Polygamy

[Bee Eff]

Sorry, but I think in the Jeffs' FLDS sect, Polygamy is the cause--as it is the one and only reason for their whole existence--and the need to continue this practice causes them to do whatever they have to to be able to keep it alive.

You made this statement, which is what I was initially responding to:

I questioned your blanket statement because it is not true, as we can see as we observe Jeff's FLDS sect. It is also not true for the Kingstons as well. Neither of these groups has abandoned the practice because there are two few women to sustain it. They have just changed what they consider acceptable, so they can continue it.

You are correct, my blanket statement was ill advised. Here is a corrected version of the statement:

No, in a situation with too few women to support such, there would be no necessity for underage polygamous marriage.

I do not believe that polygamy results in underage marriage. Underage marriage occurs when a man is not able to contain his desires and there is no acceptable outlet. Society should ward against such, ours did not in the case of the FLDS. The FLDS were not afforded adequate societal oversight as their practice of polygamy pushed them into a hidden position, where marriages were not observed by society. If marriages were observed, and proper announcements were made, there would not have been underage marriages performed.

The cause was a law that denied them the ability to legally and publicly practice polygamy among consenting adults. This forced an underground marriage system that resulted in a lack of public oversight, which proved to be a disservice to underage girls.

[Bee Eff]

Well, I sure don't agree.

You can't just allow polygamy or same-sex marriage and think it will stop at that. If everyone is allowed to do as they please, then all limits to marriage will be challenged. You think "age of consent" laws will stand up if other barriers are broken down? "Age of Consent" laws will be the next thing they challenge--after they get their way with the marriage laws.

There are sometimes good reasons for limiting our "freedoms"--especially as a society degenerates into moral relativity. Limitations can help protect and uphold moral codes which otherwise would be discarded.

Please provide a "good reason" for denying homosexuals or polygamists the right to publicly marry as they do.

Your slippery slope argument is not valid. The age deemed adult is dictated by society and will not be changed by allowing adults to marry as they please. There is a vast difference between marriage between consenting adults and marriage between adult and child.

[Mudcat]

What of those that do not believe in God?

Hey Bee Eff,

Well.....thats a good question.

I'd say that if they don't change their minds about this....

To hell with them.

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

Hopefully, my crass Evangelical humor will slip past the mods quite inconspicuously, in such a busy thread.

Seriously though, in regards to your thought in the OP

Is there a rational position against the practice of polygamy?

I would still maintain that the nearly 1:1 global ratio of male to female is an excellent reason.

If we were to say polygamy was globally accepted carte blanche, even if polygamists only had two wives per man, this would mean that half the men in the world would be without women. We could look at societies where female fetuses are aborted and the male to female ratio is distorted and it is fairly evident that this causes social problems.

Not to mention, you are cutting down the gene pool quite a bit by such practices. Most likely, women would choose financial support and security over other traits.....intelligence, strength, health, etc.. The overall product would be a more interrelated and less diverse world.

Respectfully,

Mudcat

[alter idem]

You are correct, my blanket statement was ill advised. Here is a corrected version of the statement:

No, in a situation with too few women to support such, there would be no necessity for underage polygamous marriage.

I do not believe that polygamy results in underage marriage. Underage marriage occurs when a man is not able to contain his desires and there is no acceptable outlet. Society should ward against such, ours did not in the case of the FLDS. The FLDS were not afforded adequate societal oversight as their practice of polygamy pushed them into a hidden position, where marriages were not observed by society. If marriages were observed, and proper announcements were made, there would not have been underage marriages performed.

I agree that after the 1953 raids, the authorities and politicians felt burned by public outcry, turned a blind eye to what was going on and allowed the situation to continue and degenerate into what it is today.

The cause was a law that denied them the ability to legally and publicly practice polygamy among consenting adults. This forced an underground marriage system that resulted in a lack of public oversight, which proved to be a disservice to underage girls.

Don't agree with this--but that's not a surprise. I believe the govt. has the right and obligation to determine what marraiges they will promote and encourage and you don't.

I also don't agree that they were "forced" into an underground practice that has created these abuses. There are other polygamous groups who have not generated into allowing these abusive patterns. Partly because they have chosen to live a less closed society and they bring in converts. The FLDS made their choice to close themselves off from everyone, including the other polygamous groups and now they've made the choice to allow abuses, rather than try to fix the problem in other, non-criminal ways.

[Bee Eff]

Seriously though, in regards to your thought in the OP

I would still maintain that the nearly 1:1 global ratio of male to female is an excellent reason.

If we were to say polygamy was globally accepted carte blanche, even if polygamists only had two wives per man, this would mean that half the men in the world would be without women. We could look at societies where female fetuses are aborted and the male to female ratio is distorted and it is fairly evident that this causes social problems.

Not to mention, you are cutting down the gene pool quite a bit by such practices. Most likely, women would choose financial support and security over other traits.....intelligence, strength, health, etc.. The overall product would be a more interrelated and less diverse world.

Respectfully,

Mudcat

I agree, but I feel assuming that a larger number of the population would choose polygamy is pushing it a bit. I doubt you would find a large number of men willing to actuall marry more than one woman, let alone a large number of women to do such. I hesitate then to believe that polygamy would threaten the gene pool or the ratio of men to women. As such I feel that the argument to ration is insufficient even without appealing to the issue of the rights of those that wish such a marriage.

[saemo]

Polygamy does not equate to underage marriage.

Polygamy does not equate to a sexual deviation.

Polygamy does not equate to forced marriage.

Now, the practices of the FLDS appear equate to all of the above, but the practice of polygamy is merely incidental.

Is there a rational position against the practice of polygamy?

or rather, since it seems many missed the point of the question:

Is there a rational position for being against the practice of polygamy?

Personally, if my husband said he wanted to marry someone else, he could. Just, he wouldn't be married to me at the same time. I hope that's a good rationale for him to not consider being a polygamist.

The largest rationale against polygamy, in a modern Western society, is divorce. The divorce rate such as it is, it seems to me that the position of wives would be a revolving door. Divorce between two people can be devasting, to personal finances, to children, and to emotions. Multiple divorces would only increase the suffering exponentially.

[Bee Eff]

The largest rationale against polygamy, in a modern Western society, is divorce. The divorce rate such as it is, it seems to me that the position of wives would be a revolving door. Divorce between two people can be devasting, to personal finances, to children, and to emotions. Multiple divorces would only increase the suffering exponentially.

This is possibly the most rational reason, but does the possibility of divorce suffice to deny someone the opportunity of marriage? Given the high level of divorce, perhaps an alternative to marriage should be searched for?

[alter idem]

Please provide a "good reason" for denying homosexuals or polygamists the right to publicly marry as they do.

The Govt. sanctions marriage to encourage stability and to encourage procreation of children within stable homes so they can grow up to be good citizens and contribute. Please provide a "good reason" for allowing homosexuals and polygamists to marry? What value is it to society to allow these kinds of marraiges?

Homosexuals cannot procreate naturally and we've seen that polygamists often cannot provide for their families and the govt. ends up supporting them. Why should the govt. want to encourage either of these types of marriages?

There is no compelling reason the Govt. should validate their unions.

Your slippery slope argument is not valid. The age deemed adult is dictated by society and will not be changed by allowing adults to marry as they please. There is a vast difference between marriage between consenting adults and marriage between adult and child.

Already, age of consent laws vary be states. There is no reason to believe they are set in stone and will never be challenged--especially when there are groups who want them repealed or lowered.

[Bee Eff]

The Govt. sanctions marriage to encourage stability and to encourage procreation of children within stable homes so they can grow up to be good citizens and contribute. Please provide a "good reason" for allowing homosexuals and polygamists to marry? What value is it to society to allow these kinds of marraiges?

Homosexuals cannot procreate naturally and we've seen that polygamists often cannot provide for their families and the govt. ends up supporting them. Why should the govt. want to encourage either of these types of marriages?

I believe such to be true, but I am not speaking to providing government sanction. I do believe that tax and insurance laws are in place for such. I do not believe that the government should afford tax breaks or insurance to homosexuals as they do not provide the necessary social benefit to receive such personal benefit. As to polygamous marriage, perhaps the same should apply given the risk those participating take, their legal benefit should be less to discourage such.

There is no compelling reason the Govt. should validate their unions.

Already, age of consent laws vary be states. There is no reason to believe they are set in stone and will never be challenged--especially when there are groups who want them repealed or lowered.

Government should validate such unions, but legally such unions are fundamentally different from a heterosexual monogamous union and as such must be handled differently.

[Nofear]

I do not believe marriage is a contract with society.

Unfortunate.

Please elaborate on what rights you feel society has the right to bestow. I feel that the recognition is due to the married couple as a matter of fact, not as a gift given.

Naw, don't wish to derail your thread.

[saemo]

This is possibly the most rational reason, but does the possibility of divorce suffice to deny someone the opportunity of marriage? Given the high level of divorce, perhaps an alternative to marriage should be searched for?

I don't accept your premise that denying someone a polygamous relationship is denying them marriage. I have never seen any evidence that this is occurring.

There is already an alternative to divorce. Commitment is one, and many couples practice it. And there is also the alternative of not getting married. However, I am not convinced that this sort of relationship removes the sufferings associated to divorce. And perhaps adds a few more that don't exist inside of a commited marriage.

[Bee Eff]

I don't accept your premise that denying someone a polygamous relationship is denying them marriage. I have never seen any evidence that this is occurring.

There is already an alternative to divorce. Commitment is one, and many couples practice it. And there is also the alternative of not getting married. However, I am not convinced that this sort of relationship removes the sufferings associated to divorce. And perhaps adds a few more that don't exist inside of a commited marriage.

I did not mean to suggest you were denying them the opportunity of marriage, I left off the end "as they choose."

You state that marriage results in divorce at an alarming rate. Given this, perhaps we, as a society, should revisit the concept of marriage and have an alternative that does not result in divorce which causes financial distress or children in a situation that ends in psychological distress.

Adherence to "commitment" does not occur at a satisfactory level, how many children must suffer to convince you of the barbarism that is marriage?

The above is not my view, I merely pose it as a response to the argument that has been presented.

[Bernard Gui]

Given the fact that we are discussing the legality of the situation here in the U.S. I would still think it is immoral, but if the general society finds it acceptable then it would legal not necessarily moral.

I'm trying to understand your position better. You said that polygamy is a sexual dysfunction:

QUOTE

BF: I do not believe anyone finds polygamy equally socially abhorrent to bestiality.

RB: I think they are both sexually dysfunctional.

I asked if you thought having multiple unmarried partners was dysfunctional and you replied

it depends on the circumstances. I asked if the same statement can be made about polygamy.

Can it be functional depending on the circumstances? If not, why?

The only difference I see between polygamy and having multiple unmarried parters is the

vow of matrimony. Polygamists may tend to be more responsible for the care of progeny than those who

do not marry their partners. Promiscuity exposes participants to great risk for std's, while polygamy does not. Children of polygamists are more likely to have the influence of both parents and a closer

family system than promiscuous couples.

I see no reason to make polygamy illegal when indiscriminate sex and serial divorce are not.

I do not understand why polygamists are a pariah while our culture condones and even celebrates

and promotes promiscuity.

Bernard

[Mudcat]

I agree, but I feel assuming that a larger number of the population would choose polygamy is pushing it a bit. I doubt you would find a large number of men willing to actuall marry more than one woman, let alone a large number of women to do such. I hesitate then to believe that polygamy would threaten the gene pool or the ratio of men to women. As such I feel that the argument to ration is insufficient even without appealing to the issue of the rights of those that wish such a marriage.

Well, since we are apparently just speculating on the notion.

What percentage of the male population do you feel would be polygamous in a situation where it was a globally acceptable practice?

And what do you think the average number of wives to polygamous male would be?

[saemo]

I did not mean to suggest you were denying them the opportunity of marriage, I left off the end "as they choose."

You state that marriage results in divorce at an alarming rate. Given this, perhaps we, as a society, should revisit the concept of marriage and have an alternative that does not result in divorce which causes financial distress or children in a situation that ends in psychological distress.

Adherence to "commitment" does not occur at a satisfactory level, how many children must suffer to convince you of the barbarism that is marriage?

The above is not my view, I merely pose it as a response to the argument that has been presented.

Yeah, this is a view I am familiar with. I almost was there in my atheist years.

You can extend that to how many people must suffer to convince you that no more children should be born into this world?

The only problem is, the alternative to marriage and the alternatives to a society with no children? It is not a utopia. There are inherent problems that only makes things worse.

This is why we need God's guidance. He knows!

[Bee Eff]

Well, since we are apparently just speculating on the notion.

What percentage of the male population do you feel would be polygamous in a situation where it was a globally acceptable practice?

And what do you think the average number of wives to polygamous male would be?

10-14% of the general population, combined men and women, would wish to practice if it were an acceptable practice.

1-5% of the general population, combined men and women, would find spouses that would also desire such.

Average number of wives would be 2-3.

This is assuming no religious imperative for polygamy, such would skew the figures in a manner that would be difficult to predict imo.

[Calm]

You are correct, my blanket statement was ill advised. Here is a corrected version of the statement:

No, in a situation with too few women to support such, there would be no necessity for underage polygamous marriage.

I do not believe that polygamy results in underage marriage. Underage marriage occurs when a man is not able to contain his desires and there is no acceptable outlet. Society should ward against such, ours did not in the case of the FLDS. The FLDS were not afforded adequate societal oversight as their practice of polygamy pushed them into a hidden position, where marriages were not observed by society. If marriages were observed, and proper announcements were made, there would not have been underage marriages performed.

I don't know if this has been mentioned, but one of the problems attendant on the FLDS style of polygamy is that it is seen as a requirement for salvation, position in the community, etc...I believe it's three wives even, not just two. Not every polygamous culture sees it the same way.

Just a short time ago I was doing some research and came across percentages of society where polygamy is seen as acceptable in the world and it was the majority (this did not include per capita, so a society that was really small would likely have been counted the same as the really larger ones, so I think there would be better measures out there...but this will suffice for my point). What was different was that even though the majority of societies approved polygamy, in the majority of these societies it was practiced by a small percentage of the population...IOW, it was not required. This is contrary to the FLDS practice so I'd say AI is using an atypical example to prove a general application which is not appropriate (add-on: I think may have I misread her point so just apply my comment to anyone using FLDS as evidence for a general statement on polygamy).

If a small enough segment of a population practiced polygamy it is even conceivable that all polygamous wives could be supplied by the older widows, given the difference in life spans between men and women. So I don't see marrying younger and younger women inherent in a polygamous system, other factors---such as how widespread it is and what is and isn't allowed by their culture---would need to be taken into account.

Polygamy has been a standard among many cultures in the history of the world...arguments that it diminishes the gene pool significantly should be able to find documentation on this somewhere.

[saemo]

Just a short time ago I was doing some research and came across percentages of society where polygamy is seen as acceptable in the world and it was the majority (this did not include per capita, so a society that was really small would likely have been counted the same as the really larger ones, so I think there would be better measures out there...but this will suffice for my point). What was different was that even though the majority of societies approved polygamy, in the majority of these societies it was practiced by a small percentage of the population...IOW, it was not required. This is contrary to the FLDS practice so I'd say AI is using an atypical example to prove a general application which is not appropriate.

Same numbers from the Univ. sociology course I took last year. That is, there are more polygamous societies than monogamous. However, that is counting individual societies, not people. The majority of people live in societies that are monogamous. Also, polygamy does not mean polygyny. Many of those societies are polygamous but not polygynous. Many are polyandrous or polyamorous. And some are downright creative.

[Bee Eff]

I don't know if this has been mentioned, but one of the problems attendant on the FLDS style of polygamy is that it is seen as a requirement for salvation, position in the community, etc...I believe it's three wives even, not just two. Not every polygamous culture sees it the same way.

Just a short time ago I was doing some research and came across percentages of society where polygamy is seen as acceptable in the world and it was the majority (this did not include per capita, so a society that was really small would likely have been counted the same as the really larger ones, so I think there would be better measures out there...but this will suffice for my point). What was different was that even though the majority of societies approved polygamy, in the majority of these societies it was practiced by a small percentage of the population...IOW, it was not required. This is contrary to the FLDS practice so I'd say AI is using an atypical example to prove a general application which is not appropriate.

If a small enough segment of a population practiced polygamy it is even conceivable that all polygamous wives could be supplied by the older widows, given the difference in life spans between men and women. So I don't see marrying younger and younger women inherent in a polygamous system, other factors---such as how widespread it is and what is and isn't allowed by their culture---would need to be taken into account.

Polygamy has been a standard among many cultures in the history of the world...arguments that it diminishes the gene pool significantly should be able to find documentation on this somewhere.

Agreed, thank you for presenting this, my thoughts were not in that direction.

[Calm]

Agreed, thank you for presenting this, my thoughts were not in that direction.

I didn't think so. I was responding in one post to several comments throughout the thread, sorry for the confusion.

[Bee Eff]

I didn't think so. I was responding in one post to several comments throughout the thread, sorry for the confusion.

No confusion, you were spot on with the information.

[maupayman]

What of the United Arab Emirates? Polygamy exists there. A friend of mine at university was a child of a polygamous family, and he claims that family life was good and all the women and children were happy.

Also, I know of a man in a non-LDS, non-FLDS, group that has a happy family without these problems.

"Every" is a poor choice of terms.

Possibly so, if you were to look at all the polygamous practices in the United Arab Emerates i'm sure you could find plenty of examples of my point. I did not mean that every single person who practices polygamy does so in a bad way, rather, that within every culture that practices polygamy, whether Arab or Mormon etc., will have examples of abuse of the practice. But, I suppose the same could be said for monogamous-heterosexual relationships as well. I just think that the possibility of unethical practices increases when you throw in extra spouses.

[Bee Eff]

Possibly so, if you were to look at all the polygamous practices in the United Arab Emerates i'm sure you could find plenty of examples of my point. I did not mean that every single person who practices polygamy does so in a bad way, rather, that within every culture that practices polygamy, whether Arab or Mormon etc., will have examples of abuse of the practice. But, I suppose the same could be said for monogamous-heterosexual relationships as well. I just think that the possibility of unethical practices increases when you throw in extra spouses.

This implies that polygamy is inherently unethical. I prefer to believe people will behave properly on average.

[T'pau]

Not according to Brigham. He thought there was a shortage of faithful young men willing to marry.

Regards,

Pahoran

Source?

[T'pau]

This implies that polygamy is inherently unethical. I prefer to believe people will behave properly on average.

I don't think they would (or do) behave properly on average. Human beings are prone to human emotions, such as jealousy and power seeking.