Polyandry is less common than polygyny as a cultural default, though certainly not unknown.
Among polyfolk I know, they’re more or less even. I can think of more MFM triadic relationship systems than FMF ones, personally, but I suspect that’s skewed sample; also, triadic relationship structures, while common, are hardly the be-all and end-all of multiple relationships.
I fail to see why multiple marriages treat the partners as property. My husband is a wonderful, supportive person; my mate is a wonderful, supportive person. They happen to be different people who are both worthy of my love. Is the fact that I have two marriagelike relationships somehow treating these men as property?
I don’t think there’s any justification for saying a multiple-person relationship is more likely to be harmful than a two-person one. Poly relationships break up; so do monogamous ones. People abuse or abandon their partners, no matter how many partners they have. Don’t want a poly relationship? Don’t have one. A monogamous relationship would be harmful to me, so I don’t have one.
AZ, I really wasn’t trying to start a fight about polygamy; I was simply pointing out that morality has its basis in humanity. There are reasons why murder, rape, beastiality, polygamy, etc. are disallowed by society. You may disagree with those reasons, and the laws may even change over time, but the point is that morality would not vanish if people stopped believing in God. Morality is not an arbitrary set of rules that came into existence only because they were magically written in a book. The fact that people can disagree over what is or is not moral tends to prove this. And if the wrath of God is the only reason a person can think of not to fuck animals or rape his little sister, then I truly feel sorry for that person.
By the way, I’m certainly open to people disagreeing with me, especially on a subject like polygamy where I’m hardly an expert. But I think you can do better than “You’re wrong 'cuz you can’t prove you’re right.” If you know what ended polygamy among the Mormons, why don’t you share your knowledge, rather than just being smart-assed about it.:mad: It certainly wouldn’t be any more of a highjack than what you already said.
Polygamy hasn’t ended among Mormons at all. They publicly renounced it (one “suspects” due to public sentiment against it). The only way their doctrine is changed in this respect is when their leader has a divine revelation, and I think he had a revelation because they were getting crucified over the issue.
Nicely put. And like I’ve said, if we want to discuss morality, religion is a bad place to start. Shall we recap all the not-so-nice thing god and his people do in the bible? We’ve ditched biblical versions of morality on a great number of issues, and rightly so.
It’s my understanding that the LDS Church has among its tenets that one must obey the law of the land in which one is a resident; it was made clear when Utah was under consideration for admission as a state that the law of the land would not permit polygynous practice, so the mainstream church officially renounced the practice.
There are schismatic groups who hold that their right to polygyny within their tenets is more important than the tenet demanding the following of the law of the land.
Now I may have been too vague in my position on this. I would agree that morality is not based on modern religions. Morality, to me, is a societal construct that was formulated to help diverse individuals get along in large numbers. It is a social standard to help maintain order, keep everyone safe and to some degree make it easier for the powers that be to control them. Thats when religion came in. Religion was a way to help make it easier to control the people to behave properly according to the moral standard.
Somewhere along the line, religion started to dictate behavior instead of regulate it. Good intentions aside, going to church every sunday is patently strange to atheists, but it is the “moral” thing to do according to some religious persons.
So is gay marriage and polygamy illegal based on religion dictating behaivior or if you remove that portion of it, would it still be that objectionable? According to the moral code that is free of religion, why is same sex marriage and multipartner marriage bad?
It cant be because it treats the woman badly because she can easily file for divorce or even not get into the marriage in the first place. The woman can be head of the household.
It cant the risk of disease because testing can be done prior to the union and the fidelity of the union insures that the partners do not incorporate disease risk from outside the union just as in a regular marriage.
It could be because people dont want gays to be married to each other in any number but what is really preventing that?
Well, that’s what I thought. They must obey the law, which is secular. Religion was not the deciding factor, since their religion had previously allowed polygamy. It was changed in response to secular laws, right?
And when they are caught, they are prosecuted. That’s why I disagree with the OP. Polygamy is not barred because of religion. In fact, in the example you are citing, it is barred despite religion.
And before anyone gets their panties in a bunch, I’m not slamming Mormons, nor am I slamming polygamists. Unless I’m mistaken, I believe the vast majority of current-day Mormons do not believe in polygamy. And if you do believe in it, I am not here to judge anyone.
Those of you who want to marry animals are on your own…
Come to Canada if you want to see what marriage is like without religion. In BC yesterday, the Court of Appeal ruled that marriage cannot be defined as the union of a man and a woman, because that violates the Charter of Rights. The Court also gave Parliament about 15 months to rewrite the federal laws accordingly.
The same debate’s happened in Ontario and Quebec.
Personally, my wife and I have been together for 11 years without a ceremony. We finally had one in February, because we’re heading to the US, and I wouldn’t be able to enter unless we were legally wed. The ceremony was performed without mentioning any deity at all (because we wouldn’t want to be hypocrites), but it’s not changing our commitment one iota.
If someone changes how they look at MrsB and myself because of that ceremony, when then they’re pretty damn shallow for thinking that saying a couple of words means something that 11 years of dedication didn’t.
blowero, first off, let me agree with you that morals do not derive necessarily from religion. Some people may derive theirs from religion - I certainly don’t.
The problem I have with morals derived from religion is that they often have no basis in either ethics or reason. Further, they are propogated solely on faith, which tends to resist change.
Now, your assertion that I claimed, “You’re wrong 'cuz you can’t prove you’re right,” is simply hyperbolic. I refuted each of your supporting statements, and never resorted to “prove it”. In fact, I note that you didn’t take issue with any of the refutations I offered.
I find your statement, “There are reasons why murder, rape, beastiality, polygamy, etc. are disallowed by society” personally offensive. Associating polygamy with murder, rape, and beastiality is inappropriate and inflamatory. While each of these may have moral roots in religion, which of these fails the ethics and reason test? Which of these have actually been commonly accepted in many cultures around the world (as opposed to generally condemned in practically all)?
Any chance we can get away from discussing Mormons? As I mentioned before, Mormon separatists practising polygamy are not representative of either Mormons or polygamists. If you, or others, wish to focus on that group, please establish relevence to the topic.
I agree with your last sentence. However, you claim that gay marriage “does them no harm”, but that “polygamy can be harmful”. First, I note that your sentence structure differs. Would you also say that gay marriage “can be harmful”? Could you also say that polygamy, at least sometimes, “does no harm”? For that matter, which is the appropriate criteria?
If you can make the case that gay marriage is not harmful to society, but that polygamy is, then I am willing accept the position that it is appropriate to support one versus the other. Otherwise, simply repeating it without support is insufficient.
Looks like a double standard here. Do you blame monogamy for the unfair shake women get in our culture today? If not, why not? Do you recognize that a woman, of her own will and volition, and in her best interests, may choose to be in a polygamous marriage? If so, do you deny her those rights and liberties because you think her husband is treating her like property? Will you acknowledge that women in a monogamous marriage can be treated like property? Please clarify why polygamy is de facto treating women like property. Empirical evidence would be helpful.
And you are correct to suggest that polygyny occurs in a much higher ratio than polyandry. Do you immediately assume it is because of men taking advantage of women? Or will you open your mind to other reasonable, logical, and innocuous reasons, consistent with the benefit of society?
For example, in practically every society in the history of the world, women (particularly of child-bearing age) outnumber men within the same age group. Sometimes, particularly with societies strifed with many wars, the ratios get significantly out of balance. Even today, in the US, particularly within the black population, the ratios are way out of balance. If we accept the premise that child-bearing women should have the support of a husband, even if they have to share, simple demographics lead to a much higher proportion of polygyny.
There are certainly other sociological reasons for higher levels of polygyny in human societies, but let’s see if you can first refute that one.
You really struggle to come up with a single relevent comment, don’t you? Perhaps I’m being too harsh, perhaps in the Netherlands, all marriages derive from the church. I don’t know. But perhaps you would find it educational to know that marriages around the world are not necessarily predicated on either churches or religion.
On preview:
Are they, necessarily? Then please explain why I can’t, by law, buy beer on Sunday. Back in the 1890’s, when Utah was admitted to the union, which political forces do you believe were more concerned with the Mormon’s polygamy - the religious, or the secularists?
Just because a religious practice was opposed by a specific group does not imply that said group was secular.
Well yes true, but then you have to look deeper. If mormons were coerced into conforming with secular laws that prohibit polygamy then what is the basis by which the secular laws made made to prohibit polygamy?
Thank you. Btw, I would like to post my appreciation for your input to this discussion. I found the definitions of the different terms of multi-partner unions to be quite enlightening. I always just used the term polygamy assuming it was gender-neutral. Thanks for making that definitive.
grin I tend to pound on the distinction between “polygamy” and “polygyny” a lot; it’s one of my irrational pet peeves. (And perhaps not irrational; the conflation of the words makes it much more politically difficult to argue for legalisation of multiple marriage, because many people come all over “barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen” about it. So in addition to being irrationally twitchy about it, I occasionally claim that particular issue as political activism.)
The root in ‘polygamy’, ‘gamos’, means marriage; it carries through into English also in “gamete”, the haploid sex cells (eggs and sperm) which must join (“marry”) to produce a zygote. It also got into some sections of neopaganism as the Hieros Gamos, the Sacred Marriage, but that’s probably a touch on the obscure side for a mnemonic.
Polygyny, the practice of having multiple female mates, has the root word ‘gyne’, which is the same root as is in “gynecologist” – Greek for “woman”. The opposite-sex eqivalent would be polyandry, from the Greek for “man”; that carries into English with androgens and the name Andrew. For remembering both, the word “androgynous” partakes of both.
I said there are reasons for making each illegal, AND I said that one MAY OR MAY NOT agree with the reasoning. There are reasons for ALL laws, but they could very well be stupid reasons. However, they are nonetheless reasons. Laws are made by man; they are not direct supernatural intervention by God.
I DID NOT “associate” those things with each other, and I already explained as much. And frankly, I’m getting tired of you whining about it. If I said anything bad about polygamy, I hereby take it back, O.K.? I’m really not interested in debating the relative merits of polygamy. You obviously live for that kind of debate, but I’m just not interested.
I believe I said exactly that in my last post. I brought up the specific examply of Mormon polygamy, never dreaming that it would open such a can of worms. I will gladly concede that Mormon polygamy is neither representative of Mormons or polygamists. I’m sorry, but I just don’t want to participate in your highjack.
I covered that already. I am loathe to repeat it, since it seems to make AZ foam at the mouth. He seems to take any discussion of polygamy laws as a personal affront to his beliefs.
I’m sorry but other than your arguements of polygamy being a risk of disease and sexist, I couldnt find your post that detailed the reasons for secular anti-polygamy laws. Was it on another thread? Were there other reasons because I did address these 2 already.
nah, I never struggle. Just hate long-winded, boring, bandwidth wasting posts.
You’re not harsh and indeed, you don’t know shit about the Netherlands. The very thought of marriages being predicated on church or religion in Holland would be laughable if it wasn’t so sad.
Well, ya know, I hate posts that fail to even attempt to contribute to the OP, or to contribute to the objectives of this message board and forum. Concise is nice, relevence is even better.
While I appreciate your contribution to my education on the Netherlands, perhaps you would like to contribute something of substance to the OP? Or was the witty cynicism (sic) of your first post your best effort?
Considering your statement above, your first post makes even less sense.
I am a Catholic. My religion, of course, treats marraige as a sacrament, and therfore sacred.
The commitment is between my and my wife, witnessed before God and man.
If God were removed from the equation, it would still be a committment between my wife and me, before our fellow man.
Marriage is the most basic of the socio-economic relationships. Even with out God, society would have a compelling desire to create this insitution and the stability it brings.
