs to fully legalise the Hindu version because currently the subsequent wives have zero legal protection whereas in the legalised form they have some (the same argument would apply in Utah).
Also, there are rural parts of Kerala in which women still take multiple husbands. Those are also the places where male infanticide still happens.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)so there are problems with both male and (much more common from what I understand) female infanticide.
It would seem that female infanticide combined with polygyny would be an especially toxic combination--not that it's possible to get worse than female infanticide
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Sociologist after sociologist has studied it but nobody has come up with a convincing explanation for the "reverse".
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I'll see if I can find it again because it's very apropos to your argument...
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)People who are married live longer happier lives, and children do better with two parents.
Polygamy deprives individuals the ability to pair bond, and in practice has always been anathema to equality.
In theory, if equal numbers of people participate in polyandrous and polygynous relationships, this wouldn't be a problem, but in practice that will never be the case.
kelly1mm
(4,734 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)and familiarize yourself with their meaning before using them as an ingredient in word salad
kelly1mm
(4,734 posts)own.
Just own it.......
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)when certain practices are known to produce negative outcomes.
when one notes that eating sensibly and exercising improves health, that is not bigotry
Bonx
(2,075 posts)Hmmm.. where have I heard that line of reasoning before ?
Oh yeah, intolerant a*&$^(^s talking about gay, and interracial, and interfaith marriage.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)You should really strive to make yourself smart enough to distinguish between discrimination against oppressed minorities vs the state exercising its power to regulate behavior for the good of society
Your argument is essentially "all laws suck because some laws used to be discriminatory"
Peddle that idiotic libertarian shit somewhere else
Bonx
(2,075 posts)is a crock of shit.
Peddle your authoritarian shit... here I guess. Lots of folks seem to like it.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Bonx
(2,075 posts)Why are YOU here ?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)to accommodate polygamists, they're not a progressive?
does someone also have to favor legalizing marriages between parents and children to be a progressive, in your opinion?
Bonx
(2,075 posts)to accommodate <people who practice a different lifestyle than me>, they're not a progressive?"
Correct.
"does someone also have to favor legalizing marriages between parents and children to be a progressive, in your opinion? "
Are you referring to adults marrying children ? Children can't enter in to contracts.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)confused with progressivism.
Progressives are generally supportive of the government's ability to regulate, and to tax, and to reward behaviors that are positive, so long as the government avoids discrimination and intrusion into private affairs.
You and Warren Jeffs are free to take your case to the ballot box.
In a democracy, people are free to establish what it means to be married. In the United States, we have established a system that encourages monogamous, stable, committed relationships wherein there is a joinder of legal interests between two people.
That is the system people want. They want marriage to mean that their spouse has chosen them and them only, and that they have similarly committed to their spouse.
You want to take that away from us. But, too bad, so sad, we live in a Democracy so you don't get to take that away.
If you don't like that, start a petition. Or, move to Saudi Arabia
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)and their adult-aged offspring.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)"Happy 18th birthday! Now, let's go to the justice of the peace so we can have a threesome with your mother tonight. But only after you do your homework."
Consenting adults, so what's the problem?
Kurska
(5,739 posts)With "This should be illegal".
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Just because something is legal doesn't mean those who practice it are entitled to have the state attach legal consequences to that behavior.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)There is the objective consequence and there is the subjective reaction. Learning the precise and relevant difference between the two wholly separate concepts is a great favor you can do for yourself. Otherwise, one may muddle through life easily confused while yet appearing as such...
Bonx
(2,075 posts)that is rational and substantive is where you need to focus.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)As for polygamy, we have centuries upon centuries of experience showing the negative impact of polygamous arrangements on society.
I will say, you have quite the nerve calling GT "not a progressive."
lancer78
(1,495 posts)was also proven over time to be false.
Nobel_Twaddle_III
(323 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Obergefell.
prayin4rain
(2,065 posts)interest is not bigotry. Are speeding laws bigotry against speeders? Come on, people.
Hekate
(90,793 posts)Response to geek tragedy (Original post)
nilesobek This message was self-deleted by its author.
romanic
(2,841 posts)The "liberals" linking gay marriage and polygamy don't sound much different from the conservatives doing the same exact thing (except with more social-justice lingo thrown in).
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)factor? I'm thinking.....a particular religion.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)in Muslim countries, it's brought the attendant improvements.
BKH70041
(961 posts)It can either happen now or, like same sex marriage, it can be delayed 50+ years. Either way, it will eventually happen. Consenting adults should decide for themselves regarding who they marry and how many are part of that marriage.
Game. Set. Match.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)TubbersUK
(1,439 posts)tymorial
(3,433 posts)The argument against polygamy is largely based in the definition of marriage. Marriage should be between two people. "An attack on the institution of marriage itself" is the exact argument used by same sex marriage opponents. The use of studies to attack polygamous marriage mirrors the same types of studies used by same sex marriage opponents to prove that same sex couples experience psychological and physical problems. In the end what this really comes down to morality and what individuals are ready to believe is acceptable behavior in others. I personally do not care what consenting adults decide to do with each other so long as individual rights are not violated. Ending state sanctioned marriage would stop the issue dead but it would also require new laws to handle property, death benefits etc not to mention a rewrite of parts of the tax code. As a bisexual man, I supported same sex marriage but honestly I do see the polygamous point of view.
smiley
(1,432 posts)2 is such a popular number.
hunter
(38,327 posts)Expanding marriage to include LGBT couples is obvious from a civil rights perspective, and requires just a few trivial changes and strikeouts in the language of existing laws.
Polygamy is a 'whole 'nother thing, and historically has been extremely detrimental to women and children.
Creating a new legal framework for polyamorous (not polygamous!) marriage would have to be accomplished from the ground up.
Those who are in polyamorous relationships and those who support them need to recognize the right wing is using this talking point to shit on LGBT couples, not to advance the cause of polyamorous marriage.
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)....specifically because it's "really fucking awful for women and children". That statement may be true, but that's not why those laws were passed any more than laws against sodomy or whatnot were. There's is probably mostly puritanical religious dogma and political machinations behind almost every one on the books across the country. And that's the point the lawyers for pro-polygamists will go from. That it wasn't done out of any magnanimous passion for individual human welfare, but the dreaded "society's concern".
All that said, I think the polygamy laws in this country will survive any challenge because they are on the books. Very few places actually bothered to put it on record saying gay marriage was against the law, if any did. Still, in a legal sense, saying "I think this is a morally reprehensible practice" when all consenting adults are involved isn't a good judicial argument.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Actually polygyny - men being allowed to have multiple wives, not the other way around.
In fact, many majority-Muslim countries do, as evidenced by your map.
treestar
(82,383 posts)the right wingers are wrong - there are no progressives who would advocate for it.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)It's not something I would ever want to be involved in, but it doesn't bother me if other people choose to live that lifestyle.
asturias31
(85 posts)But how about in practice? I am trying to educate people about this, since apparently lots of people haven't been exposed to it.
Please see post 191 for how it actually works.
Wella
(1,827 posts)Certainly the gay marriage movement has opened the door to alternative thinking. How alternative it gets will depend on the legal theories coming from activists, lawyers and judges.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)It would have to come from popular demand via legislative action.
You'd need to see--at bare minimum--several states abolish their monogamous marriage laws.
Whether politicians will vote to end marriage as we know it remains highly likely. There is not a substantial demand for such a change.
Wella
(1,827 posts)I do believe that the right legal argument can be made.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Excluding gays and lesbians from the benefits of marriage was motivated purely by discriminatory animus. It had no rational basis--expanding it to gays and lesbians didn't change the institution at all.
Same-sex marriage is pretty much identical to heterosexual marriage.
It's the complete opposite with 'poly marriage'--there's no class or status or characteristic common to the individuals, much less anything resembling discrimination.
Moreover, 'poly marriage' is radically different from same-sex marriage and heyerosexal marriage. So radically different you would need to blow up the old system and replace it with a new one in order to extend legal recognition to 3+ person marriages. Meaning entire rewrites of the tax code, property law, family law, inheritance, etc.
The standard for such inquiry is rational basis--is there a legit government purpose and the law in question is reasonably related to that purpose.
There is no way that multiple-marriage seekers can overcome that. It is not the courts' job to define marriage--only to make sure that all have access to it.
Wella
(1,827 posts)Now I am going to disagree:
1. "Same-sex marriage is pretty much identical to heterosexual marriage. "
Actually, it is not, although it is now seen as equivalent. Its equivalency is a result of birth technologies and relaxation of traditional gender roles, both of which had to happen first before gay marriage could be even entertained as a possibility.
In the days before birth technologies, it was very clear that male/female sexual couplings produced offspring and same sex couplings could never do so. That made the male/female relationship special, unique and marriage was developed as a way to provide materially and legally for the children who came from that coupling. Same sex couplings had no children to materially and legally protect and were not seen as having any legal status. Marriage and its protections were derived from natural reproduction.
Then in the 80s, birth technologies developed--sperm donation, "test tube" babies (in vitro), and surrogacy. I don't know how old you are, but look up the "Baby M" case and see how difficult it was for a heterosexual couple to fight the surrogate for their child. Birth technology did not slide easily onto the scene--it was fraught with legal battles.
Eventually, heterosexual couples won the right to have children through a surrogate and have the child recognized as their own legal child. The birth technologies were intended for married, infertile couples, but within a decade, single women got the right to reproduce using a sperm bank without a husband. This was largely due to feminism, a change in the notion of "family" brought on by feminist activism and legal scholars.
Once a single person could avail herself or himself of birth technologies, gay couples could reproduce this way. Gay men and women were legally single (even if they were within a long term relationship) and could now have children. Understand that had birth technologies been restricted to the married, gay marriage might still be trying to gain acceptance. The fact that the GLBT community had not waited for legal marriage to have children using birth technologies meant that gays were suddenly "creating families". These early prototypes provided grist for the academic mill (all the studies on gay parenting that were used to make the case for gay marriage and family) as well as the normalization of the gay family.
When I was a child, the idea of two men in a relationship raising children would have not even been possible. The closest we came on TV were Family Affair (where Uncle Bill and his valet, Mr French, raise his sister's kids) and My Three Sons (where Uncle Charlie helps Fred MacMurray raise three boys.). But these were clearly not homoerotic relationships (although I'm sure there is some subtext somewhere.)
Even in the 80s, a gay divorcee was not guaranteed the right to keep her own biological children. There was a famous case in Virginia in which the ex-husband got custody because he convinced the court that being raised by his gay ex-wife and her lover would be harmful to the child. The judge explained in his ruling that the child would be open to ridicule by other children and be socially ostracized because of his living situation.
Now, the idea of two men or two women in a relationship raising children is almost banal, normal. It is birth technologies and the legal battles won with these technologies in the 80s and 90s that really created the gay family. Once the gay family existed, with children, you suddenly had an analogous situation to traditional marriage and the idea of equivalence--or marriage equality--actually held weight. One of the recent arguments for gay marriage (to SCOTUS) was, in fact, that the already existing children of gay families would greatly benefit by having married parents.
So, to make it clear: in a natural world without birth technology, there is no equivalence and none was perceived. There is no way gay marriage would have gotten through SCOTUS in the 1940s or 50s or even 80s. The impression of equivalence came from birth technologies.
What also helped was the ability to adopt already existing children. Remember that adoption used to only be for the legally married. A single woman or man could not adopt. It was feminism and the fight for single women to be able to adopt that helped (legally single) gays to also adopt children.
So birth technologies and feminism: these are what created the conditions for the gay family and for the notion of "marriage equality."
Why this long tome? (And sorry for that. I'm old and get long winded.)
Because the path for polygamous families may be similar to that of gay families. Have the families exist first. Create a presence for these families in the media, on TV. Fight for these already existing families in the courtroom. Eventually, it will be argued that poly marriage will be a positive thing for all of these pre-existing poly children.
I give it 20 years, max.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)It has been a tool of the patriarchy from the beginning.
The only ones pushing for this are the rightwingers like Warren Jeffs and the Sister Wives crowd.
Polygamy inherently creates inequality and imbalance inside the household. The empirical data verifies common sense on this.
The cultural left is not going to champion this issue.
Wella
(1,827 posts)Yes, feminists hate plural marriage of many women to one man. In fact, most women don't relish that at all. However, certain gay women I knew years ago were experimenting with plural all-female situations.
My guess is that any polygamy movement will have tightly controlled optics. Think about the gay marriage movement. The crucial cases in the gay marriage fight were about women, and older women. When battles were won, it was women on the front page. Why? Because heterosexuals find two women kissing or committing to each other less objectionable. Yes, it's phobia, but it's the way it is. Hence the female optics.
A polygamous movement will do the same thing. (That is why I don't take the Sister Wives guy seriously right now: wrong optics.) What we will see is three women, living together, raising their kids. Or we will see (max) two women and one man, where the two women are crazy about each other. (There was a Wife Swap episode that had a married couple and their "girlfriend" not long ago.) Polygamy has to be sold to women and it will be sold by labeling it as "empowerment" with the promise of some kind of cool bi-sexual thing with some hot girl. Remember, older people like me won't buy this, but the younger generation has been raised a little more sexually fluid. It might appeal to a 20- or 30-something that she could both have her stable marriage to a man and to her hot wife.
And of course, you don't really have to sell the guy on it, unless he is a conservative or practicing Christian, and you won't get them anyway.
I see some celebrity, maybe Miley Cyrus, introducing the nation to her wife (whom she's apparently marrying soon) and their "boyfriend" whom they'd like to marry together. I see a reality show somewhere.
Iggo
(47,565 posts)...take it easy.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Mr. Snaffleupagus.
Certainly people wish they could assemble a harem, but that falls under "too bad, so sad."
They can cohabit and consider their private relationships the equivalent of marriage. But they don't have a right to receive legal benefits flowing from that arrangement.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)of Daenerys Targaryen to sit on the Iron Throne.
Poly marriage isn't even a movement, let alone a civil rights issue. It's a TLC show, clickbait headlines, and false equivalencies drawn by those hostile to same-sex marriage.
A Potemkin issue invented to distract.
Get back to me when real people protest in the streets and launch a bona fide movement to change the law. Until then, this is Internet hot air.
LostOne4Ever
(9,290 posts)DeadLetterOffice
(1,352 posts)Give it a rest already, and please try to remember that bigotry (in this case, against the poly community) is NOT a Democratic value.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)If I believe an adult male who wants to marry his mom and dad should not have that right am I a bigot?
DeadLetterOffice
(1,352 posts)Enough already - we get it, you think people who would like to see poly marriage become legal are scum.
Please stop. You aren't poly, you (behave as if) don't know anyone in an open long-term stable poly relationship, and you have no right to keep insulting an entire group of people whom you know nothing about.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)I don't think the poly people are scum. I do take umbrage that they are trying to piggyback on the success of gay males and females who worked so hard for the right to marry.
Your response that you oppose marriage between family members does indicate you too are in favor of drawing a line, albeit in a different place.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)a discrete class of people with similar characteristics involved.
Being putatively disadvantaged by a law does not make someone a victim of discrimination.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)isn't a Democratic value.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Cha
(297,655 posts)asturias31
(85 posts)I cant believe that anyone would dare make that comparison.
Marriage equality is about EQUALITY. Polygamy is a vile INEQUALITY.
I socialize with plenty of Muslim women. However, very few would ever tell me their personal troubles. Of that pretty small number, I know two women who suffered their husband's' polygamy. Both times the man made a unilateral decision and the wife found out later. (This is acceptable; it is not considered abuse or dishonesty. It is a man simply exercising his right.) In one case, my friend found out (after several years and several children) that she WAS the second wife.
The map above is bullshit. Polygamy happens in the US. It just isn't done in American courts.
It is the ultimate expression of male privilege and the powerlessness of women..
Under mainstream Islamic law, the first wife's permission is not needed; a man can do as he wants.
After he tells her (if he tells her), the wounded wife is reminded that Allah decided what rights men and women should have. If she objects or cries too much or considers divorce, she is being a bad Muslim - she is trying to take away her husband's God-given right!
She is also commonly scolded with lectures about "the wives of our beloved Prophet". Mohammed's wives were sometimes jealous (jealousy, according to many guides for Muslims, is a feminine weakness) but they always accepted each other because they were good and patient and obedient. (They are called "the best of women" in Muslim teaching and are held us as role models for today's Muslimahs.)
A third line of attack on the wounded wife is the fact that Islam does not give women permission to divorce, except under special circumstances. (Of course American law gives equal divorce rights. But exercising this right might make a Muslim woman an outcast with no friends or home or support system, or it might make her fear eternal hellfire. Child custody is another problem: in Islam, the father is generally considered the "owner" of the children.)
A fourth issue is that in Islam many women quit work when they marry and devote themselves to pleasing their husbands and in-laws, and raising children. Furthermore, a Muslim woman cannot work unless her husband permits it. Makes it pretty difficult to leave, when home and family and community are all you have - and if you rebel, you lose all three.
I could go on, but you probably get the idea. Polygamy is one of the trump cards in a deck that is utterly stacked in men's favor. Women faced with it do submit and swallow their pain and comfort themselves with religion ("God will reward my patience" while their husbands enjoy the here-and-now.
If you want evidence of my claims, please read guidebooks meant for Muslims; please spend time in Muslim chatrooms; please check out those "Ask the Imam" websites, etc. You can try asking Muslim friends too, but it's not something they'll be candid about with outsiders; more likely they'll be evasive or defensive.
Do I have a concern that CAIR or similar organizations will push for Muslim polygyny to be made legal in US courts? It's possible but not likely. I think they don't need or want to expose the practice to daylight, or to the appalled scrutiny of mainstream America. (Though if questioned, the usual apologists will produce the usual script of how polygamy actually helps women, is better than the western system of divorces and mistresses, etc etc. Yeah, it's all a bullshit cover for male privilege.) Bottom line: why would anyone push to legalize it? The system is working just fine as it is: in the shadows where the abuses go undocumented.
My take-home point: please don't let anyone con you into accepting polygamy as just another flavor of normal.
(And the fact that there are some cases where it works, and some (rare) cases where it is used kindly (say, to take care of an elderly woman with no family) and that there exist some women who defend it - of course they do; they want to be good Muslims! - doesn't change my take-home point.)
Gay marriage? Totally different thing.
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)Some appalling shit being posted here the last couple of days.
Response to geek tragedy (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
DiverDave
(4,887 posts)eom
MADem
(135,425 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)jwirr
(39,215 posts)Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)You'd have to be blind not to see it.
asturias31
(85 posts)Many on this board - me included - think polygamy is antiwoman. This is because it is part and parcel of a system that first discriminates heavily against women and then exploits their relative lack of power.
I won't bash Muslims (people shouldn't be bashed) but I do criticize Islam (ideologies are fair game). How can one be against polygamy yet support the ideology that it's a man's right?
That's a serious question. If you hate polygamy, can you defend Islam?
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)embedded practices in those religions that are clearly in conflict with civil/human rights.
Take a look at one that has 1 billion followers..Christians, not just Muslims.
The agenda I am speaking about is central to a persons intentions regarding Muslims but of course you
can discuss the issue about many religions.
But point of this OP is clear not to use the court ruling to push a right wing meme, and he is
correct..it should not be misused as he has demonstrated.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)And then accuses those same countries as being backwards or uncivilized as an argument against polygamy
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)I thought about the issue some more...
I don't give a rat's ass if someone wants to marry their toaster and even if he or she wants to consummate the union with it.
As to polygamy don't expect me to stand behind you or in front of you. Just don't piggyback on the fight for marriage equality.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Polygamy is decidedly anti-equality.
It's the opposite of marriage equality.
Sid