The case for polygamy

[Jon Miller]

No. You're insane.

You are saying that there are no mormons who are currently living monogamously, who wouldn't switch to polygamy in ~10 years if it became legal now?

JM

[notyoueither]

Thanks, Flubber.

She doesn't mention 'spousal support,' or that the court can determine who gets the family home (Alberta). I did not know that common-law did not receive some other protections like care in case of incapacity, inheritance, etc.

[notyoueither]

How is living together illegal in the US?

You are wrong.

I didn't say that polygamy marriage existed.

I said that living in a polygamous relationship was legal.

JM

I take polygamy to mean marriage.

It is illegal everywhere that I would want to live.

[Jon Miller]

From one of your links.
http://jezebel.com/5596483/when-it-comes-to-polygamy-maybe-women-arent-the-only-losers

In a perfect world, polygamy would be separate from all the negative associations we in monogamous-marriage cultures tend to have with it, especially the devaluing of women and the forced marriage of young girls. But Heinrich argues that, at least in our current unequal society, these things can't be separated — and maybe he's right. An exception to his rule can be found in some polyamorous communities, where women are just as likely to have multiple partners as men. But these communities often also share an emphasis on communication and an open celebration of human — and, importantly, female — sexuality. Until these attitudes become more mainstream, legalized polygamy may not be something we can handle.

An exception to his rule can be found in some polyamorous communities, where women are just as likely to have multiple partners as men. But these communities often also share an emphasis on communication and an open celebration of human — and, importantly, female — sexuality.

So, should we view monogamy based on the failures of monagamous relationships? Or, should we look at what parts of monagamy don't work, and for whom? Sweeping polygamous families under the carpet deprives women involved opportunities for education that could very well lead to them not being interested in being one of 10.

Meanwhile, there is nothing I have read that shows modern polyamory in the medieval light you and some others wish to cast on it.

Did you read the link?

I even quote pro-polyamory people about why polygamy won't work.

And you are still too blind to see. Even if polygamy could work (as you say), which I don't believe due to the psychology papers, human history, human behavior I see, and the behavior in other place around the world, it still won't work in the here and now because we don't live in the perfect polyamorist world.

Even if you were right, and you aren't, about how wonderful the feminist, secular polyamorist communities are, it doesn't stop the fact that if polygamy were legal, for every feminist/secular group marriage, there would be many more of the other type.

JM

[notyoueither]

Did you read the link?

I even quote pro-polyamory people about why polygamy won't work.

And you are still too blind to see. Even if polygamy could work (as you say), which I don't believe due to the psychology papers, human history, human behavior I see, and the behavior in other place around the world, it still won't work in the here and now because we don't live in the perfect polyamorist world.

Even if you were right, and you aren't, about how wonderful the feminist, secular polyamorist communities are, it doesn't stop the fact that if polygamy were legal, for every feminist/secular group marriage, there would be many more of the other type.

JM

Yes, I read the freekin' link! How do you think I got to the bottom of the article to see your own source blowing your 'aahhhh! it'll all be men with many wives #!$!!' BS to hell?

Pro polygamy sources? Are you counting that mature monogamy clown again?!

Why are you being so disengenuous? And you have the ****ing nerve to claim others are being blind, after you posit that women are just a bunch of simpering dolls who will fall all over themselves to be wives #2 through 10!

Did it ever occur to you that polygyny might appeal to women when they have few opportunities? When more women have university degrees than men, how do you think that affects the balance?

When a man with multiple wives faces spousal support and child support from each and every one of them, how likely do you think that polygamy will spread like wildfire through Mormon communities?

Get your ****ing head out of the nineteenth century!

[Flubber]

Thanks, Flubber.

She doesn't mention 'spousal support,' or that the court can determine who gets the family home (Alberta). I did not know that common-law did not receive some other protections like care in case of incapacity, inheritance, etc.

She mentioned spousal (citing a 3 year period required to qualify) but the article was from the Toronto Star IIRC so it would have an Ontario focus

But thats the difference-- If you are married, the federal Divorce Act applies. If unmarried you are governed by the provincial family law legislation. In most provinces you will get similar results on most issues as the married folks but there are always things here and there that are material differences.


Medical decisionmaking is one big one that I don't think has changed. If married your spouse is your default next of kin but unmarried I don't believe they have ever made things such that the common law spouse has any say. I recall Mrs Flubber ( a critical care nurse) telling me of situations where long term common law folks were shocked to find themselves with no say.

You can fix most of these things with things like advanced health care directives or a will that gives to your partner but I always tell people to be careful when they assert that common law is just like being married. THats just not true but the gap has narrowed over the years as more and more things are amended in the statutes (and health care plans etc etc

[Jon Miller]

Yes, I read the freekin' link! How do you think I got to the bottom of the article to see your own source blowing your 'aahhhh! it'll all be men with many wives #!$!!' BS to hell?

Except you didn't read it because she said that such was possible, but wouldn't be the case in most circumstances.

So she is pro-polygamy since she thought such was possible.

But against legalizing polygamy. Read the link again. Maybe a couple of times.

JM

[Jon Miller]

Did it ever occur to you that polygyny might appeal to women when they have few opportunities? When more women have university degrees than men, how do you think that affects the balance?

Actually, every analysis I have seen uses this as a reason why polygamy even among secular non-traditional groups would still be heavily dominated by one man + multiple women.

Women will heavily go for the few 'high status' men.

This can already been seen in the african american community, where the higher level of success of african-american women over men introduces greater competition for the 'successful men' which encourages men to be players/etc.

We can't enforce equality. There will always be the Woods and the Hefners who can easily have multiple partners. But a society that encourages monogamy (with legal protections, as ours does now) will be a lot more 'even' then one where polygamy is encouraged by the state.

JM

[Aeson]

You are saying that there are no mormons who are currently living monogamously, who wouldn't switch to polygamy in ~10 years if it became legal now?

Moving goalposts

You said "a lot would" and that it was "all of who" don't do it because it's illegal. At the very least you were insinuating a general movement of the populace, not just a couple wackos.

The reality is that probably a smaller percentage of Mormons would start practicing polygamy after it became legal than perhaps any other group.

First, because the ones who want to be polygamists already left the LDS church to remain (way back in the day) or become polygamists. The wackos who want this stuff are already gone. (Even if you wrongly count them as part of the "Mormons" they can't very well "turn to polygamy in 10 years" because they're already there.) Given how low the population of these sects are (even though they have huge numbers of kids) it seems it's not a popular choice even amongst their own progeny.

Second, just because the law changed wouldn't mean the LDS church's stance would change. That stance is that polygamists will be excommunicated. As long as that continued there would be more of a barrier to become polygamist for Mormons than any other group which didn't have it's own rules against it. At best (for your argument) they would change to allow polygamy (as the law would in that hypothetical), though even that would be unlikely as it would drive people away. In that case there wouldn't be any additional incentive or They certainly wouldn't When they switched to disallow polygamy the polygamists (who were a small portion of the membership) left. If they switched to allow it the non-polygamists (pretty much everyone) would be likely to leave. If you want to be cynical... the LDS church has never shown itself to do things detrimental to the bottom line. Allowing polygamy would definitely be detrimental.

Third, polygamists are the most despised and laughed at group of people in Utah. They're the only ones you'll ever see shunned by Mormons in general. (Everyone else they love to interact with to try to save.) This is generations of loathing at work. It would take far more than 10 years to erase that.

Fourth, modern Mormons are perhaps the most monogamous group of people in the US. Divorce rate among Mormons is lower than most other groups, and with temple marriages* it's much lower than that even. Fidelity (as in one man and one woman) is very important in the LDS church... you can be excommunicated for adultery... and that message has been stressed a lot the last few years even more than usual due to the gay marriage issue.

*There's a weird thing with temple marriages and widowers, where they actually are married to more than one woman "for eternity". But that isn't polygamy in any legal sense since it would only be in the afterlife and isn't legally recognized as marriage. Legally the first marriage has ended because it's only "till death do us part". At the point it would matter though... either there isn't an afterlife and so it doesn't matter... or there is an afterlife and God wants them to be polygamists and so it's as it should be... or there is an afterlife and God wants them to not be polygamists so they wouldn't be. In most cases I've heard of, widowers tend to not get married later on in the temple to avoid being polygamous in the afterlife. So they have one "eternal" marriage, and one "till death do us part". Some widowers do have a second temple marriage though.

That does however speak to your point about polygamy generally being one man with many wives. You're right in that regard. A widow isn't allowed to marry in the temple if she was already married in the temple to her dead husband. Unless she has a temple divorce first.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

this just points out that marriage should be separate from the legal "living togther" or common marriage requirements.

Marriage should be a religious construct, and if you have a gay or polygamous religion - let them marry whomever they want, but this should have no direct legal bearing on it's own.

Legally, your time spent together with partner/partners should be the one having weight, and the proof towards that directions... religiously vetted marriage being just one of the potential sources of confirmation of such.

At the moment due to the tradition, too much weight is given to that one piece of paper issued in the office, and many other forms of cohabitation are ignored as a result of it and not being socially acceptable while still happening under the radar.

[notyoueither]

Except you didn't read it because she said that such was possible, but wouldn't be the case in most circumstances.

So she is pro-polygamy since she thought such was possible.

But against legalizing polygamy. Read the link again. Maybe a couple of times.

JM

I think you have gone off the rails on this issue, Jon.

The article is all about how polygamy is negative for society (using anthropology as a measuring stick). It mentions, almost in passing, that polygamy does not have to be male dominated and that makes the article pro-polygamy?

Wow.

For what it's worth, I agree with the anthropologist (and you) about the problems with polygamy as has been practiced. I disagree that keeping it illegal, and the wives and children affected thus out of sight and beyond social programs that could help them, is necessarily a good idea.

[notyoueither]

Actually, every analysis I have seen uses this as a reason why polygamy even among secular non-traditional groups would still be heavily dominated by one man + multiple women.

Women will heavily go for the few 'high status' men.

Only problem, Jon, is that educated polyamorous women most decidedly do not follow this model.

This can already been seen in the african american community, where the higher level of success of african-american women over men introduces greater competition for the 'successful men' which encourages men to be players/etc.

I am not familiar with this. Link?

We can't enforce equality. There will always be the Woods and the Hefners who can easily have multiple partners. But a society that encourages monogamy (with legal protections, as ours does now) will be a lot more 'even' then one where polygamy is encouraged by the state.

JM

We do not agree about the social outcome of legal polyamory or polygamy, obviously. Simply repeating assertions over and over is not very productive.

[notyoueither]

One aspect of legalised polygamy that may not have occurred to many who think the sky will fall.

If any additional marriages required the agreement of all involved, then very large group marriages would be very difficult to assemble. I imagine.

[Flubber]

If any additional marriages required the agreement of all involved, then very large group marriages would be very difficult to assemble. I imagine.

IT was not at all clear to me that this would be the model for polygamy. I don't know if the model is that a person could take their 3rd or 4th spouse without the first two having any say . Earlier in the thread I presented 3 models of polygamous marriage

[notyoueither]

It would have to be if polygamy were to be mainstreamed.

There is no way in Hades that feminists, or most people, would agree that people could make commitments to others at the expense of prior commitments without the consent of the prior partners.

From reading about polyamory, informed consent is a cornerstone of the philosophy. That means that all partners know about all other partners, and bringing in new loves is usually (edit: or can be) subject to the veto of existing loves. And this isn't even at the marriage stage.

Edit: It's more complicated than a blanket statement like that. They also emphasize that each relationship is unique, and should be negotiated openly between the people involved on an ongoing basis. Making legal commitments to new people, bringing them into the family, would be subject to vetos by people already in the family in the vast majority of cases (I'd imagine).