Yeah, I don’t know that it’s an argument against raising the marriage age, I just think there’s still plenty of stigma, and that conservative/religious “communities” might encompass large swaths of this country.
Maybe so. I think the harms from banning it are probably less than those from allowing it, though.
Minnesota’s has a racist rationale. We have a large Hmong population, and they traditionally arrange marriages for young girls. When it was the occasional pregnant girl from St. Cloud gettin hitched at sixteen we didn’t have a problem with it.
And if those women in the cult compounds could actually make their own choices, that would be great. But they cant.
Yes, many people have open “poly” relationships and living arrangements, where all involved are adults who can make their own choices. I see no issue with that, and in fact, afaik it isnt illegal in the USA. ianal.
But there are a lot, too damn many, women living as virtual sex slaves in cult compounds, and many of these women arent adults either (due to laws allowing child marriages). Pedophila, Incest and rape are all too common. Welfare fraud where all the women get on the dole as unmarried mothers too.
However when people clamor to allow those mostly harmless open consensual adult “poly” relationships, they are also allowing those cult sex slaves to be legally married, stopping one of the few tools authorities have to shut them down. In some states, a marriage to a 12 yo is legal, and thus of course sex with your “wife”.
They can if one of the 12yo girls gets pregnant, and they can prove that the 45 yo “Husband” thereby had sex with a child.
If we do allow poly- then the age of marriage has to be set to 18. That is the very least. No more child brides, no more legal pedos.
Right, that would have to be done.
I dont care so much about age differences as long as everyone is a adult.
I’ve heard it’s common for businesses to first look at what others have done…rather than reinvent the wheel, see what others have already tried.
I knew a woman (30ish, Hispanic, college educated) who married a Muslim and converted. She understood that she’d wear a scarf at all times and that he might marry another woman. However, she said, he would have to treat a second wife equally. What that meant, in part, was that if she and hubby lived in a 2000 sqft home, wife 2 would have similar. If she had car to drive to work, wife 2 would as well. Since her car was a Mercedes, wife 2 would get a luxury car, not some clunky beater. And so on.
I conclude that their faith is saying the male must be able to take care of all his women, children, etc. If that starts getting spread thin, existing wives might complain, prospective wives might look for someone better able to take care of them, etc
I’m guessing there’s more involved if a man wants to marry multiple women. In fact, I stumbled across this article:
“I ask her, ‘Do you really agree with your full heart or have you been forced to agree?’” she says.
She knows the answer simply from looking at the woman’s face.
“If she is smiling, I say yes, she has truly given permission,” Judge Nenney says.
“But if her face wants to cry in front of me I will ask her carefully, in detail, try to get the point — why actually [does] she not agree?”
I wonder what happens in divorces. Do second wives get to keep that 2000 sqft house and Mercedes, for instance? Can they remarry? Is there child support? If they allow plural marriage I’m guessing they’ve looked at some of these questions but maybe the Quran answers them.
Before we get into the legal minutae of polygamy - can someone give a compelling reason why it’s necessary?
What makes it so compelling that someone must have multiple husbands or wives instead of one?
DrDethposts helped me remember something I think relevant if slightly off topic.
I went to my first two years of High School in a medium sized West Texas town. A short bit down the road was a tiny, very German Lutheran Community. Very conservative but I would not describe them as cultish in any way, just insular and deeply religious. They had a fantastic K-8 school but when it came to HS their kids went to school with us. Per year there were only 3 to 5 of them. I made friends with one of them, Dieter G. He was super smart, fluent in three languages and had a rock solid basic education. He knew nothing about the “real world”. We saw the Challenger Disaster together, walked into Biology class and my teacher had it on tv live. Heard “go with throttle up” and the rest is History. Dieter had no idea the there were people aboard and was confused by the idea. Granted once he finally understood he dropped to his knees and started praying for the crew with tears streaming down his face. Here is another example, Dieter is about 16 and the same Biology teacher is discussing parasitic life. Dieter asks if he might have parasites because he can’t put on weight. My teacher tells him(with a straight face) to defecate in a jar, add water, seal it and shake it up. If you have parasites the eggs will float to the top by morning. Next day D. comes into class the next day and announces he does not have parasites, much hilarity ensued.
The point of all is that these small, isolated, insular communities often do not really see the wider world and can be uninformed about life outside.
If you raise a girl to believe that a certain age, she is to be married to so and so, no matter how many wives he has, and she doesn’t get another view on what her life could be. Can she actually consent to that Marriage?
I wrote upthread that I was ok with Polygamy but after thinking on it and reading this thread, I just cannot be ok with it. The potential for abuse is too high. Polyamory, as adults, knock yourself out.
Capt
We really don’t want to import the polygamy laws based on Islamic tradition. For one thing, it assumes one dominant partner with satellite spouses. Even if you remove the gender designation, it sets rules and requirements based on one dominant spouse having authority over and responsibility toward the subject spouses.
There are so many possibilities that would have to be defined that honestly don’t know if any prepackaged polygamist marriage would be worth creating in statute. The single case two spouse version that currently exists works because it suits the needs of a large portion of the population. It has been updated over the years as those needs have changed. It is not perfect, but it works for most.
What percent of people would choose polygamy? How many of those all want the same structure? There are hundreds of things marriage touches on. Here are few of the simple things that would need to be addressed
- Can a single person have two separate marriages (with knowledge and consent from all parties)? IOW A marries B and C, but B and C have no legal connection.
- Are there different levels of spouse, or are all equal? If equal, who gets to make end of life or medical decisions?
- For divorce, can it be partial or does it need to be complete? If A, B,and C are a throuple, can A and C divorce and leave B married to both?
And I understand there are ways to address these issues. But there is no single, obvious way. One persons solution may not work for another. And while oppression should be removed, and laws rationalized in way that protects as many people’s rights as possible, that means getting rid of the statutes that defined polyamorous households as brothels, and removing the social stigma. But any proposals to formalize poly marriages the same way current marriages are needs to come from a consensus of those wanting poly marriages and fit in with our current laws.
Not opposed, just not going to be the one who tries to figure it all out, since I won’t be the one effected.
Because some people love more than one partner, and want to be able to legally live in a plural marriage? And, they want the same legal protections and rights extended across all members of their marriage?
In concept, it’s really that simple, and it’s fundamentally the same reason why people have fought to be able to marry outside of their race, and to be able to marry someone of their same sex.
As others have already pointed out, there are a number of other reasons why, legally, it’s likely a much thornier issue than SSM. But, from a “why is it *necessary?” standpoint, it’s about legal recognition and protection.
I see your point, altho most muddle on just fine without legal recognition.
However, if we do this, and that’s ok, then the marriage age must be raised to 18, nationwide. No 12yo brides.
I will be 100% opposed to it until then.
Okay, but I clearly recall, during the gay marriage debates many years ago, that conservatives who said “If we recognize gay marriage now, the next thing will be polygamy” were accused of slippery-slope fallacy-ing. Now, though, the argument seems to be exactly that as predicted.
Do you have some cites on that? I’m not doubting your recollection, but I’d like to see it.
Not nearly.
Twenty years ago, probably around half of the U.S. population had gay friends, knew they were gay, and were perfectly OK with their being gay. From there it wasn’t a heavy lift to being OK with same-sex marriage.
There’s no similar mass of Americans today who know polygamists.
I remember that and also beastiality, incest, and necrophilia.
However, as long as all parties are true consenting adults, I dont care what they do in the privacy of their homes, and if getting a marriage license makes them happy, fine.
(Yes, i know I am thus saying Ok to incestulous marriages but …)
It would be impossible for me to harvest all the stuff from message boards or social media from that far back. But the point is: Oftentimes, when liberals embark on a path and say “we want A”, conservatives will point out that this path will involve A first, then B, then C, then D. Liberals often then deny that and say, “No, we only want A. To accuse us of wanting B, C, and D is a slippery slope argument.”
But then, once liberals get A, they then move on to B - and say, “we only want B - we aren’t asking to get C, D, etc.”
Predictions always sound far-fetched and straw-man-ish - until they actually occur. (And of course, it works the opposite way as well - ten years ago, if some liberal had said, “The Republican Party’s current path is going to lead to someone like Donald Trump becoming president,” he would have been laughed out the room - but he’d be right.)
But I digress. I won’t derail the thread anymore from polygamy.
Which do you think liberals will ask for next, necrophilia or bestiality?
That’s pretty much where I have found myself getting to over the past couple of decades, as well. (In this case, it doesn’t hurt that I have become friends with a long-term polyamorous trio.)
I recall responding to that argument many times.
My response was often two-fold. One, that it was not inevitable that one would lead to the other – as has been pointed out in this thread, there are enormous changes or new provisions required in order to provide legal status to plural marriages. Those changes would be very different from the tiny change needed to recognize same sex marriages.
Two, it’s possible we should recognize plural marriages. The relationships happen with or without legal recognition, and we should probably consider whether people would be better protected if there were laws regulating, rather than banning it, but that was not the subject at hand.