FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Complaint against monogamy





ratanegra
Society has a big problem with this, but people do not see it. There are a lot of people who do not have any relationship, and there are a lot who get slapped in the face for having 2 or more at the same time. The problem is that the number of women and men are the same and some, not having any relationship, leave space open for others to take their preys. But of course, the number of people with and without relationships must be somekind equal to eachother. Taking that into account, one can notice that there is no other challenge else than being able to be normal, which I do not consider a challenge itself, but something that can be got without any real effort. So, to have a life with challenge, I would rather have to fight for my meat instead of waiting for it (and getting it, of course, because it is very easy with monogamy).
deanhills
I'd say that if you don't want to be monogamous, don't commit, don't get married or don't enter into a mono relationship. I had a friend who was quite open about this with his girlfriends. He said that he can't have a monogamous relationship, and if they don't like it, then it can't be a go.

But, of course life does not work that way, and from the beginning of time it has always been the forbidden fruit that tasted the best. In order for it to stay forbidden one probably has to be committed to someone so that one may have the opportunity of breaking the rule of monogamy.
ratanegra
deanhills wrote:
I'd say that if you don't want to be monogamous, don't commit, don't get married or don't enter into a mono relationship. I had a friend who was quite open about this with his girlfriends. He said that he can't have a monogamous relationship, and if they don't like it, then it can't be a go.

But, of course life does not work that way, and from the beginning of time it has always been the forbidden fruit that tasted the best. In order for it to stay forbidden one probably has to be committed to someone so that one may have the opportunity of breaking the rule of monogamy.


How has it been like that since the beginning of everything? Because the Bible says so?

I say it because not even Facebook, when I say I have an open relationship with somebody (a relationship that allows poligamy), doesn't allow me to put any other person with whom I could have a relationship. That meaning that it is still a conservative service in which I cannot choose to be polygamous. If I have a relationship with two girls at the same time (and they know it), I should be allowed to say (via Facebook's profile information) that I do.

Laws do not allow it; I cannot be married to 2 or more people at the same time, and prooving that I have a life with both of them, if we get divorce, nobody can have any access to divorce benefits (meaning economic benefits nor the ability to choose who stays with the kids [legally] nor social acceptance).
deanhills
ratanegra wrote:
deanhills wrote:
I'd say that if you don't want to be monogamous, don't commit, don't get married or don't enter into a mono relationship. I had a friend who was quite open about this with his girlfriends. He said that he can't have a monogamous relationship, and if they don't like it, then it can't be a go.

But, of course life does not work that way, and from the beginning of time it has always been the forbidden fruit that tasted the best. In order for it to stay forbidden one probably has to be committed to someone so that one may have the opportunity of breaking the rule of monogamy.


How has it been like that since the beginning of everything? Because the Bible says so?
I don't know why the Bible is getting the bad rap here, as this has more to do with society's norms and legislation applicable to society. In some of the countries in the Middle East people have more than one wife and no one is even wondering about it. However if you want to have more than one wife in a society that has one wife as a norm, you'd probably be going against the flow and will have to expect resistance from people.

I agree however that it is unfair. It is sometimes practical to have more than one wife provided of course that all those who are part of the arrangement are in agreement with one another. Who knows, if you have a good lawyer and a really good case for polygamy, he could make a really good case for you. In the West you would probably have to expect that society will be shocked by this, which I think is quite silly, but that would probably be the price you would have to pay for deviating from society's norms.
Bikerman
Well, on the legal side I think that is actually fair enough. You receive certain tax breaks for being married and our legal systems are very much built around the notion of 2 people in marriage relationships rather than more. It would need some major changes to the legal, tax and social welfare systems in order to accommodate polygamy properly.
I also think you would be mad to marry several women, even if you could. Think about the possibly alimony in case it went wrong - 4 wives would have the rights to 80% of your worldly goods, assuming an equal share-out (which is what generally happens with one wife)...
Finally, I've been around the block a few times and I can tell you from experience that the only people who I ever see discussing 'open relationships' are blokes - and they normally mean 'I can get away with it' when they say they have 'discussed it'. Like most men they are thinking with their dicks.
Polygamy is disastrous for women. They have had to fight for generations for equal recognition in society, and polygamy would undo much of that progress, I have no doubt.
As a matter of interest, I wonder if you would be happy to have, as one of your wives, a woman who was also married to a couple of other blokes?
(But that never happens. When men talk about polygamy they generally mean 1 man to many women.)
Hello_World
I'm curious whether the OP expects his 2 girlfriends to be monogamous to him? I assume not, I can't see how any girl would be interested in that.

Certainly, it is a minefield legally, a divorce can be pretty complicated with one partner. Let alone several. But laws are there to provide the rules of society, if society changes, laws should be able to follow.

I think trouble will be run into when you start talking about children. Presumably if you have a child with one partner, you will need to be fair and have another with the other. If you are a woman, this would mean you are going to be pregnant for a long time lol. I suppose you can determine the father by science these days.

Most people do think this is a women's issue in a lot of ways, is it only because of societal norms that make this a woman's issue? Is our society really equal enough to allow polygamy without disadvantaging women?

Are you envisaging your poligamous relationships, so as you have 2 girlfriends, maybe one of your girlfriends has a second partner, maybe they have other partners also? What if they both share another guy as well? These sound like very complex relationships.

And maybe this is a fast way to spread STDs?
loremar
Plans for a better society in the future:
1. legalize divorce....check!
2. legalize pornography and use of adult paraphernalia.....check!
3. provide free contraceptives for 11 yrs old above.....check!
4. legalize same sex marriage......check!
5. legalize abortion......check!
6. legalize prostitution......check!
7. legalize polygamy......in progress
8. legalize public copulation.....in progress
9. legalize public nudity.....in progress
Estimated time of completion: 10 yrs. from now.
Yes! I can see it now. A new modernized highly improved civilization.
Oh! and there's one thing:
10. Provide a child-friendly relocation for kids. Moms and Dads are having peer-to-peer bonding party at the house.

There are two kinds of people:
1. People who want a better society for men and women and children.
2. People who want a better society for dogs and puppies(literally because you don't want any kids to live in that kind of society)
Bikerman
I don't see what your private hate list has to so with this. Marriage is a civil contract and I see no reason why that 'franchise' should be exclusive to heterosexuals. The notion that 11 year old are being handed birth control routinely is actually quite ironic, given the massive abstinence movement that provides an 'alternative model' to contraception.
You also seem to have a problem with nudity and sex. I don't notice a sudden outbreak of people screwing in public....maybe I live a sheltered life here in Cheshire. I'm not sure what abortion has to do with any of it...
loremar
Yeah, I don't see any problem if your Dad is getting married with your friend's Dad. That would be a lot interesting.
And you know what's even more interesting?
Your Dad getting HIV from your friend's Dad. PERFECT...

And what's even even more interesting?
Your Dad going for abortion. Laughing

Kids today should be studying math and science or playing with their friends. And not be bothered by adult stuffs. What would you feel if your Mom and Dad getting divorce. Then one day while playing at the backyard, you see your Dad going for it with another Dad from the neighborhood. That would be awesome, right?

This is just my personal opinion. I just preferred the society I have before all these liberal movements. I'm just kinda anxious. Maybe I just too close-minded. I dunno, I'm just not comfortable. Not really hate.
Hello_World
I don't see any problem if your Dad is getting married with your friend's Dad either.

HIV is no longer restricted to gay people, people of all types get HIV unfortunately.

Kids shouldn't have to worry about adult stuff. With gay marriage, they are not made to worry about it by their gay parents, it is other people that make them worry about it with their odd views about homosexuality.

I think I would prefer being brought up by a single parent than a household of aggression or resentment.
loremar
I don't really hate. I'm just not comfortable. I'm just used to what it's used to be. Maybe I'm just too closed-minded. That's it. I'm just worried for the kids actually.
Hello_World
Change makes everyone kinda anxious.

There were benefits to the 'less liberal' society, it was stable, everyone knew 'their place', the rules were more sure. Probably other benefits too.

Trouble is, it also made a lot of people very unhappy, anyone who was not exactly conforming to the norm of that society.

Change is inevitable. Not necessarily liberal change, I mean, just change. The society you loved is very different to one in the Victorian era, Edwardian era, and not just time either, but of course different views around the world.

How it will affect the kids is important, I agree, and therefore also how it will affect society into the future.

Most of the things on your list I don't think will affect kids so much as you. Particularly same sex marriage, people keep saying how will it affect the kids, I don't forsee any negative impact on kids, aside from society imposed impacts.

As to the topic at hand, polygamy, will it effect the kids? What are peoples thoughts on how this complicated arrangement will effect children?
ratanegra
deanhills wrote:
ratanegra wrote:
deanhills wrote:
I'd say that if you don't want to be monogamous, don't commit, don't get married or don't enter into a mono relationship. I had a friend who was quite open about this with his girlfriends. He said that he can't have a monogamous relationship, and if they don't like it, then it can't be a go.

But, of course life does not work that way, and from the beginning of time it has always been the forbidden fruit that tasted the best. In order for it to stay forbidden one probably has to be committed to someone so that one may have the opportunity of breaking the rule of monogamy.


How has it been like that since the beginning of everything? Because the Bible says so?
I don't know why the Bible is getting the bad rap here, as this has more to do with society's norms and legislation applicable to society. In some of the countries in the Middle East people have more than one wife and no one is even wondering about it. However if you want to have more than one wife in a society that has one wife as a norm, you'd probably be going against the flow and will have to expect resistance from people.

I agree however that it is unfair. It is sometimes practical to have more than one wife provided of course that all those who are part of the arrangement are in agreement with one another. Who knows, if you have a good lawyer and a really good case for polygamy, he could make a really good case for you. In the West you would probably have to expect that society will be shocked by this, which I think is quite silly, but that would probably be the price you would have to pay for deviating from society's norms.


As for the Bible, it is the only thing that says that people have always tended to be monogamous, so, I don't think you could really say:
deanhills wrote:
and from the beginning of time it has always been the forbidden fruit that tasted the best


Bikerman wrote:
Well, on the legal side I think that is actually fair enough. You receive certain tax breaks for being married and our legal systems are very much built around the notion of 2 people in marriage relationships rather than more. It would need some major changes to the legal, tax and social welfare systems in order to accommodate polygamy properly.
I also think you would be mad to marry several women, even if you could. Think about the possibly alimony in case it went wrong - 4 wives would have the rights to 80% of your worldly goods, assuming an equal share-out (which is what generally happens with one wife)...
Finally, I've been around the block a few times and I can tell you from experience that the only people who I ever see discussing 'open relationships' are blokes - and they normally mean 'I can get away with it' when they say they have 'discussed it'. Like most men they are thinking with their dicks.
Polygamy is disastrous for women. They have had to fight for generations for equal recognition in society, and polygamy would undo much of that progress, I have no doubt.
As a matter of interest, I wonder if you would be happy to have, as one of your wives, a woman who was also married to a couple of other blokes?
(But that never happens. When men talk about polygamy they generally mean 1 man to many women.)


I don't agree with the current divorce 'system' that allows women to take 50% of your goods (if we are equal and I work, they should be able to work too). When I say polygamy, I mean it for both genres. If women do not want to have more than one man, then they don't, but what if they do? Do we really have to say 'no' to individual's healthy feelings and thoughts? We could even think of a 'moderated polygamy' in which, for each case, the couple talks about their plans and agree or disagree (like: "hey, I wanna be with Jennifer too"; "I don't like her, Mike, I saw her spitting on a drunk man the other day"; "well, if you way so..."). And, back to 'equal recognition in society', I'd dare say it would not really affect that much women, as they would be treated as equals in polygamous reforms.

Hello_World wrote:
I'm curious whether the OP expects his 2 girlfriends to be monogamous to him? I assume not, I can't see how any girl would be interested in that.

Certainly, it is a minefield legally, a divorce can be pretty complicated with one partner. Let alone several. But laws are there to provide the rules of society, if society changes, laws should be able to follow.

I think trouble will be run into when you start talking about children. Presumably if you have a child with one partner, you will need to be fair and have another with the other. If you are a woman, this would mean you are going to be pregnant for a long time lol. I suppose you can determine the father by science these days.

Most people do think this is a women's issue in a lot of ways, is it only because of societal norms that make this a woman's issue? Is our society really equal enough to allow polygamy without disadvantaging women?

Are you envisaging your poligamous relationships, so as you have 2 girlfriends, maybe one of your girlfriends has a second partner, maybe they have other partners also? What if they both share another guy as well? These sound like very complex relationships.

And maybe this is a fast way to spread STDs?


I don't see any problem with children. I can have a kid with Mary, two kids with Rose and none with Valery, while she (Valery) could have a kid with John, and that would all be arranged in an educated society where choices can be made by reasoning people. STD's... there are condoms, right? I'm not saying that people are smart and they would always wear a condom for having sex, but with a righteous society, reforms wouldn't be any problem, because that's why we put governments over us.

Someone mentioned that it would be too expensive and that it would be a great problem to do so many changes to laws. Well, I think that governments are there for a reason, and that reason is for pleasing us, humans, all equally. We set some rights, and while they do not harm or make other person's rights impossible, they are ok. If you think that something shouldn't be changed because it would require a lot of work, then you are being mediocre (no offense intended).
Hello_World
Certainly in the traditional sense of polygamy, it was highly oriented towards the benefit of men, but I'm not so sure about the effect on women and society in this more enlightened, 'liberal' society.

I'm unconvinced and uncommitted on this.

I read an excellent book on the anthropology of women and relationships, 'Women's Evolution' by Evelyn Reed, and found the societal structure pre-monogamy fastinating. It wsa a long time ago that I read it, but I am not convinced of the superiority of the monogamous relationship system, or at least, I am not convinced that it is the only relationship structure that can work. Mind you, she was not writing about polygamous relationships.

Nevertheless, given the society we have today, I am curious whether there would be effects on society at large, and would they be advantageous or would they disadvantage some? I do not doubt that there are individuals who are open-minded and free spirited enough to make it work. Would this also open the doors to conservative minded mysoginist communities to disempower women? Is this concern enough to discredit polygamy for all?

Are there stronger arguments that I am overlooking? I'm not sure.

@loremar there are some things that I am also not comfortable with in this society too. Mostly things where sex becomes a commercial transaction.
Bikerman
ratanegra wrote:

I don't agree with the current divorce 'system' that allows women to take 50% of your goods (if we are equal and I work, they should be able to work too). When I say polygamy, I mean it for both genres. If women do not want to have more than one man, then they don't, but what if they do? Do we really have to say 'no' to individual's healthy feelings and thoughts? We could even think of a 'moderated polygamy' in which, for each case, the couple talks about their plans and agree or disagree (like: "hey, I wanna be with Jennifer too"; "I don't like her, Mike, I saw her spitting on a drunk man the other day"; "well, if you way so..."). And, back to 'equal recognition in society', I'd dare say it would not really affect that much women, as they would be treated as equals in polygamous reforms.
There are many examples of polygamy in history - and nearly all of them were polygynys rather than polyandrys (one man many women, not one woman many men). The only places you find polyandry is where resources are very scarce - it limits child numbers and increases the child survival rate.
Polygyny is very common. A quick look at the Ethnographic Codebook (a record of known civilisations) shows 1231 societies recorded of which 186 were monogamous. 453 had occasional polygyny, 588 had more frequent polygyny, and 4 had polyandry.
deanhills
I like Loremar's cynical comment about legalizing everything, including relationships. If one looks at the Monarchy in the UK perhaps polygamy would have made the relationships much easier, as obviously then there would not have been any divorces needed. It would have saved UK taxpayers a lot of money and embarrassment as well.

So much has changed in the last few decades that we no longer have couples who stay married for life. It is almost expected when one gets married that there could be a chance it may not work out. Divorcing to me is really hard on the children. Usually the most successful divorces are where parents have learned to work with one another. If they can do all of that without the aid of all the legal bits of paper of divorce etc. perhaps things could be much less stressful on everyone around. Potentially, and depending on how acrimonious the break-up has been. But say the couple who broke up chooses to have different partners, if there had not been this whole thing about divorce, and settlement and lawyers, I'm almost certain they could have found a solution that is much more beneficial for society all round.
loremar
Better idea? ABOLISH MARRIAGE. It's pretty much useless anyway.
DIVORCE? POLYGAMY? Why go through all these hassle?
It looks like a waste of time and money.
deanhills
loremar wrote:
Better idea? ABOLISH MARRIAGE. It's pretty much useless anyway.
DIVORCE? POLYGAMY? Why go through all these hassle?
It looks like a waste of time and money.
Excellent idea. And if the couple feels it is necessary, enter into a contract with one another. They can then choose to have a church wedding or a beach wedding or a wedding with any partner they choose. Or they can choose to have more than one partner in the same contract.
Bikerman
deanhills wrote:
I like Loremar's cynical comment about legalizing everything, including relationships. If one looks at the Monarchy in the UK perhaps polygamy would have made the relationships much easier, as obviously then there would not have been any divorces needed. It would have saved UK taxpayers a lot of money and embarrassment as well.
No really. Firstly I feel no embarrassment at the antics of a bunch of inbred german aristocrats - why would I ? Secondly, the reason that people think marriage is for life is easy to explain - religion. There is nothing in the civil marriage ceremony that says 'this is for life' - that comes from the 'as long as you both shall live' which is part of the religious ceremony, not the civil ceremony.
Hello_World
I have read... I'm not sure where, or the veracity of the claims... but I have read that marriage really came about as a way to secure the line of wealth way back when there was no other way to prove blood line other than monogamy.

Could be wrong, though, and I guess the easiest way to prove or disprove that is to see if marriage in any form came before Jesus' time.

And whether any of the ancient religions have marriage rites.

But it is just religion today that makes us assume that marriage must be for life. Mind you, personally, I like the idea, I don't want to be out on the singles market when I'm lonely at 70. My own relationship I must say I'm in it for life. But I'm not married...

Interestingly, Islam have some interesting ideas about marriage, they have two forms, from my understanding, one is like a temporary form and the other like a fixed permanant form. Any Muslims care to comment on that? I'm no expert on that.

As to the Islamic form of polygamy, I am no fan of that, being so clearly disadvantageous to women, but in thinking about that, they think you can have as many wives as you can afford to keep.

I don't agree with that per se, in an equal society, but any children you chose to have with all these wives you would surely be responsible for your share of the financial raising, and presumably if the mother stays home to care for the child for the whole of the financial burden. If you stay home to raise one child, you would have to stay home to raise all of them or none, otherwise how could you support the other children? And if one of your wives had children to multiple fathers, she would have to do the same. But what happens when some children are at school, and she is therefore expected to get a part-time job, but she has other children under school age requiring full time care, and yet still needs to be able to partially support the school age child?

Okay that was me thinking out loud... how complicated the whole thing is and the financial strains etc.

Or are you, OP, thinking more in terms of group marriage, where somehow a whole bunch of people are sharing their lives together, perhaps the men are all in a brother like relationship and all the women are in a sister like relationship? This is even stranger but may solve the child raising dilemas...

Okay this is really becoming a verbal brain spew, I'm just trying to fathom what it would actually in practicality look like.

@Bikerman, that Ethnic Codebook is a great resource! Very interesting.

Deanhill:
Quote:
So much has changed in the last few decades that we no longer have couples who stay married for life. It is almost expected when one gets married that there could be a chance it may not work out. Divorcing to me is really hard on the children. Usually the most successful divorces are where parents have learned to work with one another. If they can do all of that without the aid of all the legal bits of paper of divorce etc. perhaps things could be much less stressful on everyone around. Potentially, and depending on how acrimonious the break-up has been. But say the couple who broke up chooses to have different partners, if there had not been this whole thing about divorce, and settlement and lawyers, I'm almost certain they could have found a solution that is much more beneficial for society all round.


I agree totally, that where the parents have found a way to work well together, that is the best way for the children. I think our culture/media pushes us towards a more angry version though, where people think it is okay to try to take everything away from your partner in your bitterness. Yes, people do get angry and bitter in a very deep painful way, but we should really discourage people from doing this whole 'take everything you've got' approach, because you rightly point out it leads to a very stressful and less beneficial outcome.

I've seen both types and certainly one is far better than the other, yet the TV would have us believe that the response to the pain is 'take everything the bastards got'. Surely they can make up a better system where there are simple guidelines and no-one is suing anyone for 'all their worth'. They could just make it like a computer program...

relevant_money = total_wealth - pre-marriage_wealth
If (no_children):
do blah
elif (children=1):
etc

lol.

When you break up you just input the relevant data...

But imagine how complex the program would be for polygamous marriages lol.
Bikerman
Marriage almost certainly started off as a way of expanding and consolidating land holdings. Strategic alliances were the order of the day. It isn't until the advent of the troubadours in Europe (12th century) that the idea of 'romantic marriage' occurred.
deanhills
ratanegra wrote:
How has it been like that since the beginning of everything? Because the Bible says so?
I'm not quite sure where you are going with this. If you check my posts, I'm actually supporting your position except for giving religion a bad wrap for it. There are religions in the world who support polygamy on the basis of the Bible, and there are those who don't. The Mormons I know do support polygamy, however actions have been taken by society and Government to force change and it has been on the basis of legislation that they have been prosecuted, not the Bible. There are a number of groups in the United States who have polygamous relationships based on the Bible, if you like you can Google it. Muslims in certain parts of the Middle East also practice polygamy based on the Bible. My point is this has to do with humans and what their preferences are. They are cherry picking from the Bible to suit their flavour of the month. And the pressure on them to change comes mostly from society and Government. Legislation. That is why I also agreed with Loremar to remove all this legislation.

ratanegra wrote:
I say it because not even Facebook, when I say I have an open relationship with somebody (a relationship that allows poligamy), doesn't allow me to put any other person with whom I could have a relationship. That meaning that it is still a conservative service in which I cannot choose to be polygamous. If I have a relationship with two girls at the same time (and they know it), I should be allowed to say (via Facebook's profile information) that I do.
How does Facebook not allow it? And on what basis?

ratanegra wrote:
Laws do not allow it; I cannot be married to 2 or more people at the same time, and prooving that I have a life with both of them, if we get divorce, nobody can have any access to divorce benefits (meaning economic benefits nor the ability to choose who stays with the kids [legally] nor social acceptance).
Depends where you are in the world. As mentioned above there are still places in the world where polygamy is alive and well and approved off.
ProfessorY91
ratanegra wrote:

Laws do not allow it; I cannot be married to 2 or more people at the same time, and prooving that I have a life with both of them, if we get divorce, nobody can have any access to divorce benefits (meaning economic benefits nor the ability to choose who stays with the kids [legally] nor social acceptance).


Not everywhere. I can think of a handful of places where polygamy is allowed. In Islam, a large religion, polygamy is allowed in certain circumstances. I would go into details, but I'm not planning on being a polygamist in my lifetime. I can use the same argument that the GLBT community uses when arguing for rights:

The line should be drawn after the point where there are consenting adults to uphold the practice.
Bikerman
Well it pretty much is, to be fair. There is nothing stopping one living the life of a polygamist. The only thing you can't do is get more than one marriage license - it would be relatively easy to setup legal contracts with the same sort of overall effect if one really wanted to.
I don't see this at all in the same universe as gay marriage. I would, and did, speak out for gay marriage since the discrimination there was based on sexuality and therefore wrong. There is no such discrimination with polygamy since there is no defining characteristic for a polygamist, and therefore polygamists are not a genuine classification of person. It is no more valid as a 'type' than driving a Lexus. Sure one can know a little about the person from the car, but you wouldn't define a person by it or even risk much money betting on what they do, earn, believe etc etc...

This is not an issue of discrimination against a minority and the two issues should be kept distinct.

Neither is the law actually interested in what a polygamist does. It is only the crime that would interest the police, not the lifestyle. As I said, I actually support current legislation and would NOT back a change to allow polygamy. It isn't a case of the state interfering - it is more the state not giving extra benefits and privilege. No polygamist is discriminated against, they are just told that polygamy is technically illegal, so leave out the actual marriage ceremonies after the first one and otherwise proceed as you planned.
ProfessorY91
Bikerman wrote:
Well it pretty much is, to be fair. There is nothing stopping one living the life of a polygamist. The only thing you can't do is get more than one marriage license - it would be relatively easy to setup legal contracts with the same sort of overall effect if one really wanted to.
I don't see this at all in the same universe as gay marriage. I would, and did, speak out for gay marriage since the discrimination there was based on sexuality and therefore wrong. There is no such discrimination with polygamy since there is no defining characteristic for a polygamist, and therefore polygamists are not a genuine classification of person. It is no more valid as a 'type' than driving a Lexus. Sure one can know a little about the person from the car, but you wouldn't define a person by it or even risk much money betting on what they do, earn, believe etc etc...

This is not an issue of discrimination against a minority and the two issues should be kept distinct.

Neither is the law actually interested in what a polygamist does. It is only the crime that would interest the police, not the lifestyle. As I said, I actually support current legislation and would NOT back a change to allow polygamy. It isn't a case of the state interfering - it is more the state not giving extra benefits and privilege. No polygamist is discriminated against, they are just told that polygamy is technically illegal, so leave out the actual marriage ceremonies after the first one and otherwise proceed as you planned.


I never really intended to imply that this is discrimination against a particular group of people, or the like. I also really don't want to enter into a discussion of whether or not one should support legislation for or against polygamy. I'm simply employing a point: If this isn't a destructive practice to the community (and this would be a matter of opinion), and there are consenting adults who wish to engage in polygamy, then the government or any governing power doesn't really have the right to interfere with the practice. I'd much rather pursue the angle that polygamy is a religious practice (it is), and then debate it out from there. I, too, would support legislation that would not back a change to allow polygamy because of my personal beliefs.

I do not agree that marriage should be a privilege or benefit governed by the state. I'm of the firm belief that for the state, it should simply be a matter of record. The problem with following that line of reasoning is that it isn't feasible in the system we have today. Divorce laws would have to be rewritten, inheritance, immigration loopholes closed, etc. So at the moment, I too can only argue for not prosecuting polygamists who don't seek to circumvent the laws in any other way.
Bikerman
I don't see any particular problem with a state rewarding behaviour that is considered stabilising and useful. Marriage is seen by many as such an influence and something to be encouraged. I'm not convinced that it IS, but I see no reason in principle that the state should not favour certain activities/behaviours by providing incentives. This is quite normal - it is done all the time. We pay duty on tobacco and alcohol which is designed to bring in revenue but also to limit the consumption.

All in all, if the polygamous person is married once, he/she will have the same tax break that other married couples get. They can then have a civil ceremony in which they marry as many people as they like. They will not be state recognised weddings, but so what? I understand why gays had to push this issue, but for most people NOT being discriminated against, making it 'official' is not really such a big thing. You get a slight change to tax allowance, and that's about it....Certainly in everyday life it wouldn't really matter at all whether I was officially married to Caz or not.
Hello_World
Quote:
I'd much rather pursue the angle that polygamy is a religious practice (it is), and then debate it out from there.


I have trouble with this. There are religious people that do it, but it isn't a religious practice.

Am I a Christian if I sip on wine?

I suppose you can argue it is a religious practice, however,

it is far more troubling when religions get involved, as far as I know, all the religions that accept that practice accept it for men only and is therefore sexist and lowers the position of women in society.

We throw out immoral religious practices, like stoning, or anything discriminatory, I could never support male only polygamy.
deanhills
Hello_World wrote:
I have trouble with this. There are religious people that do it, but it isn't a religious practice.
Well said and agreed, especially in the West where there is a clear separation between religion and state.
loremar
Yeah I agree, marriage is a secular act. How Bikerman puts it just enlightened me why it is. But doesn't it also implies that loyalty is an important factor? To protect the wealth? That's why I think Divorce and Polygamy only causes conflict. Society should enforce loyalty to people who gets into marriage.
Bikerman
Certainly it was a way to keep land and possessions within the family. That is a fairly natural position and isn't necessarily 'personally' selfish. In fact it is still one of the things that people regard as a positive about a family - the fact that they will stick up for each other and put themselves, collectively, before any other relationship.
I rather see the change in marriage practices as an interesting 'speeded-up' analogy of evolution.
One starts with a purely mechanistic 'creature vs the world' scenario, but with the evolution of the mammals we see a change from almost entirely selfish behaviours to reciprocal altruism and kin groupings. It is still that selfish gene at work - it stands a better chance of being passed-on if the animals co-operate, and the same segments of DNA coding are in all of the close relatives, so most of the genetic pattern will survive the death of an individual...all entirely functional and logical - but such a rich and diverse behaviour repertoire is then generated from that staggeringly simple mechanism of natural selection acting over time - it is mind boggling. Then we move into humans and individualism that comes with consciousness and, especially, self-awareness. That was another whole level of complexity now in play - and all driven by a law that one can write in a paragraph of English....

So, the comparison would be that marriage has done the same - it has moved from being a kin-driven contractual agreement to being an individually decided choice. Marriage has done it in centuries where evolution takes millennia - which tells us something important about the importance of extelligence - not so much 'intelligence' because most people would agree that chimps are intelligent but they are not given human rights and would not be able to demand or achieve them in any case. It is extelligence (the external storage and horizontal transmission of knowledge) that really marks the 'kick off' of the non-linear cultural evolution that then occurs. For millennia we were half-ape hunter-gatherers. Then, in a few short centuries, we explode onto the stage and not only do we become the most important and powerful act on stage, within a short time we buy the entire theatre.
deanhills
loremar wrote:
Society should enforce loyalty to people who gets into marriage.
I thought you wanted to remove legislation?
Confused
Related topics
hypo.. somethin
Judge dismisses Jesus lawsuit
Health Tip of the Day
HOW does religion start wars?
Poor customer service: Name & Shame
The land of the free?
Should I get my neighbor's cat fixed?
Swindler's List - Munir Khan
Complaint against Adobe!
Media Matters IRS Status
Where is Deanhills?
How to ask friend return money?
Theistic and Secular morality
Brain behind the Silk Road got arrested by the FBI
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> General -> General Chat

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.