Okay, I’m going to be guilty of Junior Modding here, but this is not Great Debates. This is a General Questions thread about the legality of polygamy.
True, maybe it should be moved.
Some of you dudes are thinking that the girls/women are making an informed choice, and thus as an adult, it should be a choice they can make.
However, the girls/women are not “informed”. They are often born in the compound. They are not allowed out of the compound, they are homeschooled- there is no TV or Net access for them. They are allowed shopping visits to town only under strict supervision. Thus, they are not making a “informed choice” as they are not “informed”. They are functionally chattel slaves.
The merits of the legality of polygamy have nothing whatsoever to do with the crimes of incest and statory rape. I can say with reasonable confidence that the vast majority of people who would take advantage of legal polygamy are not the same people who confine women to compounds and have sex with underage children. Polyamory is a widespread lifestyle, often in committed, long-term relationships.
It’s true that polygamy isn’t necessarily hostile to women or anti-feminist, but in practice, it often is. Most societies and cultures that practice polygamy (and polygany, especially) treat women as inferiors and exploit them.
DrDeth: We have already outlawed spousal abuse, child abuse, and other forms of relationship violence. Trying to equate them with polygamy won’t fly for the same reason equating them with single marriage won’t.
And I’ve asked already for some sort of statistical evidence about how often this is the case. And your response to me has been to invite me to do your research for you.
DrDeth: You are falling prey to a few fallacies, namely, judging the whole from a biased sample and a subsequent post hoc fallacy derived from that. Your biased sample is composed of some of the polygamous groups who hold to polygamy though it’s illegal (chorpler apparently has counterexamples you aren’t considering), and your post hoc fallacy is the notion that polygamy has anything to do with how nutty those groups are.
You’re also, like many lawmakers, ignoring the fact we have specific laws against the kinds of things you want a much more general law to fight. In specific, we have laws against spousal abuse, child abuse, neglect, child endangerment, statutory rape, forcible rape, and truancy, none of which need to specify anything about how many other adults a given adult can marry. Given the existence of those laws, what additional social good do anti-polygamy laws accomplish?
I gave you a cite about the largest and most well known Polygamy “cult” out there. Now, you have to show me that many trios of completely consenting adults, not in a Mormonesque cult, are being convicted of bigamy.
Well, we do. But you see, it’s legal to religiously brainwash someone. It’s legal to homeschool them. And, when they don’t know better, when they aren’t informed, it’s hard to get them to testify or file charges. And, that’s what good anti-polygamy laws can do. They are a way to prosecute the weird cultists living that abhorrent lifestyle.
Sure, we all know of Trios out there that are living more or less happy “married” lives, where they entered into the relationship as informed consenting adults. But the bigamy laws are not being used to prosecute those people. They are being used (not frequently enough, unfortunately) to prosecute the very people I have been talking about.
I think polygamy is one of those statutes which can be invoked, but rarely is, unless harm or endangerment is occurring. District attorneys have discretion, and quite a bit of latitude, on whether or not to prosecute a case. At least, this is true here in the state where I live.
Often, DAs like to stack charges–this gives them leverage with plea bargains, etc. But sometimes, they decline to prosecute a case, although a clear violation of a minor statute is evident.
This is really a fascinating topic, and one with a lot of gray areas. Us Boston Legal fans love this kind of stuff, and can debate it ad infinitum. Perhaps a solid definition of “cohabit” is necessary, and relevant.
Hypothetically, what if a man has a wife and family, and comes home every night, except when the family is out of town. On these occasions, he spends the night with his longtime female friend, whose bills he pays. Is this a form of cohabitation? Or, just an average rich man with a mistress?
Let’s make it more interesting. What if the hypothetical man is descended from one of the early founders of the original Mormon church, whose ancestors did, in fact, practice polygamy?
Can we say he might have a genetic predisposition, of sorts, toward a polygamous lifestyle?
Just when you think you’ve formed an opinion, I’ll throw in another variable.
What if the longtime female friend has TWO such male friends? Would this negate the male culpability, and instead, make her the guiltier party?
All of this is purely hypothetical, of course–designed to be thought-provoking and amusing, not to be taken seriously.
I’ll close with a reference to an ale brewed in Utah, Polygamy Porter. The label says, “Why have just one?”
Yes, exactly. It’s about a self centered dude thinking he HAS to prove his sexual prowess to prove to society what a man he is!