Another poly checking in. 15 year relationship.
We have had some major issues at times, but we’re still here.
And one reason you won’t get stats on poly families is the threat of losing jobs, children, etc. Most poly’s are seriously in the closet.
Technically, it’s illegal to “live a polygamous lifer style” in Utah, so although it won’t bring the FBI to your door, it could bring the local police. Not sure if this is ever enforced, or if it would stand up in court, either. But it is the law of the land in that state for now.
In at least one sense, sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gander here: having to share her husband with other women does not necessarily limit the number of successful offspring a woman can have.
If you look at it from an evolutionary psychology perspective, where the “goal” is having one’s genes survive and thrive, polygyny can, in some circumstances, be a decent deal for the women involved. The real losers are the non-alpha males.
I believe the “Sister Wives” people relocated from Utah under serious threat of prosecution, although I think the case was later dropped. They also were having severe personal repercussions from the publicity (lost jobs, etc.).
What I find entertaining about “Sister Wives” is how completely normal they are, compared to most of the reality TV families.
Polygamy isn’t inherently immoral. But it’s inherently complicated and therefore probably harder to manage successfully. And in certain contexts, it can be used as an excuse for sexism.
Wikipedia supports this. That’s about the closest thing I can find to someone in the last fifty years being charged in the US with polygamy where there weren’t more severe charges filed at the same time (fraud and child-rape) against the same person.
But even in the Sister-Wives case, where the accused basically filmed and broadcast their “crime”, in a state that probably has a harder anti-polygamist stance of any in the country, the charges were dropped.
So I think its pretty clear that people can live a polygamist life-style in the US without fear of legal repercussions (though of course there still maybe social repercussions).
The religious right often defends their opposition to same sex marriage arguing it will lead to the legalization of polygamy.
I agree, and I’m ok with that. Adults should be able to enter into any kind of marriage they see fit, and that marriage should have all the protections and rights a common heterosexual union does.
If same-sex marriage becomes the law of the land throughout the USA, as it seems will happen eventually, I wonder if the Mormon church will eventually decide to revive plural marriage. Right now, with their big push against same-ex marriage, the last thing the Latter-day saints want to do is to appear sexually deviant to the public. But if that battle is ever totally lost, then they will have nothing to lose by returning to their polygamous roots, assuming it wold be legal.
Actually, I understand that it was the opposite; that in many places for a long time monogamy was a practice imposed in name only by Christianity that was in practice ignored. The kings and other wealthy/powerful men just went from having official harems of wives/courtesans to having a large staff of “handmaidens”.
I agree that consenting adults should be able to choose to arrange their romantic affairs however they see fit, but that doesn’t mean that society should create a formal legal framework that’s capable of accommodating every possible permutation. The vast majority of people are only interested in being married to one person at a time, so it makes sense for any standardized legal framework to be designed around that relationship. The small number of individuals who are interested in other variations would be better served by unique contracts that capture the idiosyncrasies of their particular situations.
I’d be fine with a unique contract, if it would ensure that my family could file joint taxes, receive my pension, receive my SS benefits, be considered my next-of-kin, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.
But you’ve heard that before, haven’t you?
Apply this line of reasoning to various permutations who wish to create a company.
I seriously doubt it.
Polygamy is required by LDS scripture, in Doctrine and Covenants section 132. This “revelation” was how Joseph Smith justified his many affairs with teenagers. It wasn’t adultery because they were “given” to him in a “New and Everlasting Covenant,” and anyone who opposes this covenant of eternal polygynous marriage will be damned.
BUT ever since polygamy was discontinued, the LDS Church has been working to become more socially acceptable. They get pissed whenever a reporter uses the words “Mormon polygamy” and insist that the polygamists in Colorado City have nothing to do with Mormonism. Church policy and doctrine now come from the PR department. Reviving polygamy would be a PR nightmare. It was painful for them to abandon the doctrine, but now they have no interest in returning.
(Yes, I am aware that polygyny is still practiced in the sealing ceremony when a widower remarries. While the parties involved may believe that the man is sealed eternally to his deceased wife and to the new wife, that’s not hardly the same as actual polygyny in practice.)
Side note, until recently, a legally divorced man could get remarried in the church without getting unsealed from his former wife. But now it seems that has changed. My father was recently married in the Temple for the third time and had to scramble to get his two previous marriages religiously annulled.
On the topic at hand, this has been gone over before. Morally, I can’t think of a reason that polygamy of any shape between informed and consenting adults should be illegal. However, formalizing it represents significantly greater hurdles than recognizing SSM. I started this thread on that very topic almost exactly a year ago.
I still stand by my basic position from that thread: there is no Constitutional need to make multi-partner marriages (MPM) legal in the same way SSM have been viewed by some courts, but I would not object to laws allowing it being passed. I just think that the laws would either be extremely complicated or extremely open ended both of which could cause problems. I also think it is up to those who want MPM to take the proactive step to propose what these laws should look like.
Look, outside those weird alt-Morman cults, polygamy is pretty much accepted and semi-legal. You just have 3 people living together and no body gives a damn.
But those weird alt-Morman cults are what the problem is. They use Polygamy as a way to oppress women, and turn them into baby factories, while meanwhile having all but the “official wife” file for various forms of aid. They promote incest and having sex with kids. A handful of men live like kings, and as the kids grow up, the girls are forced/brainwashed into the lifestyle, whilst the boys are kicked out. And- we- as taxpayers- get to pay for this lifestyle.
Polygamy is a natural state. To say that it’s wrong would be to deny a part of human nature.
Polygamous systems work with powerful males mating with several females, and less powerful males mating with the more powerful males to gain access to resources (females, food, status).
Thus homosexuality.
In modern cultures polygamy is hard to apply because of our religious “values”. Legal systems weren’t built around polygamy. I have no doubt that this will change in time as people return to a social system defined more by evolution. Once social conservatives stop imprinting on the first book they see, of course.
It is a natural human tendency*, but that makes it neither right nor wrong. Settling disputes by murder is also a natural human tendency; natural and good aren’t the same thing.
*Although it would be more accurate judging from the behavior of historical kings and such who could do as they pleased, that the natural male pattern is to have multiple women with a favorite or “chief wife”. So monogamy is just restricting marriage to the “chief wife”. Which is probably why it’s been a fairly stable arrangement; it’s just restricting behavior to a subset of human instincts, and not outright defying them.
More like killing the powerful males to take their women, or attacking other tribes to take their women. The women of course generally not being given a say in the matter. Once again, “natural” is not the same as “good”. And they aren’t going to be mating with the more powerful males because the more powerful males in question aren’t generally interested. And homosexuals are aren’t homosexual because of status.
As already said you don’t need religious values to oppose polygamy; opposition to polygamy can be defended on a rational level. Unlike same sex marriage, it’s a genuine two sided debate.
He did, but not really more than one at a time. He did have some long term mistresses who he had kids with, but they didn’t have legal status.
I agree with Der Trihs in this case. Polygamy may be fine in the individual instances, but if common it would be terrible for society overall. It would lead to powerful men hoarding all the women, and many men having no access to women at all. That’s always what’s happened before.
But the interesting question would be: is jealousy innate ? Or is it something we learn socially, based on the very monogamous framework which is drilled into our brains from the get go, in everything from our own parents, all of fiction, the judeo-christian morality etc…? The clingy girl/boyfriend, would they be so clingy if the general paradigm wasn’t “either s/he’s with me, or s/he’s leaving me for someone else” ?
This is mostly theoretical of course - I’m quite the jealous guy, and polyamorous relationships have never clicked with me for this reason alone if nothing else (also they keep liking assholes ! Which is good, because it means I’m still very much in the running, but bad because then I have to deal with *these *assholes ! :p). But I have known people who’ve made it work relatively seamlessly, which makes me curious. The notion of “open marriages”, where people stick together for The Family and because they love each other but let each other fuck around on the side is not unheard of, either.