Hey Tamerlane.
That seems to be the idea in Saudi, something that you’re really not supposed to be doing. At the same time, there is also a sort of “boys-will-be-boys” attitude towards polygamy and it is generally accepted by the population. I’ve never heard of anyone being censured or ostracized in any way for practicing this. The Saudis I know that practice this, men as well as women, seem quite happy and well adjusted.
Regards.
Testy.
I think it’s an excellent question. What right does a government have to control what sexual practices I have or what partners I choose? Where did the idea come from that this is an area subject to control of a central authority of some type?
I personally have no idea how this situation came about but hope to be enlightened. Anyway, thanks for raising the question.
Regards.
testy.
Polygamy was outlawed in the United States under the common law of England long before the Mormons. However, the appearance of statutory provisions relating to polygamy (other than through encodings of the common law) postdates the rise of Mormonism. In 1862, Congress adopted a law entitled “An act to punish and prevent the practice of polygamy in the territories of the United States and other places, and disapproving and annulling certain acts of the legislative assembly of the territory of Utah”, Mormon Church v. United States, 136 U.S. 1, 7 (1890). Prior to this act, as far as I can find, there was no explicit declaration by Congress outlawing polygamy in the territories of the United States; all prosecutions for polygamy prior to that flowed from the common law. The conjoinment of these two purposes in one act is strongly suggestive of Congress’ motive in enacting its ban on polygamy. As I recall, the “certain acts” of the Utah territorial legislature which Congress annuled included acts abrogating the common law prohibition against polygamy.
I lack access to a sufficient law library to fully research this question (most of the documents which I would need to consult are not available online and in fact are probably not accessible in many places other than the National Archives), but I think it quite clear that the Federal ban on polygamy is a direct and calculated response to Mormon practices in the former territory (now State) of Utah.
Danielinthewolvesden:
Put up or shut up. Either immediately prove your assertions WITH CITES or immediately withdraw them.
For someone who constantly complains about being tarred with a too-broad brush, you’re awfully ready to toss out accusations and unfounded slurs.
Thank you,
One of the people you so kindly refer to as “pervs”.
Tamerlane.
Just from a personal perspective you are quite correct. I once had the opportunity to live in a manage-a-quatro or whatever two men+two women would be called. The sex was incredible but frankly the emotional wear-and-tear just made the whole thing not worth it. Results? After one month one marriage was completely destroyed and another heading that way at a rapid clip. I would have thought it would be male jealousy that was the problem but it was actually the women that seemed the most damaged by this. The “psychological dynamics” for lack of a correct term, were just too complex. Relationships changed ona moment-to-moment basis and the sheer logisticof who was sleeping where were also a pain. Anyway, it sounds like a sailor’s dream but it just didn’t work out like that. The people were all fairly easy-going and liked each other aside from between the sheets.
To put it in perspective, we were all in our early 20s at the time so maybe it would be different now, 20 years later but I frankly would never have the nerve to try that again.
Regards.
testy.
Polygamy was officially outlawed in the US for the benefit of Mormons, the Edmunds-Tucker act (and one other law), I believe, in 1862. Lincoln hated Mormonism for polygamy, which was commonly called one of the “twin barbarisms” the other being slavery, of course. Mormons have since shunned polygamy for political reasons (although they secretly allowed it for some until around 1914), which helped spawn backwoods offshoots to Mormonism, since it was originally revealed never to be taken away, and is compulsory to attain the highest kingdom in Mormonism’s multi-leveled heaven, and still is (arranged in the afterlife, perhaps).
Today, polygamy is a quasi-underground institution practiced by fundamentalists who have their own churches devoted to secrecy about polygamy and are organized along clan lines. These clans feature bitter feuds and a body count well over a hundred in the past fifty years both in Mexico (where Mormons used to have official polygamous colonies), and the entire Western US. It has recently been uncovered by several famous arrests that polygamists continue to arrange most marriages for teens to older men as a reward, in some cases the partnership is an uncle or niece, and in almost all cases the partnership is within second cousinhood. The higher ranking the male, which implies age, the more brides he will have, and the younger they will be on average. Note: There is an odd tribute system in polygamy. It is common for a follower of a clan leader to buy his dinner if they happen to meet in a restaurant (clan leaders dine out often, going on their dates.) In Southern Utah, polygamists are openly polygamists, deliberately dressing old-fashioned and walking around stores with many wives all wearing the same dress (Yes, I mean the same exact copy of dress).
Because most polygamous clans feature a few inter-related men who control a clan, with many young teen brides each, this leaves the younger men disenfranchised. It is rumored they fear for their lives constantly, and often run off, or are killed by rivals in some cases. Also, as a symptom of clan power struggles, it is common for these leaders to order all kids to withdraw from public schools to see who is following who’s orders. One elementary school is undergoing this treatement right now in Colorado City, AZ, where hundreds of kids were ordered to leave to await the end of the world, which never came. Now they are told to be homeschooled until further instructions. (Many of the teachers were polygamous too).
Also, another disaster of polygamy is young teens giving birth outside of hospitals. Many have died, and this is seemingly okay by the clan leaders, as “God’s will”. As a horrible social proof against polygamy, it is rumored here in Southern Utah that many babies are born with severe birth defects due to inbreeding. They are honorably disposed of in some canyon, according to rumor. Also, the autistic or retarded ones who seem healthy, are kept hidden in basements and are only brought out at special occasions, such as a funeral (I heard this from someone who was associated with polygamy).
Another prominent feature of polygamy is welfare fraud, estimated by the Salt Lake Tribune to be between 1/3 and 1/2 of all polygamous families. Someone has to pay for the imbalance, and truck-driving and nomandic construction jobs doesn’t pay for several houses and forty kids. Also, all polygamous clans advocate anti-government activities, such as not paying taxes, and it is tradition in polygamy to leave one’s house unfinished to avoid some property taxes.
The worst feature about polygamy is child molestation. I have met, personally and online, over a dozen people who have survived polygamous clans from childhood. All (100%)were sexually molested, boys and girls, and all were severely physically abused. Also, a common story they tell, is of personal accounts of siblings who have died from being neglected medical treatment. Tapestry Against Polygamy has more info, available online I believe.
As a male, I have been known in the past to sympathize with harems and polygamy, etc. I now think prostitution is infinitely more civilized (demand-side versus supply-side). Sure, polygamy gives a bad name to casual bigamy, if that’s what prudent consenting adults want. We cannot escape the fact that male-ordered polygamy is unnatural in the exteme, as long as nature provides for a near equal amount of females and males.
Brian,
Are those problems you mentioned the result of polygamy itself, or the result of polygamy being made illegal. I mean the problems of inbreeding could be due to the fact that, because it’s illegal, only a small number of people do it, and with a small population, inbreeding can result. The lack of hospitalization of pregnant women and the paranoia which some polygamists seem to suffer from could be due to the fact that it is illegal. I’m not saying that polygamy doesn’t have practical problems…just that those might not be it. It would be interesting to see information from places where polygamy is legal.
Capt. Amazing,
I wasn’t assuming it was immoral or illegal, it is unenforced here in Utah, and the current governor got egg on his face a few years ago for saying that he didn’t think it was illegal and that polygamists were “honest and hardworking” (it was pointed out to him that it was banned in the Utah constitution, but he comes from Southern Utah and is not expected to know very much). Anyway, following those stupid comments the Tribune published a series on polygamy that exposed it for what it was, a massive fraud and abuse. Subsequently, Mormon church leader GBHinckley requested a meeting with the publisher of the Tribune and chastised him for publishing this information. The Tribune has since been sold with Orrin Hatch’s direct involvement to a rival firm that may agree to sell it to the Mormon church later, who originally tried to buy it.
As for your question, I don’t know where legality and illegality factor in explicitly other than divorce. (I should also disclose that my great-grandparents were all involved in polygamy and there was nothing nostalgic about it, but I think it made Utah/Idaho uniquely perma-weird politically, IMO, and how else do millions of people think the same on everything?). Anyway, I think everything in society has logical limits by necessity, I gave up on all wishful theoretical absolutisms years ago, including libertarianism. Also, I am not an attorney, but I think racketeering statues can be used against polygamy. The clans are notoriously wealthy at the top (some in the 100 million$), from pooling cash welfare for two generations, but the bottom is dirt poor. It’s a breeding machine that needs to get unplugged fast. If you saw these people you would know they were inbred by their facial features alone, and its so strange to see twenty people together who all look like they were cloned and who dress alike (~shudder~). I even learned to read some of the symbolism of the women’s hairdoos.
Also, those men were in violation of the Biblical command for monogamy. At no point was such behavior condoned or endorsed.
Brian,
What I meant was, since polygamy is both a felony by Utah law, and officialy forbidden by the LDS church, most Utahans don’t practice it…only a few small groups of people. If those small family groups only marry with each other (because they’re afraid they’ll be excommunicated or thrown in jail), then you’re going to get inbreeding, and a lot of genetic problems. That’s not because of polygamy per se, but because you have a small gene pool, and the same families always marrying.
I think your brush is a bit wide. This may describe the form of polygamy occasionally practiced in Utah; I can’t say. However, it certainly does not cover all polygamists/polyamorists. It is possible to practice polyamory and polygamy in a moral and ethical manner.
RoboDude, in answer to your OP:
KellyM has it right - the U.S. federal laws specifically prohibiting polygamy were a direct reaction to the rapid spread of Mormonism in the late 19th century. All other laws regarding marriage (to the best of my knowledge) are state-based. [Except the recently enacted “Defense of Marriage Act”, which will probably not survive its first USSC challenge, thank the IPU!]
Personally, I agree with your assertion about persecution of ‘un-normal’ families. Laws against multiple-partner marriages are IMO government enforcement of religious dogma. But whatdya do? So far, the USSC doesn’t agree with me.
Wabbit, yes, polygamy wasn’t uncommon in the OT. I believe that there is NT scripture that overrides those practices for most Christians, but there are (non-Mormon) Christians who have different interpretations and say that the Bible supports polyamory. It’s my understanding that there is some sort of later rabbinical admonishment against Jewish polygamy, but I’ve not been able to get anyone to reference & explain it for me, so I can’t give you any details.
JubilationTCornpone, ah, in a word, no. If there is an Old Testament injunction against polygamy, please provide the citation - but I don’t believe you can. There is a New Testament call for monogamy, but that does not apply retroactively, y’know.
grienspace, that depends on your definition of “challenge”. There are hundreds of thousands of people who “challenge” this prohibition on a daily basis by living in poly relationships. Most of them don’t “challenge” it in court or by making a public proclamation because they have too much to lose - jobs, children, family, etc.
Zoggie, multiple-partner marriages certainly challenge our customary concepts of property ownership, child custody and parental responsibility, so on and so forth. How those problems could be resolved is a thread unto itself. However, technical difficulties are not the primary reason for these laws, any more than the technical difficulties that resulted in our current divorce & custody law were the reasons for the longstanding prohibition against casual divorce in this country.
Tamerlane, I would have to agree with you. Relatively few people have the emotional maturity and stability to make a non-exploitive, long-term relationship of any type work smoothly. That is why we have a 50+% divorce rate, and many more unhappily married couples, in the USA. However, it is easier in our culture to slide by while in a duo, because of the support and de facto rules provided by the society.
LNO, There have, in fact, been polyandrous cultures, but it is true that they are fairly rare. I’ve seen differing explanations based on sociology, biology and anthropology, so take your pick.
Testy, as I understand it, the USA federal laws recognize the concept of marriage and use that concept to set other laws (such as tax laws, etc.) [with the exception of DOMA, as noted above]. Each state defines ‘marriage’ for itself, including requirements for eligibility to marry, incest prohibitions, etc. The vast majority of those laws were set to match Christian rules of marriage, since that was by far the domininant and most vocal religion when the laws were enacted. [Again, Utah was an exception and, as explained by other posters, the Fed gov’t required them to change their laws before allowing statehood .] However, saying that is one thing. Proving violation of individual rights and getting the laws removed is another thing entirely.
I’m sorry to hear that you had such a traumatic experience. IMO, there are a few major areas that cause huge problems for many people who attempt poly relationships.
The first is the near total lack of education in building and maintaining any type of r’ship. In our society, you’re just supposed to fall madly in love and live happily ever after with no problems because love overcomes all. :rolleyes: Astoundingly, this often doesn’t work very well in two-party r’ships, although such r’ships can slide along for many years without really ‘working’ due to societal support and assumed frameworks. However, these lacks can rapidly cause a multi-party r’ship to crash and burn, often spectacularly.
Another other major problem is that societal support I keep mentioning. If a couple has problems, they are supported by family & friends, and generally expect to work things out. There are unstated rules and common ground to work from for most couples. However, the converse is true of poly relationships. Not only do the standard assumptions no longer work, but any time there are problems, however minor, the attitude is generally “well, of course it won’t work, what do you expect?”. Sometimes it feels like everyone is just waiting for things to go wrong so they can say “I told you so”.
I can personally testify to the fact the multiple-adult relationships can and do work quite well, thank you for asking. 
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by LNO *
**
I guess this is sort of off-topic at this point, but anyhow…polyandry is practiced in Tibet. For example, a group of brothers might be able to afford one wife between them, but not a wife for each brother.
http://anthropology.about.com/science/anthropology/library/glossary/bldefpolyandry.htm
Rabbeinu Gershom enacted a number of decrees at about the year 1000. Among them was a ban on polygamy. This decree was accepted by Ashkenazic Jewery and is still in force today. Sephardim did not accept this decree and, as such, polygamy is still permitted for them provided they live in a country that allows it (it would be forbidden to them in the U.S., for example, under the dictum of dina d’malchusa dina, the law of the land is the law.
Zev Steinhardt
Thank you, zev! So my understanding was correct and this is part of the rabbinnical law rather than the Torah?
Can you tell me the basis for or reasoning behind the ban?
(Just curious; marriage laws, customs & taboos were a pet interest of mine long before I became actively poly. :D)
I think it was that, since Jews were already persecuted, the allowing of polygamy would be a cause for further persecution, because the persecutors would say “See, these Jews have more than one wife.” In order to not offend, polygamy was banned until 5000. Which raises an interesting question…since the decree has expired, a long time ago. Zev, do you know of anyone who extended the ban, or has it just become custom not to have more than one wife?
Capt. Amazing,
I think monogamy is inbreeding, technically speaking. I assume that in primitive times, women rarely bore children from the same fathers, which is nature’s way I suppose.
Also, polygamy (Mormon style) is extreme inbreeding, even compoundly so, legal or not. For example: One man typically sires dozens of children from many wives, leaving many other men out of the equation for purely religious reasons. And to make matters worse, the polygamist breeding men are usually related to each other. If we want to avoid inbreeding, I wouldn’t advocate polygamy, which is, technically, also known as polygyny. It appears that many here are defending polyamorous relationships as polygamy. Whatever, it was never the same. Old men marrying many young girls as a reward from God has nothing to do with love. I guess the prefix ‘poly’ is confusing. In most religious polygamous cultures, a women is murdered or outcast for “adultery.” I wouldn’t see a need to defend this lifestyle to insure polyamorous relationships remain legal. If fact, it is a threat on all fronts to polyamorous relationships, but I not one to confuse the two.
Well, Jared Diamond in his book “The Third Chimpanzee” characterizes human sexual behavior as “mildly polygamous”…putting us between Orangutans, who are monogamous, and Gorillas, who are extremely polygamous. I can’t speak of polygamy, Mormon style, particularly, but after the man and his wives sire a bunch of children, what’s to stop them from marrying outside that gene pool…I don’t know of many societies that are exclusively polygamous. In most, a small population of men have more than one wife, and most have one. As long as there’s some overlap between the two, I don’t see that polygamy would deteriorate the gene pool that much. What seems to be doing it in this situation is that the children of these polygamous Utahans are only marrying each other.
This is false. Polygamy is the practice of multiple marriage. It includes both polygyny and polyandry. Polyamory is the practice of multiple committed partners (with or without marriage). The main reason for the term “polyamory” is to avoid prejudicial attitudes towards the term “polygamy”. The two are essentially the same thing. “Old men marrying many young girls” is NOT an essential characteristic of polygamy.
IMO, the “incestuous” aspect of Mormon-style cryptopolygamy is a consequence not of polygamy, but of the criminalization of polygamy. Absent that factor, I doubt the culture would have the problems it does now. (Yet another reason to repeal the ban.)
I don’t know the real reason for Rabbeinu Gershom’s edict. It could have been pressure from the Church (which forbade polygamy) but I can’t say that for certain.
Although the edict may technically be expired, it has become accepted by all Ashkenazic Jewery and (as with most customs that become widely observed) has become law.
It should be noted that even though polygamy was permitted before Rabbeinu Gershom’s decree, it was very rare. Of all the Rabbis mentioned in the Talmud, for example (and this covers a span of about 700 years from 200 BCE to 500 CE) none are mentioned to have had more than one wife at a time.
Zev Steinhardt