The next great step in civil rights?

[chequita guevara]

That's a point of principle, MrFun, and one with which I agree. However, some folks can only be reached by the argument of it not being a choice. After all, this society finally has pretty much come around to the notion that you shouldn't oppress someone for things about them that are beyond their control, i.e., gender, skin color, national origin, gender preference, etc. If gender preference were a choice, like say, being a communist, well then society provide a way to stop being oppressed: stop choosing to act that way. Unfortunately, the authoritarian impulse is very strong in a large segment of our people and they just don't think the way civilized folks do.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
You say something, which is obviously wrong to anyone who has studied the subject at all (even Che knows it is wrong). And when I call you on it, you want the exact book that I Read 10 years ago.

I haven't done an in depth study of Utopian communities. I do know that the writing s and behavior of 19th Century and early-mid 20th Century communists, socialists, etc. about women was generally not what we would call egalitarian. For their time, they were very progressive, but in the general same vein as those who thought slavery was an abomination, but that Black people and white people shouldn't live together. In other words, if you were a women in the 19th Century, one of those communities would have seemed very enlightened, but to a modern feminist, not so much.

What is important to consider is that most of these communities relied very heavily on the leadership of one or more individuals, and when those people died, the communities fell apart. The communities were inherently unstable from the beginning, and only a forceful personality kept them together. The failure of polygamous relationships in that milieu cannot be considered an indictment of polygamy per se.

[Lazerus]

Marriage = 1 man + 1 woman

Have whatever civil partnerships you like but it isn't marriage.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
That's a point of principle, MrFun, and one with which I agree. However, some folks can only be reached by the argument of it not being a choice. After all, this society finally has pretty much come around to the notion that you shouldn't oppress someone for things about them that are beyond their control, i.e., gender, skin color, national origin, gender preference, etc. If gender preference were a choice, like say, being a communist, well then society provide a way to stop being oppressed: stop choosing to act that way. Unfortunately, the authoritarian impulse is very strong in a large segment of our people and they just don't think the way civilized folks do.

But the right of conscience has a long tradition in North America. In spite of historical examples where Americans did willingly violate this human right by trying to deny it to others (witch trials in colonial era, the Red Scare persecution of those with anti-war opinions during Cold War, and so on), I would like to think most Americans today value the right of conscience.

For example, most Americans today would not deny with a straight face that we ought to deny all non-Christian Americans their right of conscience. So your point that we can only argue for equal rights for gays and lesbians by emphasizing that it's not a choice may be valid, but I believe we can make a stronger argument on the principle of right of conscience.

Unfortunately, it will take time. The right of conscience argument will make the seriously flawed claim, for example, that some gays and lesbians really did "change" their sexual orientation through their behavior. By arguing that gays and lesbians have the right of conscience as human beings negates this whole argument of legal discrimination based on the bigoted argument that gays and lesbians are not entitled to such a basic human right -- they need to deny themselves this aspect of their humanity by changing their behavior, and thus, "changing" their sexual orientation.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Lazerus
Marriage = whatever the society at the time says marriage is

fixed

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by MrFun
But the right of conscience has a long tradition in North America.

What we say we cherish and what we really do are two different things. Why do the Mormons live in Utah instead of Illinois? Why are unions so weak in the country? Why would less people want their children's teacher to be an atheist than a child molester? We like to pretend we're all tolerant and ****, but the truth is, we never really have been.

[Provost Harrison]

I hate polygamists. They leave less for the rest of us. Greedy bastards!

[johncmcleod]

originally posted by Imran Siddiqui:
No, polygamy to serial killing. Though I guess homosexuality can imply as well. The thing that may relate them is psychological impulses. I don't see why serial killing is illegal has anything to do with that. The people that engage in it are psychologically compelled to do what they do.

They are different. First, you can be biologically disposed to being a serial killer, but that doesn't make you a serial killer. However, homosexuals are made homosexual by biology, and they can't change it. But more importantly, there is something inherently wrong with a serial killer's behavior (he kills others) and there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. That's why it is an invalid comparison.

In societies like Europe, where the birth rate is well below the death rate, how can it not benefit society? Not that I think that state sponsored marriage necessarily benefits society.

There are several problems with this. One, Europe is overcrowded anyway. Two, this overcrowding and high standard of living explains the drop in birth rate, polygamy won't necessarily increase the birthrate. Three, even if you are right and polygamy will increase the birthrate, you're working under the assumption that whatever system creates more children is better, and you haven't provided reasoning for why we should operate under this assumption. Four, it is bad for society because the relationship is inherently either male or female dominated and is inherently worse than a monogamous relationship. Five, if your objective is to increase the population, there are other ways to do this than through allowing polygamy that are better methods. You could, for example, allow more people into the country who previously had been in terrible circumstances. This would benefit the world more. We already have too many people as it is, and we might as well help out some of the poor people rather than just create more people.

I believe that the relationships among early humans was far more open than the locked in monogamous ideal we have today (though with divorce being so common that ideal is changing).

I think the relationships among early humans weren't polygamous, they chose a mate for life. The whole polygamy thing came about at the agricultural revolution, when women began to be treated like property and were bought and sold and some of the wealthier individuals had many of them.

Tell that to the Mormons and what they had to go through to continue their polygamy until it was finally stamped out by the government.

Don't try to argue that polygamy was a biological need of theirs. I was making the point that you can't put gay marriage and polygamy in the same category because gays have the biological impulse to be attracted to members of the same gender and can't help it. They can't function in a normal, monogamous heterosexual marriage, for it opposes their unchangeable biology. So they should be allowed to follow their biology and be married to each other, because it doesn't harm the social good. But for the polygamous, there is nothing about their biology that says they cannot function in a normal, monogamous relationship. There's nothing in their biology that tells them 'you need four wives.' And even if there was, it shouldn't be followed, because it is a bad arrangement for society. As for the Mormons, it wasn't their biology that they couldn't change, it was religious fanaticism that was forcing them into such relationships.

In what way do they harm society? At all? I think there is great benefit in letting people partner up in any way they want to. The state should not be involved in marriage... doing so has merely harmed society as people have been left out.

The relationship is an inherently bad one that favors one side over the other. There is a reason we don't let people pair up in any way they want. Just as we won't let a 40 year old marry a 5 year old, because such a relationship would inherently swing the power that way, we don't let one man marry 3 wives, because it inherently swings the power towards the man. And such a relationship can't work anyway, no one man can give his attention to 3 different wives in the same way he could give one wife. The only time 'people have been left out' with the government regulating marriage has been with the gays-and the state was wrong in leaving them out. However, the polygamists are not a similar group-they aren't a group of people who biologically must have several wives.

[Imran Siddiqui]

you're working under the assumption that whatever system creates more children is better, and you haven't provided reasoning for why we should operate under this assumption

What is the assumption for marriage in the first place? I was under the assumption that it was for a 'stable' family unit for the children.

it is bad for society because the relationship is inherently either male or female dominated and is inherently worse than a monogamous relationship.

Marriage has been inherently male dominated for centuries. Just because it was one to one doesn't make it more equal.

The whole polygamy thing came about at the agricultural revolution, when women began to be treated like property and were bought and sold and some of the wealthier individuals had many of them.

Women weren't considered 'lesser' beforehand? How many female dominated or equal societies were there before the agg revolution?

But for the polygamous, there is nothing about their biology that says they cannot function in a normal, monogamous relationship.

Throughout history (and especially apparently now), men have cheated on their spouses enough for it be pandemic. In pre-modern times they had mistresses, which sometimes the wife knew about. I think monogamy may have been something that came about against natural human biology. Our need to find other mates seems to be hardwired into us.

Society has seemingly attempted and failed to control this basic human urge.

Just as we won't let a 40 year old marry a 5 year old, because such a relationship would inherently swing the power that way

We'll let a 50 year old marry an 18 year old however. Cause the 18 year old consents. If 3 women are of age to consent to marriage then why not allow it? Because 'it swings power to the man'? Hell, the woman marrying a 50 year old with tons of cash swings power to that man, doesn't it?

[johncmcleod]

What is the assumption for marriage in the first place? I was under the assumption that it was for a 'stable' family unit for the children.

But not to necessarily create more children. You were arguing that polygamy would benefit European society because of declining birthrates, and you're under the assumption that whichever system produces more children is best. I disagree, I don't think it matters of polygamy raises birthrates because it is a bad arrangement.

Marriage has been inherently male dominated for centuries. Just because it was one to one doesn't make it more equal.

Did I ever say that? Monogamy doesn't have to be equal, but it inherently is much more equal than polygamy. Polygamy is inherently unequal, and I can't see how one could possibly have an equal polygamous relationship.

Women weren't considered 'lesser' beforehand? How many female dominated or equal societies were there before the agg revolution?

It's an accepted fact that the position of women became much worse at the agrarian revolution. Tribal societies had much more balanced gender relations-not 50/50 like today, but they were better than the gender relations of most of the agrarian societies for the next few millenia.

Throughout history (and especially apparently now), men have cheated on their spouses enough for it be pandemic. In pre-modern times they had mistresses, which sometimes the wife knew about. I think monogamy may have been something that came about against natural human biology. Our need to find other mates seems to be hardwired into us.

Society has seemingly attempted and failed to control this basic human urge.

Yes. Men have the biological urge to sleep around and impregnate as many people as possible, because this spreads their genes. But this would come in the form of men being adulterous and impregnating married women so that the impregnated woman and her husband would raise the child with adulterer's genes, and the adulterer wouldn't have to spend any resources doing so. This type of behavior was favored evolutionarily, and that is why us guys have the impulse. We want to go out and screw as many women as possible, even if we are married. However, though this behavior is biological, it is inherently bad and society should try to keep it in check as much as possible.

Homosexuality, another type of biological urge, does not need to be kept in check in the same way. One, forcing them to function as heterosexual adults is opposing their biology and asking a lot more of them than telling people to not sleep around would. It is way harder for the gay guy to try and make the him straight than it is for the straight guy to try and make him not sleep around. Additionally, this sleeping around is bad for society. But being gay and having those relationships isn't bad for society, and doesn't need to curbed. It should be allowed. That's the distinction between gay marriage and polygamy-gays are more compelled by biology than polygamists, and homosexual behavior is not bad for society in any way-but polygamous behavior is.

We'll let a 50 year old marry an 18 year old however. Cause the 18 year old consents. If 3 women are of age to consent to marriage then why not allow it? Because 'it swings power to the man'? Hell, the woman marrying a 50 year old with tons of cash swings power to that man, doesn't it?

The line has to be drawn somewhere. Obviously the government cannot regulate every relationship and say whether it can exist or not based on how equal it is. But a polygamous marriage automatically swings the power one way in a different and much more profound way than the 18-50 thing. In fact the 18-50 might not be an inherently unequal relationship. I bet in such a relationship the young girl uses her body and personality in such a way that she can get whatever she wants. In addition, the young girl probably married the guy on purpose to get money. It was a profitable decision for her. But with polygamy, it ends up being more problematic. The women 'consent' to these relationships because of the patriarchal society they are brought up in. And also, at least in the 18-50 thing the man gives all of his attention to the same girl, and they are on much more equal footing than a woman in a relationship where there are 3 other wmen and one husband is. I don't like the 18-50 thing, but trying to regulate power too much in monogamous relationships is difficult and sticky (there's not much that's universal other than age consent). But polygamous relationships are always wrong, and it is easy to regulate them-simply forbid them.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Lazerus
Marriage = 1 man + 1 woman

My Polygamous acquaintances would laugh at your ignorance

[Imran Siddiqui]

But not to necessarily create more children.

Yeah, necessarily to create more children . Otherwise, the concept fails. Though we have expanded it because socially it has been an accepted final "declaration of love", even though love didn't enter into it until, what, the 19th Century?

I can't see how one could possibly have an equal polygamous relationship.

Just because YOU can't see it doesn't mean it can't happen.

Tribal societies had much more balanced gender relations-not 50/50 like today

Nuff said.

However, though this behavior is biological, it is inherently bad and society should try to keep it in check as much as possible.

It's "inherently" bad because a man can only be married to one wife in our society.

It is way harder for the gay guy to try and make the him straight than it is for the straight guy to try and make him not sleep around.

You meet many straight guys?

But being gay and having those relationships isn't bad for society, and doesn't need to curbed. It should be allowed.

Though there are plenty of people who disagree and use your argument that this is bad for society. They will say it may be a biological impulse, but it is bad and society should keep it in check as much as possible.

a polygamous marriage automatically swings the power one way in a different and much more profound way than the 18-50 thing.

Why? Because polygamy is icky to you? In an equal tri-relationship (your assumption that it'd always be unequal is an unnecessary prejudice), I'd imagine the two of the same gender would have more power than the other one. They can gang up on the other one.

The women 'consent' to these relationships because of the patriarchal society they are brought up in.

The problem is your bias. These women can only consent to these relationships because they are in oppressive patriarchal societies?

I'm echoing Drake again... Bigotry

[johncmcleod]

Yeah, necessarily to create more children . Otherwise, the concept fails. Though we have expanded it because socially it has been an accepted final "declaration of love", even though love didn't enter into it until, what, the 19th Century?

You're twisting what I'm saying. I agree families exist for children. But you're arguing polygamy is best because it creates more children than monogamy. I disagree with this assumption that whichever system creates the most children is the best system. What if we had a system where everyone slept with eveyrone all the time in order to create the most children? Going by your standards, this would be best.

Just because YOU can't see it doesn't mean it can't happen.

Dude, take a look at every polygamous relationship in history.

Nuff said.

You prove nothing. Yes, it is possible to have an unbalanced monogamous relationship. If the society is patriarchal, it will work out that way. However, monogamous relationships are inherently more balanced than polygamous ones. Look at societies that had both, and see which was worse. Though these were sexist societies, and the monogamous relationships favored the males, I think we'll still find that the monogamous relationships were more balanced than the polygamous ones.

It's "inherently" bad because a man can only be married to one wife in our society.

No, it's inherently bad because these relationships have always been unbalanced and patriarchal.

You meet many straight guys?

I agree it's hard to keep it in the pants, but it is easier to do this than to have to 'become straight.'

Though there are plenty of people who disagree and use your argument that this is bad for society. They will say it may be a biological impulse, but it is bad and society should keep it in check as much as possible.

Those people are wrong. And this biological impulse is a far different kind than the one calling straight guys to sleep with as many women as they can. It is very possible to take a guy that likes to sleep around and make him settle down with one wife and have a family (this is the story of most straight guys' lives). But it is impossible to successfully take a gay guy and force him to be straight and have a family. And anyway, there is nothing wrong with the homosexual impulse. Being gay doesn't harm anyone. Sleeping around does.

Why? Because polygamy is icky to you? In an equal tri-relationship (your assumption that it'd always be unequal is an unnecessary prejudice), I'd imagine the two of the same gender would have more power than the other one. They can gang up on the other one.

I don't call it an unnecessary prejudice, I call it a simple observation backed by history and logic. You 'imagined' incorrectly. It almost always works out that the man is a patriarch to the two women serving under his rule. What type of woman would want to share a man with another woman? A woman who has been raised to be subservient and tolerate that type of behavior.

If you can prove to me that polygamous relationships are as healthy as our society's current monogamous heterosexual and homosexual relationships, than be my guest, but I don't think you'll ever find any evidence for this idea. Most importantly, I don't think you can find any evidence that would prove that it would be practical and beneficial to our society to allow it. What positive benefits would it bring us as a nation?

What you can do is look at societies that had both, and see which was worse. Though these were sexist societies, and the monogamous relationships favored the males, I think we'll still find that the monogamous relationships were more balanced than the polygamous ones.

The problem is your bias. These women can only consent to these relationships because they are in oppressive patriarchal societies?

Find me some sane women who are looking for an equal and balanced relationship and are willing to be in a polygamous relationship, and then we'll talk. Until then, face it. Polygamy is a sexist structure, and legalizing it won't all of the sudden allow these wonderful polygamous relationships that have been suppressed by society (tell me, where are these people that have been asking for polygamous relationships? who are they and what are they like?) will only do one thing-allow a few wacko Mormons to revert to a level of patriarchism we haven't seen since Biblical times.

You're trying to lump me in the same category as the conservatives who are trying to ban gay marriage. There is a key difference. There are a lot of homosexuals out there who have very healthy relationships, relationships just as healthy as heterosexual ones, and they have been asking for and deserve the same rights. I'm willing to give them these rights. However, until you find me a sizable group of people who have healthy, polygamous relationships (or even find me this group at any time in history) and want them legalized, I'm not going to ask for it to be legalized.

I think we all should just face the music-there is practical benefit to allowing gay marriage, but I don't think anyone can find practical benefit for allowing polygamy.

I'm echoing Drake again...Bigotry

Let's not resort to name calling.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Dude, take a look at every polygamous relationship in history.

Need we go back to the discussion of when things are illegal, less than desirable folk will partake? Or do you think that people who do drugs is a good argument for legalization (in fact the people who do do drugs when it is illegal are often used as an excuse to keep drugs illegal).

However, monogamous relationships are inherently more balanced than polygamous ones. Look at societies that had both, and see which was worse.

In the 6-10 Centuries, Muslim societies with polygamy were far more fair to women than Christian societies with monogamy. Is that what you wanted me to look at?

And anyway, there is nothing wrong with the homosexual impulse. Being gay doesn't harm anyone. Sleeping around does.

Sleeping around with your other wives doesn't harm anyone. There is nothing wrong with indulging in that impulse.

What type of woman would want to share a man with another woman? A woman who has been raised to be subservient and tolerate that type of behavior.

I can see this argument in 1900, but in a different fashion: What type of woman would want to be in a lesser role by marrying a man and let him run everything? A woman who has been raised to be subservient and tolerate that type of behavior.

Should we have abolished marriage in its entirety then?

However, until you find me a sizable group of people who have healthy, polygamous relationships

So you want me to find a group that willingly violates the law who have 'healthy relationships'? I'm not sure that those that do are publishing their healthy relationships considering they'd go to jail for it.

I don't think anyone can find practical benefit for allowing polygamy.

Bull****. There is a practical benefit in not having the government dictate how you can marry other consenting adults.

Let's not resort to name calling.

If the shoe fits...

[Heresson]

Next great step of human rights: voting rights for frogs, frog marriages, frog-human marriages and right to adoption