The next great step in civil rights?

[Nubclear]

Marriage is a good thing.

Love is a good thing. Marriage is simply a manifestation of love.

[Jon Miller]

Wrong.

JM

[Nubclear]

Okay. If we assume just that marriage is a good thing, why not simply pass a law that forces every 1 person to be married to exactly 1 other person, chosen at random? That way, everyone is married and hence society prospers, right?

[Jon Miller]

People are only willing to do the sacrifices needed, to stay in a relationship with someone, who they are in love with. At least in this day (and not even then, sometimes).

JM

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar
Maybe thats because polygamy is illegal, and hence forced into the fringe where the power of the government to enforce the laws is often diminished?

DING! DING! We have a winner!

When you outlaw something, the people who end up partaking in it tend to be the fringes of society. Those that don't care they are violating the law are not usually in the mainstream.

[Jon Miller]

You can look at societies that left main society, or at history, to study socialogical effects of polygamy.

JM

[Dis]

I already have a thread on this. . from last year.

Horriffic stuff going on in Colorado City. Once you guys read what's going on, you'd be against plural marriage.

13 year old girls are being traded around as property. Men are kicked out of the sect and their wives handed to someone else. Sickening.

[Blaupanzer]

Behavior of law-violaters is often very off-putting. Such behavior does not predict behavior once an activity is legal. Legalizing polygamy (and polyandry for that matter) will still not permit women to be transferred to others without their input or the marrying of 13-year-olds. So the behavior of extremist cults should not be used to decide our legalized social institutions.

Marraige began as a way to indicate and pass on property rights. In many parts of the world, allowing the peasants to marry is a practice less than a thousand years old. Basically, the attitude was "Why bother? Those folks have nothing, and never will have anything." Other social values attributed to marraige are based on the perceivers, not on any inherent value.

Given the number of divorces, I suspect most supposedly stable monogamous relationships are neither stable nor all that monogamous.

It is the height of nonsense to claim that opposition to polygamy or to gay marraige is based on concern for children.

Also the 99% claims above are completely bogus. Monogamous marraiges are not that stable, that many people are not in such relationships, and that percentage used in relationship to gay vs. straight defies all scientific research to date.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Harry Tuttle


I would argue that it's a social objection.

Everything you say in your post is a reflection of cultural differences.

It ain't good.

...by our cultural values.

Again, there is nothing to prevent women from being relegated to labor in a single marriage.

I have not heard a single reason why polygamy should be banned.

And since marriage, as an institution regulated by the government, is about legal matters such as child custodial rights, financial matters, etc... the social ills you speak of still exist because polygamy still occurs. It just isn't official polygamy.

In fact, I would think that by not recognizing polygamous unions, our society is making such social problems worse by pretending like polygamy doesn't exist.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Dis
13 year old girls are being traded around as property. Men are kicked out of the sect and their wives handed to someone else. Sickening.

One assumes that if polygamy were legal, forced marriages would still be illegal, as well as marriages to minors.

In ancient Sumer, women were allowed to have multiple husbands, we know this because the practice was explicitly outlawed later.

The reason that women have not been able to have multiple husbands throughout most of history is that for most of history, women have been property. They didn't get to decide to whom they were married.

Finally, in an egalitarian society, I would expect that freely consenting adults would come up with all sorts of mating / co-habitating arrangements: from polygyny to polyandry to group marriages to gay marriage, etc.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
You can look at societies that left main society, or at history, to study socialogical effects of polygamy.

JM

Societies which became outlaws from the 'main society', Jon? Come on, even you know how silly you are sounding right now. It'd be like pointing to the stoners and saying, look, if pot was legal, we'd all be like them. Breaking the law is not usually done by those people in the mainstream. Therefore evaluating a policy based on how those who want to live outside the law are performing it is just doomed to failure.

As for 'history', the sociological effects of polygamy are just as bad as those for monogamy, because women have historically been treated as chattel.

[Jon Miller]

Dude, I am talking about commune societies.

I am not talking about some group of standard law breakers.

Get a clue. Read about utopian experiments of the last couple hundred years.

JM

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Finally, in an egalitarian society, I would expect that freely consenting adults would come up with all sorts of mating / co-habitating arrangements: from polygyny to polyandry to group marriages to gay marriage, etc.

And all of thse but gay marriage would be highly unstable.

Gay marriage, I think, would not be highly unstable, which is the reason why I support it being included under marriage.

JM

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Dude, I am talking about commune societies.

I am not talking about some group of standard law breakers.

Get a clue. Read about utopian experiments of the last couple hundred years.

JM

Wait, you mean the commune societies which are acting OUTSIDE THE LAW?! You do realize that communes in, say, Utah, are violating the law currently, right?

And as we've pointed out, by it being illegal in most Western societies, the ones who generally wished to try it or actually go ahead and do so are the ones on the fringes of society (like the Mormons originally).

If I'm going back the last couple hundred years, can I talk about the misogyny in the traditional monogamous marriage and how women were property? Does this mean I can ban monogamous marriage?

Gay marriage, I think, would not be highly unstable

So why are your biases as to what is or what is not a 'stable marriage' a basis for the law? Shall we give tests to couples willing to marry so we can see how 'stable' their future marriage will be?

[Jon Miller]

Normal monogamous relationships are a stable influence. You can see this by looking at studies.

Please think before you pick... I don't really consider it worth my time thinking for you.

And you completely ignored my request to study utopian societies. You asked where the evidence was, I referenced some, and then you made no effort to investigate my claims. I am not going to do your work for you.

You are basing your statements on nothing, you aren't even trying to base your statements on anything. I have claimed my hypothesis is based on evidence, but you refuse to investigate my claims, because it doesn't coincide with your wishes for reality.

Now it is true, I haven't referenced books. But if I could study this subject in highschool (when I was against monogamy as a tool of suppression), then you can study this subject now (as you are an adult).

Making claims based upon no evidence isn't worthwhile to me, or anyone who reads any of your posts.

JM