The case for polygamy

[Pax]

Sorry, I did'nt know that it went without saying.

[Pax]

How does that help the problem of all the young frustrated unhappy men?

For a society to do well, you don't want polygamy.

As repeatedly pointed out by the articles mentioned. Even the ones who are pro-polygamy! (As she said, with how people are now, it would be male dominated polygamy).

JM

Actually, Jon dating is competitive. Women today will choose a married man over a single one. They will choose to go home alone rather than take the guy that is unappealing to them. When I was in Cuba then man to woman ratio was ridiculous in the favor of the woman and yet most of the guys who were getting the girls were getting MOST of the girls. Girls were still going home alone. And the undesirable guys still had their hand.
I see why you would want to stack the deck to give every guy an equal opportunity but the only way you could actually do this is too go in the opposite direction an basically sale/issue/betroth guys to women who can't compete. I say if you want to give the guys a chance then they probably need to be educated in social skills to make them more desirable and also educated to make them more financially desirable.
We may end up with less welfare if we let the chains of people who can't compete socially or financially die off. I would rather have a rich man have four wives, rich woman four husbands. Than too have 1 rich couple and 3 poor couples.

[MikeH]

I reckon Jon has persuaded me that the status quo is probably fine on this at the moment.

[Jon Miller]

Marriage is put in place by the government for 2 reasons, to support society/it's people.

I gave those two reasons. Both are based upon long term relationships.

If you will, that is like government support of mothers/babies (WICs).

There were a group of people who were not taking part. They didn't get the support from the government. This relates to 1. (Adoption) and 2. (Long term relationships). By including gay marriage, a maximum of 1-10% supported who weren't supported before.

Good!

Now there is another group of people. They are already taking part. By including polygamous marriage, these people will switch from marriage to polygamous marriage. This causes some of the people who are currently taking part to not take part (mostly men, who no longer will have partners). So it actually decreases the amount of support of 1. and 2. that the government is doing. It opposes the goals in 1. and 2., by having less people get supported by the government.

Just like allows WICS to be used to buy tobacco actually goes against the goals of WICS (healthy babies/mothers).

Now just like with WICS (it is for poor mothers), some people don't need support. Some homosexuals have had great long lasting relationships without gay marriage. Some 'traditional' couples have had great long term relationships without marriage. And some polygamous groups stay together without state support too.

The issue is what do we want to support.

Including polygamous marriage hurts the things that marriage is meant to support, besides the other effects I haven't even included here (unhappy men/etc due to not finding partners/etc which has been addressed in other articles).

JM

[Flubber]

JOn

I understand most of your argument but have difficulty with the idea that legalizing polygamy will decrease the number of women available. I figure the most likely people to end up in polygamous marriages are those that are currently in those types of relationships anyway.

Would you forsee large numbers of women choosing these types of relationships?

[Jon Miller]

I think a lot would.

But in the above statements, I was just pointing to the:

1. Currently non-polygamist Mormons.
2. Currently non-polygamist Muslims.
3. A portion of the Evangelicals.
4. Currently non-polygamist Traditionals.

All of which I think don't take part in polygamy because it is illegal, and would do otherwise within ~10 years if it became legal.

JM

[Heraclitus]

Polygamy is relatively rare in Muslim countries where its legal, I don't see why the West would be different.

[notyoueither]

Jon, the point is, people already enter into these marriages, even if they aren't officially recognised.

The problem is, in the UK, if they are not officially married they don't have the same rights when the relationship ends as a married person would when the relationship ends.

So the reason I think it should be recognised officially is that the people involved can get the same legal rights inside the relationship, and if/when the relationship ends they can get the same legal rights through the divorce courts in terms of asset division, maintenance, child custody etc.

Even if it's a terrible idea in the first place, it's even worse if you don't have that legal protection later for people we might worry are being exploited.

Not just legal rights when it ends, but other support by society while in the marriage. Especially access to healthcare, welfare and education for children.

Polygamous communities tend to try to shut themselves off from the outside world due to legal status.

[notyoueither]

Yes. The guy I quoted.

I found those quotes from another area talking about him being a polyamorist.

To me, he sounds like the the feminist, secularist polyamorist writers. And yes, I have read things they have written.

Are you really suggesting that it isn't the case that multiple person relationships are not dominated by one man, multiple women, relationships?

JM

He sounds nothing like Dossie Easton, Christopher Ryan, or Cacilda Jethá.

Calling him a feminist is a stretch, I believe. Calling him secular is strange in the extreme. Do a lot of secular thinkers spend their lives looking for their divinity?

http://pubsub.com/Why-Do-People-Choose-Polyamory_Psychology-Happiness-Relationships-cAz9UGKTtBl,l8eWNgxN1gUE

Robert Masters is a Canadian therapist who formerly headed an intentional community which utilized many radical measures to help people awaken to their divinity, including non-monogamy. From what I've heard from friends who spent time there, polyamory was a very effective means of penetrating the personality, similarly to its use in earlier spiritual groups.

Since this community disbanded some years ago, Masters has changed his views. He now believes that "If we were to put monogamy up against polyamory, with regard to depth, awakening potential, and capacity for real intimacy, which would come out on top? Monogamy, by a landslide, so long as we're talking about mature monogamy, as opposed to conventional (or growth-stunting and passion-dulling) monogamy, referred to from now on as immature monogamy. Immature monogamy is, especially in men, frequently infected with promiscuous desire and fantasy, however much that might be repressed or camouflaged with upstanding virtues. Airbrush this, infuse it with talk of integrity and unconditional love and jealousy-transcending ethics, consider bringing in another partner or two, and you're closer than near to polyamorous or multiple-partnering territory."


Masters came to his appreciation for monogamy relatively late in life, after fully immersing himself in multiple partner relating. While he does not emphasize stability as a criterion for preferring monogamy, I get the feeling that this is part of its current appeal for him. Instead Masters uses the language of attachment, and critiques multi-partner relating as a way to avoid attachment. In my experience, it doesn't. True, plenty of people use multi-partner relating as a strategy to avoid attachment, some even recommend this, but in my experience attachment is a powerful force which can override any mental argument or situational defense. Many people hope to find greater stability, depth, and personal growth in their intimate relating by choosing polyamory, while others seek the same qualities in monogamy. The bottom line is that whether we like it or not, all relationships are dynamic by nature and any effort to avoid this reality is doomed to failure.

Also, note the disagreement with Masters on the part of a female polyamorist.

[notyoueither]

From what I have seen, those who claim that secularist polygamy is not dominated by one man/multiple women are just blind and have not studied history or other societies at all.

Look at past societies, look at societies in asia and africa.

The claim that polygamy being mostly one man/multiple women as coming from christian (with most references to mormon) or abrahamic (islam/christian/judaic) roots is stupid.

Just look at human relationships. There are a lot more men who consider it status building to have a lot of lovers than there are women. And there are a lot of scientific articles saying that that is biological.

JM

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.

[notyoueither]

So no, we shouldn't support polygamy. Just like we don't support tobacco use. Although, like with tobacco use, people can live in a polygamous relationship if they want to.

How are they being kept form doing so?

JM

It is currently illegal in Canada and the United States (most, many, all states?).

In how many Western countries is it legal?

Edit:
Nowhere in the US, as is the case in most of Europe with some allowances for immigrants in some places.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_polygamy

[notyoueither]

I'm not even certain of the status of just living together in Canada.

AFAIK, you are considered married after a certain period of time living together and sharing a bed. I'm not sure if allowance has been made to say except in cases where multiple people live together.

In Utah, the law seems to be that just living together is illegal.

[Aeson]

I think a lot would.
1. Currently non-polygamist Mormons.

All of which I think don't take part in polygamy because it is illegal, and would do otherwise within ~10 years if it became legal.

No. You're insane.

[Flubber]

I'm not even certain of the status of just living together in Canada.

AFAIK, you are considered married after a certain period of time living together and sharing a bed. I'm not sure if allowance has been made to say except in cases where multiple people live together.

.

No you are not. Married is married and not is not in Canada. For example the Divorce Act never applies if you did not marry.

However, pretty much every jurisdiction has criteria which once you meet them triggers a number of consequuences that are similar to the results of being married. (Unfortunately these criteroa can differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and there can be different criteria for different purposes. In some cases living together can be the same and in other cases you may find yourselves with a different set of rights and obligartions than married folks.

Shackin' up is fine with me
April 03, 2007

Jennifer O'Meara


I came home to my boyfriend pitching his annual income-tax-related temper tantrum. The already painful process has been further complicated by the fact that we have been living together for almost a year and will be considered common-law for tax purposes for the first time.

I have to admit, I like the idea of us becoming a common-law union. As a 25-year-old child of divorce, it's only recently that I've decided I want to get married some day (temper tantrums aside, Alec seems a likely candidate). That's why I like living with him; it's like testing out marriage without actually getting married.

Alec, 26, hates the fact that the government has decided that he is officially in a serious relationship. He is cohabitating with me because we are in no position financially to get married or to live apart.

"It's just a lame excuse for you to get my stuff if we break up," he complains of the government interference.

Even though I'm excited about shackin' up, the income tax issue made me realize that I don't know enough about the legal side of it. So I decided to find out what being common-law in Canada means.

The first thing I learn is that my boyfriend's collection of James Bond movies and the 1992 Toyota are safely his if ever we split. The Supreme Court of Canada handed down a ruling in 2002 that makes it clear that common-law couples breaking up don't have the same property rights as divorcing couples.

"Whoever's bought something, they own it. If it's a joint purchase, it will have to be divided," explains family law specialist Gerald Sadvari, a partner at the national law firm McCarthy Tetrault. "You can't just say, `Automatically, I'm entitled to half of the property.'"

The Ontario Family Law Act only defines common-law to give guidelines to couples who are separating. Sadvari says a couple is considered common-law (meaning that you can ask for spousal support) only after living together for three years, or as soon as you have a child together. (Child support is not affected by whether the parents were married.)

The federal government considers couples common-law for tax purposes if they were living together for the previous year.

Once we pool our income we get cut out of some government incentives run through the tax program.

The legislation concerning common-law seems unnecessarily complicated to me and varies between federal and provincial governments.

If my common-law relationship ends, I get only what I have paid for. So if Alec were to die without a will, I likely would not get any of his "estate" – the Bond flicks and car will go to his family. If I don't like either of these scenarios, I would have to go to court to prove that I am entitled to the property.

It's enough to make a girl want the simple legality of a wedding ring.

Explaining the legislation to my boyfriend produces an eloquent Trudeau-like rant on the state having no place in the bedrooms of the nation. He doesn't believe people can be arbitrarily bound to one another; it should be a conscious decision. "Common-law is like saying, `I'm too lazy to declare anything to anyone, so by default I marry thee.' You can't really make a promise by default," he says.

Of, course, we are not alone. Common-law unions are the fastest growing type of family in Canada, according to Profiling Canada's Families III, a report by the Vanier Institute of the Family, which studies Canadian families.

The number of live-in relationships across Canada has steadily increased since it was first recorded in 1981. Statistics Canada data from the 2001 census show that 14 per cent of all families are common-law, up from 6 per cent in 1981. StatsCan will release the most recent statistics on common-law families in September

"I'm guessing ... we'll continue to see an increase," says Clarence Lochhead, executive director of the Vanier Institute.

That forecast is based on several factors: a fairly low marriage rate; higher rates of post-secondary education; more children being raised in divorced families (research shows children of divorce are more likely to cohabit, testing the waters before getting married); and people getting married and having children later in life (meaning they likely cohabit before marriage).

"Common-law is often a prelude to marriage," says Lochhead. "It's not that people aren't forming unions. They're just waiting to tie the knot."

The rise in cohabitation is not a signal of the demise of traditional marriage. Eighty per cent of people the Vanier Institute surveyed still believe it's important to get married.

"In our view, living common-law isn't a rejection of marriage. It's a complement to it, until you can afford it, or have your independence, or want to have kids," Lochhead says. "It can be too simplistic to think of it as common-law versus marriage."

Factors such as age, religious beliefs and culture affect how someone feels about living common-law.

Personal experiences of marriage can also have a big impact on one's feelings about living together. Being from a "broken" home, I don't necessarily see marriage as any more secure than living together. The studies done comparing the two would disagree with me. As for my boyfriend, watching some "magically craptastic" common-law relationships in his extended family forged his anti-common-law opinion.

He says he'd marry me tomorrow, if we had the money. I'm in no rush (although I'm not morally opposed to white dresses).

While many young people choose to live together before getting married, baby boomers are also a large part of the increase in common-law relationships. Almost one-third of people in common-law families were previously married and they're now divorced, separated or widowed, says Lochhead.

The increase reflects a change in attitude about people who live together without being married. Less than 30 years ago, unmarried couples living together were looked down upon in Western society.

"There is more of a cultural acceptance of living common-law," says Lochhead.

One easy way to tell that our society has become more accepting is the fact that employers and the government both recognize common-law as a legitimate relationship. For example, Alec's company is extending his health benefits to me. It's an added bonus, along with the savings on rent.

Of course, that cultural acceptance doesn't include everyone. My grandmother still calls Alec my "friend" and is positive he sleeps on the couch in our living room. She is pressuring me to marry him so the "poor man can sleep in a decent bed."

The majority of Canadians expect to, and will, get married at some point in their lives. Still, we are becoming more accepting of unconventional relationships and families. Living common-law is not as clean-cut as being married but for me, and many others, it is the perfect combination of intimacy and independence.

No matter how carefree the idea of shackin' up may be, the government doesn't deal in romance and is going to get its cut of your combined income at tax time. Which translates to less money back for us because of claiming join rent and GST credits to begin with.

But even Alec admits it's a small price to pay for l'amour.

[Jon Miller]

It is currently illegal in Canada and the United States (most, many, all states?).

In how many Western countries is it legal?

Edit:
Nowhere in the US, as is the case in most of Europe with some allowances for immigrants in some places.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_polygamy

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