My mind is boggled.
So if a guy gets married to a few women, those women are free to maintain full-time professional careers to help bring home money to pay for nannies to take care of any children? Because every time I hear about this subject, the women seem to be under some obligation to be stay-at-home moms. That strikes me as control.
This was actually the argument one of my relatives had in favor of Polygamy.
Admittedly, she also left her first husband and ran off to join Joseph Smith. But she was also a fierce fighter for women’s rights, and a correspondent with Susan B. Anthony.
That being said, modern labor-saving conveniences have really just gutted that argument.
And the coercive nature of most known plural marriages are fairly good reasons against it.
It’s not good for the young males… who, being underage, are always poorer than adults, or for the young women who are pressured into marriage with the successful males, who are, by definition, always considerably older.
You never answered the question about multiple husbands.
The fallacy here, of course, is assuming that the minority of men who don’t want marriage also don’t want sex. Who are all these bachelors going to be sleeping with? Do you think they won’t be hitting on your sister wives? It can fairly be argued that polygamy will increase marital infidelity, because single men will have more incentive to seek sex with married women.
Or, you know, even poorer men/boys.
What you hear is a bunch of junk. Quite the contrary to all you say, Polygamy (in our society today) allows women even more freedom and advancement. Yes, some of the sister wives can really do full time careers, while the other sisters who WANT to care for kids can care for their kids. There are tens of thousands of Plural Marriages working wonderfully in this country right now, and many of them next door to you in some city or town.
The children have lots of siblings, and the families are notable for causing zero trouble for society. Low suicide, substance abuse, and low divorce rates. These families are model families. And women are liberated by the type of marriage they want and eagerly participate in. It is really the old large family where no one is ever left out and no one suffers from loneliness.
For some people it works fine; but for others it’s a hellish form of oppression.
Except when they dump unwanted boys by the side of the road to fend for themselves, or abuse the women, and so on. And we need fewer people, not “lots of siblings”.
And really, why should I actually believe all these assertions about how wonderful it all is? Because Blue Is Truth?
Oh please, so allowing men to marry other men is bad, because it will increase immigration, allowing men to marry men from overseas, but allowing men to marry as many women as they want is fine?
I’m fine with consensual polygamy (polyandry or polygyny- also fine with gay marriage, plural if you want), and that argument is one of the most backwards I’ve ever seen.
Allowing polygyny, and not polyandry will mess up gender ratios, however you look at it- and I can’t think of any society that was even half-decent regarding women’s rights that allowed it. All wind up with young girls being treated as property, and leave any woman who does not want to be married (who certainly do exist, especially in a society where your rights as a woman don’t depend on the status of your husband) with a lot of pressure to turn to prostitution, as well as increasing rape.
After all, there’ll wind up being a lot of men out there who think it’s not fair that they shouldn’t be ‘allowed’ to have sex, and that’s a hellish atmosphere to be female in. Especially if being unmarried is seen as being without a ‘protector’, or worthless.
You say that this is notable…so note them. Cites, please.
I would oppose it as the Bible would oppose it, but whom God set free is free indeed. So, in our society if we legalized Polygamy, we would likely do the same for Polyandry. It does seem insane and unjust to legalize sodomistic same-sex marriages and not legalize Plural marriages of by member of opposite sexes.
This is not a theocracy, what the Bible says is irrelevant. It’s also an incoherent collection of mythology written by barbarians, and the last thing you should try to base a modern society on.
“Sodomistic?” :rolleyes:
And unlike same sex marriage, there are a variety of plausible practical and moral reasons to oppose polygamy; it’s a question that can be argued either way. Opposing same sex marriage on the other hand is quite baseless and always boils down to bigotry; again and again opponents have been challenged to produce a good reason to oppose it and failed. The two cases aren’t very similar.
That’s the understatement of the week.
No, it wasn’t. Both because Israelite laws have their antecedents in neighbouring countries (with fairer laws, often) and because Israel (at least, the Kings-period Israel) was an absolute autocracy too - and the worst sort, an absolute theocratic autocracy.
And can you quit it with the fucking blue text, please.
Just a point of clarification by the OP: Are you a member of an FLDS church? Just curious.
If a man with three wives has oral or anal sex with one or more of them, is that a “sodomistic” marriage?
We live in a democracy so we could care what your Bible says. The majority of us believe that polygamy is little more than exploitation of women, all dressed up.
You either believe in the rules of democracy or you don’t? The majority say ‘No go!’.
If you’re looking to convert people to your view, you’re going to have to do better than waving your Bible, (which also embraces owning slaves and beating your woman, by the way!), from that high horse you’re on.
I’m calling it a swing and a miss!
OK, look, the OP is presenting his argument in such a way as to guarantee a feeding frenzy here. God knows that’s true.
But the honesty inherent in his ‘if you’re going to allow polygyny then you have to allow polyandry’ statement is notable. In those I’ve seen making the polygyny argument in the past I’ve often heard that contradiction hand waved away.
Also, I find I can fairly easily shoot down most of the arguments against polygamy by drawing what I feel are true parallels to monogamy.
The argument that it draws down the available marriage/sex partners for single men? Monogamy does that as well. I’ve been with a smoking hot woman for a quarter century. That’s one less smoking hot woman out there for the rest to pursue.
The argument that it leads to abuse of women? That was certainly the case for monogamy prior to the evolution of society against the concept of ‘Man and wife’ into ‘husband and wife’. Prior to that a women was essential chattel for her husband. Women couldn’t vote, own property, handle money and so forth without some man (husband, father, son, whatever) expressing approval. I think it would be fair to say that polygamistic marriage, having not been allowed societal approval, has yet to have the opportunity to go through this evolution. It’s quite possible that, given 100 years of legal polygamy, that such would evolve as well.
Really, the issue I see holding back polygamy that may not be answerable is economic. There are simple and straightforward answers for dissolution of marriage via death or divorce. The courts have dealt with it. But there’s no quick and simple path for government to deal with a situation where a spouse dies and the marriage carries on. Or where a divorce occurs but the marriage continues. That’s not to say that such couldn’t be adopted over time. But it would require some true legislative work. And I don’t think American society is ready to take the time right now.
Question: Is there any liberal democracy that allows plural marriage? I’m not aware of one but I’d be interested in hearing how it copes (if it does).
Not quite. I’m perfectly happy overruling the majority in order to protect the rights of the minority. Right now, the majority say “no go” to same sex marriage (I think), but I’m totally okay with courts overturning the majority under the equal protection clause.
Similarly, although I think the OP is presenting a factually and logically terrible case for polygamy, I do think that, if we can figure out some fair legal protocols for handling it, there’s no excuse for making it illegal.
Supposedly it’s illegal in South Africa, but the president has multiple wives.
Our close, strategic ally and nascent democracy, Afghanistan, allows it. Also legal in Iraq.
I know this is an opinion, and I hate it when people ask for cites for personal opinions. But you’re going to have to back this up with some proof.
From what I have read, the FLDS communities where plural marriage is practiced tend to be perilously close to authoritarian communities. Those who don’t do what they’re told are shunned and exiled. I’m not saying the people there are bad people, but your average Joe and Sally in any repressive environment tends to be pretty law abiding… because if they aren’t, well, there are consequences. So these communities that you talk about: which ones are they, exactly?