What's wrong with polygamy?

Great Debates
81

Thanks for your clarification above. Anyway, a question for you. Would you mind if I started a thread in GD phrased something like what I suggested to Redtail23?

“What’s wrong with polygamy when not practiced by idiots?”

It could be stated up-front, that since child-molesting, incest, and welfare fraud were already illegal we really wanted to limit the discussion to relationships between consenting, non-related adults.

I think it would be interesting and the phrasing would (might) help weed out the religious types. Anyway, it’s your thread so I thouught I would ask, or maybe you would like to do it yourself.

Regards.

Testy.

82

I started this thread for that very purpose.

I do not think Mormons are idiots, but any discussion of polygamy that involves polygamy as practiced by Mormons devolves into the idiocy we have seen spouted in this thread.

83

Thanks for that. I took a look and it wasn’t NEARLY as spirited as I had expected. S People actually stuck to the subject and brought out some good points.

HIJACK/
Stoid mentioned children, not as partners but as possibly being damaged by the adult relationships coming unglued. Well, the one time I tried it, the realtionship DID fall apart although luckily there were no children involved.

I’m not sure how well that would work, not against it, just unsure. RedTail23, care to take a crack at that one? I have no idea whether your polyamorous relationship has any children but what do you think? Should there be some kind of ban on having children if the parents are polyamorous?
Assuming that the relationship is stable/long-term, I see no reason, aside from legalities, why children shouldn’t have additional parents.

Regards.

Testy.

84

Testy- I stated that in many cases Polygamy (as a “practice”) has led to instances of Pedophilia & incest. Read that again- I did not say that everyone, or even the majority, or even a LOT of the folks who practice polygamy are commiting incest or pedophilia- just that the practice- when “legal” has generally led to instances of this type of excessive & immoral behavior. I was asked to back that up- I provided two solid & well-known examples where it did- and by folks who should be expected to “lead by example”. The 'welfare fraud" was primarily another posters postings. Note- you put quotes around “almost everyone” and claim these are my words- and also claim I accused folks of things I did not- this is a blatant lie & falsehood- and against the Board rules. You are a liar.

Some few, and mostly the worst & most excessive cases today still commit these violations of law & morality, and add in welfare fraud to boot. Are they the “norm”? Hardly- but the fact remains they do exist, and the practice they perpetuate cannot be condoned by most folks. Incest, pedophilia & welfare fraud is wrong in almost everyones book.

85

And in support of this claim of “many” you offer nothing more than unverified anecdote. You are still claiming that “the practice- when `legal’ has generally led to instances of this type of excessive & immoral behavior” without offering any sort of evidence in support of this general claim and while claiming that you’re not making a negative generalization. So, not only are you making unfounded assertions, but you’re lying about making the assertion!

Of course, you go on to assert that the generalization you made previously in the same post is not generally true. So you make unfounded assertions, claim that you’re not making them, and then claim that your own assertions are false. How many of the Teeming Millions are using your keyboard today? Why would any sane person listen to a word you say?

The fact remains that, buried under all this leaping illogic far more suited for the Pit than for Great Debates, is the prejudicial attitude (also far more suited for the Pit than for Great Debates) that all polygamists are immoral, criminal, incestuous, pedophiliac welfare defrauders. By your own admission, you base this on the fact that some polygamists (“some few” in your own words) have commited “violations of law & morality”. “Some few” self-professed Christians have commited these very same violations of law and morality. Should we therefore outlaw Christianity?

86

Kelly- here is my original post. I stated here that when it was legal in the past it often led to instances of incest & pedophilia. I backed that up by showing that two of the most famous historical practioners both had extremely young wives (so young that no-one could claim they were able to give “informed consent to the sex act”)- which most would call “pedophilia”. And also (in at least one case) married the “baby sister” of a current wife- which folks usually call incest. These practices continue today. A new twist is welfare fraud. How often? I don’t know.

But like I said- if you are not marrying someone under 18, or someone related to you, or commiting welfare fraud- then I really do not care what you do; assuming no-one gets hurt.
Thus i only have a real problem with a polygamous “marriage” IF incest, pedophilia or welfare fraud is involved. If not- then not.

87

First of all, apologies to one and all for what is effectively a hijack and a non-productive pissing contest. S

Well, thank you for your kind rebuttal. You are correct, I should not have used quotes around “Almost everyone” and I apologize unreservedly for doing so. It was not done with any devious intent. What you actually said was:

“Becuase almost every time in the USA it had led to incest & pedophilia.”

To my mind the phrase “almost every time” strongly implies in turn, “almost everyone.” I believe that to be reasonable.

In any event, how do you square the statement quoted above with your latest post that this is NOT the norm? You seem to be going from incest and pedophilia happening “almost every time” to being not the norm. (Please notice the lack of quotes on the tail of that last sentence.)

Anyway, I could just possibly be a liar, but your statements seem confused and contradictory and after this last post, you don’t seem to have any popint at all. So, was the first post just an automatic reflex of some sort? A knee-jerk?

Regards.

Testy,

88

So, you admit that your claim that “almost every time in the USA it had led to incest & pedophilia” is based on ignorance? Are two anecdotal examples of people who cannot reasonably be seen as representative samples of any popluation sufficient proof in any reasonable person’s book?

This still leaves open the question as to whether you still believe that the majority of people who have multiple partners engage in pedophilia and welfare fraud. You do seem to be backpedaling from this position somewhat, but I haven’t seen you come out and admit that your claim that this is the case was based on ignorance and prejudice. Will you do so, or are you going to continue to accuse people of things they simply haven’t done based on offenses committed by people not very much like them, over 100 years ago?

89

Gosh, out sick for a couple of days & look what happens. Hee hee. Thanks, y’all.

Testy -

I agree wholeheartedly that a stable, longterm relationship is best for children, and that it would be A Good Thing if no one without such had children.

However, I’ve gotta totally disagree when it comes to BANNING people from having children. For one thing, I don’t see anybody jumping on the bandwagon to ban couples from having children until they’ve proven their stability - and with today’s divorce rates, monogamy sure as hell ain’t no guarantee of stability.

For another thing, there is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE[sup]1[/sup] that intended-longterm-poly-r’ships[sup]2[/sup] are any less stable than standard marriages. Yeah, I know, stoid ‘believes’ that they are. Everybody has tried (or knows someone who’s tried) some sort of open relationship thing & it hasn’t worked - so obviously it’s less stable. Uh-huh. And there aren’t any gays with longterm r’ships either, y’know - everybody knows they just screw around.

Aside from which, as always with these sorts of grand ideas, it just ain’t practical. What about people who have kids AFTER they form a r’ship? Are ya gonna sterilize them all just to be sure? Or force abortions if they accidentally get pregnant? Or just steal the kids under the pretense of ‘unfit environment’?

What about a single parent who finds a poly r’ship? Will they be forbidden to join the group, because it might not be stable? Shall we put the same restrictions on mono marriages? Fine, go ahead, get widowed. You can’t remarry till your kids are grown, so ya better just like it. (Or maybe we should only apply these rules to divorced single parents - after all, they should have done better the first time, right?) Perhaps we should apply all of these rules to dating by single parents, too!

I think you get my drift. :wink:
Got news for you, folks. A lot of poly people have kids. Doesn’t hurt the kids one damn bit, in fact most of them love it. The polyamory.org PolyCons have had ‘kids panel’ sessions for the last several years - the biggest problem the kids have (surprise, surprise) is dealing with outside pressures (from other kids, bigoted neighbors, school admins, etc.). The ‘kids panels’ give them a chance to exchange techniques and ideas for dealing with those sorts of problems - and a chance to tell parents how to help.

IMO (with no evidence whatsoever, just based on reading & discussion), I think poly people are less likely to have kids until they’re sure they have the stability to support them. That’s one of the bennies of being outside the norm - you feel less pressure to obey the rest of the rules as well. :slight_smile: Not to mention that we’re well aware of the possibility that poly is less stable & any thinking person (which most poly’s are[sup]3[/sup]) would be very careful about bringing kids into an unstable r’ship.
Now, if you can grant me the assumption (at least momentarily) that a longterm poly r’ship is just as stable as a mono r’ship, I think you can see obvious advantages for kids. More parents = more time for kids (often including one parent able to stay home without the income sacrifice that causes for mono couples). More parents = more likelihood that a kid can find a parent s/he can comfortably relate to & go to with problems (might even be a different parent for different problems). More parents = less stress on parents (if you’re too stressed to deal with the kids, you’ve got more options for help). So on and et cetera.
In summary, while I think Stoid’s intentions were good, I think her implementation sucks. :slight_smile:

[1] There really isn’t much evidence available AT ALL on poly r’ships. I read recently of someone that had just completed a 20 year study on poly r’ships. Unfortunately I read it in a print journal & haven’t been able to find it online - AND I lost the name & such details. (Argh!!!) That is the only study I’ve heard of that has followed poly r’ships for any length of time. As far as I could tell from the brief summary I saw, that study shows no real difference in stability between equivalent mono & poly r’ships (see 2).

[2] One of the problems in this discussion is that many polyamorous relationships are never intended to be longterm by the participants. While I agree that people in such a r’ship shouldn’t be having kids together, fact is, they generally don’t (accidents can happen, of course). I’d guess that most of you that have ‘tried’ poly weren’t really intending it as a lifetime commitment as much as a brief interlude or occasional fling. While I’ve nothing against that sort of thing, it’s not really fair to compare those r’ships with mono-marriages and then claim that poly is somehow inherently less stable. It would be like comparing a poly marriage (where everyone has committed to the long haul) and the average American’s dating habits - I guarantee if I did that, I could show that poly was incredibly stable compared to monogamy. :wink:

[3] I’m not trying to make the ‘more-evolved’ or ‘superior poly’ play here, really, guys. I know it can sound that way, so I’d best explain. Since the cultural default is set to ‘mono’, that alone tends to strain the ‘non-thinkers’ out, because poly never occurs to them. By the same token, I’d say that most SDMBers are ‘thinking people’ as compared to Websurfers in general, which is due to the nature of the board and its natural filtering tendencies. Make sense?

90

DITWD:

[Moderator Hat ON]

It is not against the rules to lie (though it may piss us off enought to ban if it’s clearly deliberate and chronic, but that’s adequately covered under the “don’t be a jerk” rule; there is NO ironclad “you cannot lie” rule), and leave the moderating to the moderators, 'kay, DITWD? Your post gives the impression that there is a firm rule against lying, and this is not accurate.

[Moderator Hat OFF]

91

Apology accepted.

What you forget is that I was talking about the legal “practice” of polygamy- and in the brief time it was so practiced in the USA it led to several instances of excess. These instances of excess include the two best known practicioners & promoters of the practice. These excesses & abuses exist even today- but illegally.

Thus- what I am saying- is that if polygamy is legalized we will have some legal instances of that excess/abuse occuring. We will have legal “pedophilia” & possibly incest. Currently in some states it is legal for very young girls to get married with their parents consent. The purpose behind the easing of the age limit is to allow a young husband to marry a young grl he “got in trouble”. However- it could be abused by a 45YO man marrying (as #6 in a set) that same 15yo girl who has been brainwashed into beleiving that this is “normal & right”. One way of stopping this would have the age of marriage be 18, or maybe 17. However, we could not say- “it is legal for a 19yo boy to marry the 15yo girlfreind he got preggers, but it is illegal for the 45yo perv to marry the 15yo brainwashed girl”. So - currently- the “ABUSIVE” polyagmous marriage is illegal- and should be & sometimes is prosecuted. The NON-abusive polygamous marriage should not be (and rarely is) prosecuted.
Most instances of modern “polygamy” SEEM to consist of 3 consenting adults living together. I neither condemn or condone that practice. I do condemn incest, pedophilia- and “welfare fraud”- as “abusive”.

Kelly- i ask you to stop with the personal attacks- at least until you can read my postings.

Gaudere: the one time i saw an instance of deliberate misquoteing- you folks came down on it pretty hard. In any case- it certainly seems to be clearly being a “jerk”. And- many times folks have pointed out violations of the “rules” such as personal attacks, etc- and that seemed to be acceptable.

92

[Moderator Hat ON]

But you see, Daniel, I see no evidence here that any misquoting, if there was any, is deliberate; and the mod’s opinion on this is the only one that matters here. It is not your job to make the ruling as to whether a person has violated the rules of GD. If we cracked down on someone for a deliberate misquote previously it was under the “jerk” rule, not any “lying” rule–'cause there ain’t one! (Do you have a link for this incident, BTW?)

I do not mind terribly if people warn others about the rules in GD if it is a crystal-clear instance; for example, if someone posts a thread titled “my ear itches,” I would not be upset if a few people suggest that it should be in MPSIMS. However, it is not unusual to see posters making declarations that a perfectly acceptable post/thread has violated some rule, which I believe leads to confusion–and incidentally, a certain degree of annoyance on us mods’ part. In the past month we’ve told two other people to leave the moderating to the moderators, so it is clearly not “acceptable” to us, though it’s only really annoying to me when someone makes an incorrect judgment–I will likely say nothing if you are correct and it is indeed a blatant violation of the rules. However, since I am not aware of anyone currently in a mind-meld with David and me, there is a distinct chance that you may be wrong about what we will rule in any particular instance. So your best move is to email us if you see what you believe is an infraction of the rules. And, I am sure you are aware that discussion of moderator policies belongs in the Pit or email to avoid hijacking a debate, so if you wish further clarification on this matter, please use either or those alternatives rather than posting in this thread.

[Moderator Hat OFF]

93

I have a 4 year old and an almost-3 year old. I take exception to the belief that any poly relationship I may have would be destructive to them. As a very stable person who is married to a very stable man, there is no way I would enter into any relationship, or for that matter even introduce my children to someone I didn’t trust completely. IMO it’s the same as a divorcee meeting someone new. It’s not something one can jump into haphazardly. But I see no difference between having a close circle of friends the kids see all the time (which we have also) and having a poly relationship. After all, I don’t have sex with my kids’ dad in front of them - how the hell would they know I’m having sex with anyone else? They see me being affectionate with our friends, both male and female, on a regular basis.

Before someone points out to me that my kids will get older and most likely figure it out, I’m already aware. We’ll cross that bridge when we come to it. I would never intentionally do anything to cause my children to be uncomfortable with our lifestyle. My children and their well-being come first, but of course that goes without saying. For now, we are not involved with anyone, but the last person who was included in our relationship is still a good friend and sees the girls regularly. They have no idea she was ever anything but a friend, just like the rest of our group of friends. At this time it’s simply not their business.

94

Daniel, let’s deal with some misconceptions here. Direct quotes from your last post are in bold.[ul][li]I was talking about the legal “practice” of polygamy: Polygamy has never been legal at any time within the United States (excepting possibly Indian reservations). Therefore, the discussion of the “several instances of excess” which have been incorrectly set forth as consequences of such legalization is ill-founded.[/li][li]if polygamy is legalized we will have some legal instances of that excess/abuse occuring: I have seen nothing offered to explain how decriminalizing polygamy will somehow repeal the laws against incest or against sexual misconduct with a minor. I realize that it has been alleged that, historically, some polygamists have married the “baby sister” of another wife, which is a technical incest (although I don’t see how a consensual relationship by siblings with the same partner is incestuous; the prohibition on sibling incest doesn’t make nearly as much sense with inlaws as it does with creche sibs, and there is no incest bar for a person to have sex with both of a pair of twins absent a marriage to one but not the other), and might be a technical “child molestation”. But there is no reason to assume that this behavior is common amongst polygamists today or even that it was common amongst polygamists through history. All we have been offered on this point is the conduct of two atypically prominent individuals, over a century ago.[/li][li]The purpose behind the easing of the age limit is to allow a young husband to marry a young grl he “got in trouble”: Please document this assertion. I believe it is wrong; it is my impression that the purpose of the low age of consent is to reflect a belief that at 14, children are old enough to make the decision to marry. (Very young ages are to allow the brokerage of children off to cement social or property ties.)[/li][li]However, we could not say- “it is legal for a 19yo boy to marry the 15yo girlfreind he got preggers, but it is illegal for the 45yo perv to marry the 15yo brainwashed girl”: Why can’t we say that? Many states already have sexual misconduct statutes that differentiate between an 18 year old having sex with a 14 year old and a 45 year old having sex with a 14 year old. I see no reason why marriage statutes cannot be written similarly. In any case, I’m not even talking about legally recognizing marriages beyond the first; I’m merely talking about decriminalizing polygamy: that is, repealing laws that make it criminal to have multiple committed sexual partners simultaneously.[/li][/ul]Finally, Daniel, I am not insulting you personally (at least not in my posts; I admit to insulting you quite liberally in discussions other than on the boards themselves). I am, instead, using your own words (which proves that I can and do read your posts) to show that your own argument is founded in ignorance and prejudice, self-contradictory, and unsubstantiated by facts. Pointing out that your debating opponent’s position is illogical, contradictory, or unsupported by the evidence is perfectly legitimate debating style, and you really have no right at all to complain.

95

One can’t use the term “polygamy” specifically, since it is both polygyny and polyandry.

Technically, if polygyny outlaws polyandry, it would then be anti-polygamous.

One can’t automatically define polygamy as polyamorous. Nowhere in the first term is love implied.

One can’t automatically define polyamorous as being polygamous. Nowhere in the first term is marriage or breeding implied. Note: This becomes even more problematic if it is falsely assumed that polygamous marriages are never arranged as a religious breeding obligation but are based on mutual love to choose a mate.

One can’t use a social freedom argument to protect arranged marriages (especially within a bound religious obligation) without contradicting those terms. Society has a social and legal obligation to restrict the freedom that includes slavery.

One can’t propose two or more different terms that are supposed to be the same, and then switch them to suit the best usage in an argument, especially when the terms are undefined or not used properly in groups one is defending.

See below the fallacies of false analogy, undistributed middle, and the categorical errors of composition and division, and equivocation:

http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/toc.htm
Note: Aside from inbreeding and overbreeding per male (polygyny), there is a reason why polygynous (aka “polygamist”) families in the US are commonly found to be welfare-cheats and are seclusionary and anti-government (according to a recent series in the Salt Lake Tribune). It is because polygyny easily qualifies the women to obtain the needed welfare to raise so many kids, and the men need to be left alone, socially and legally, to accomplish this. Therein lies the logic and the contradiction.

Then there is polyandry, which makes practical sense for the gene pool, but requires types of socialism to first achieve it. Polygyny is not the same as polyandry, but rather is the functional OPPOSITE, and is a theoretical construct that exploits the patriarchal religious extreme of marriage. In other words, just as one needs socialism for the former, one requires religious moral authority for the later.

96

Yikes! Sorry for my poor choice of words there, I really wasn’t thinking of sterilization or police sitting at your breakfast table making sure the ladies ate their morning birth-control pill. (The Condom Cops?) S I guess I was really thinking along the lines of your comments, let things stabilize, reflect, and then if it seems good, go for it. (The things people should do in a standard marriage but occasionally don’t.)

As a personal opinion, I like the idea of a child having more than the standard single parent of each sex. I occasionally spend extended periods in North-Central Thailand living with close friends and relatives in a small community. Children of various households run in and out all day and generally refer to the lady of the house as “mother.” It seems to have the same effect for the children as a polygamous relationship although probably not as close. I also know several people there involved in actual polygamous relationships and it seems to work very well for the children. (These folks are farmers and children are both wanted and make a contribution.)

As far as Poly relationships being stable or not, I have little to offer. As I mentioned previously, it didn’t work for me. Having said that, I have to admit that we were all in our early 20s, there was a substantial quantity of uhhh . . .“less-than-legal” substances being ingested, and we were also stressed by the male parts being gone for extended periods with the Navy. Given all of that, I would hardly consider us representative. Truthfully, I would like to make a polyamorous relationship work. It seems to have many advantages over the “standard” family.

Jane_Says.
Hey there. Thanks for letting us know that about the children, it’s interesting. A question about that. While the poly relationship didn’t affect your children in any negative way, can you think of positive aspects as compared to a standard, plain-vanilla sort of family? RedTail came up with some and I have seen a few myself. Just curious. As far as my unfortunate use of the word “ban” please see above. Not meant as a slam of some kind. S

Daniel~

“What you forget is that I was talking about the legal “practice” of polygamy- and in the brief time it was so practiced in the USA it led to several instances of excess. These instances of excess include the two best known practicioners & promoters of the practice. These excesses & abuses exist even today- but illegally.”

Why do you persist in tying polygamy to child molesting, either incestuous or not? Yes, if some of the previous posts are correct the Mormons are doing some truly horrible and downright nasty things out in their desert. I would say that the number of children molested is MUCH greater in households where the female has children by a previous marriage, yet no one contemplates banning a woman from re-marriage.

I truthfully cannot see how pedophilia is more likely in a polyamorous relationship than in other types. I am certainly open to reconsidering my opinion on this IF, AND ONLY IF, someone comes up with facts and numbers, studies, cites, the kind of things that carry conviction. “I have a friend,” “Joseph Smith did it,” I heard somewhere," etc. simply do not cut it as a persuasive argument.

As Kelly_M has pointed out, incest is illegal, so is marrying girls under the age of consent, whatever that might be in a particular State or country. Allowing polyamory has no effect on these laws.

So, as far as I can tell, the only RATIONAL objection anyone has raised to “Polygamy not practiced by fools” is Ptahlis who pointed out that it would require a hellish amount of work on divorce and inheritance laws. That is certainly true but then that’s what we pay our “public servants” for anyway. The rest of the objections raised seem to concern the practices of some crazed religious people living in the desert.

Any other objections? Valid ones?

Regards.

Testy.

97

CalMeacham wrote:

Just to correct a factual error, I note that the Book of Mormon explicitly forbids the practice of polygamy unless God commands the saints to practice it.

Here’s the BoM passage to which you are referring (and note the bolded verse 30):

Really, Cal, you shouldn’t be getting your information about Mormonism from the Tanners. They make their living attacking everything that is Mormon. Not exactly the most objective people in the world. And one wonders, if they do present the Book of Mormon as being anti-polygamy and then condemn the Mormons for practicing it, why is it that they don’t take into account verse 30, quoted above? Could it be that verse 30 knocks down their house of cards and refutes their argument?

98

OK-marrying girls under the age of consent is illegal. Making Polygamy legal will not change that. However- there exists a small cadre of brainwashed “families” in Utah & elsewhere- who brainwash their daughters into believeing polygamy & incest are the RIGHT way. Now, legally- a man may only marry ONE of these brainwashed girls- he may not marry her sisters, etc. If he DOES do so- we have legal recourse. “Parental consent” in these cases is a joke- as that is what the girls have been raised all their life for anyway. However, out there in the real, non-brainwashed world, if a 45yo man tried to get parental consent from a NORMAL parent to marry their 15yo daughter- they would not give it- and object strenuously. 45yo men should not be having sex with 15yo girls- married or not. Do you agree? Do you think that a normal 15yo girl can REALLY give “informed, mature consent” to the sex act? And, it is also part of that sick culture for men to marry their wifes sister & even their own daughters. Now- legalizing polygamy would not make the latter legal- but it certainly would be easier to hide.

Why do you think it is OK for a 45yo man to have sex with a 15yo girl? It is NOT ok- it is WRONG.

Again- it does not matter how prevelant it is- as long as it does happen more than a few lifeboat cases. I am sure you are all familiar with 20/20s (?) expose of that lifestyle- it exists- it is even not uncommon in certain areas. It is winked at by Law enforcement sometimes.

Finally- I have no problem with CONSENTING ADULTS entering into multiple relationships- just not children.

Kelly- I will try one more time then give up. First of all- a 14 or 15 yo girl is NOT considered old enuf to give her OWN consent in any state I know of- her parents must give that consent. In some of these cultures- the parents knowingly & wilfuly “sell their daughters into bondage”- so to speak.

Next- if a husband is MARRIED to his “wife”- it does not matter to the law how old she is- it all becomes legal. If a 45yo perv can “buy” a 15yo wife from another “cultist” and “legally” marry her- he can have sex with her legally. Yes- it is still legal NOW for a man to marry ONE such girl- but the 'cult/culture" requires many such wives. Few normal 45yo men would want to marry a 15yo girl- especially one who has been brainwashed into the “culture”- the only 45yo men who I can think of who would want such a marraige are pervs & cultists- altho the second is a subclass of the first. In any case- if such a perv now can marry only ONE- it does limit the damage he can do- right?

If we changed the marriage laws to get rid of “parental consent”- and only allow adults to enter into marraige- then I would accept the polygamy could be legalized. In fact- polygamy or no- the whole idea of “parental consent” for a minor who is by definition not mature enuf to make an informed decision is wrong- in single OR polygamous marriages. So my major objection is to marriages with children- monogamous or polygamous. However- monogamous marriage of this sort are currently legal- like it or not- so why add even more problems?

Now, however- i want to ask you both a question. Since I have problems with polygamy only in cases of incest, young girls or welfare fraud- and you are both attacking my position- what is it that you do not like about it? Do you feel it is OK for 45yo men to marry 15yo girls? Do you feel it is Ok for a man to marry his wife’s sister? If you AGREE with me that polygamy is “OK” in the case of “consenting adults”- but not others- why are you disagreeing with me?

Or is it that you are “OK” with the concept of very young girls being forced into marriages by their parent- before they can even object? Or is it that since we currently allow a 45yo man to be a perv & marry ONE 15yo girl- it is discriminatory to stop the polygamous perv who want MANY 15yo girls?

99

If I understand your (current) point correctly, and please correct me if I’m wrong, you have a serious objection to pedophilia, either incestuous or otherwise, and welfare fraud. Your condemnation of these things is commendable but not really worth debating. It’s like pointing out that murder and poverty are bad things.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Danielinthewolvesden *
**

WTF? Would a reasonable re-statement of this be:

“Are you in favor of female sexual slavery?”

Well no, just for the record, I’m NOT in favor of female sexual slavery.

I obviously cannot speak for Kelly_M or indeed anyone else, but the reason I disagree with you is your original post where polygamy leads to incest and pedophilia “almost every time.” (Note the correct use of quotes.) That was a statement I disagreed with and have seen nothing to cause a revision of my opinion. Since then the thrust of your posts has changed to being anti-incest/pedophilia/fraud and have dropped the polygamy issues.

So, I am now unsure whether:

A) You are convinced of the position others have espoused, namely that “Government should not outlaw marriages with adult partners in excess of the standard two.”

or

B) Your first post was just a knee-jerk reaction and you are now trying to back-pedal and hope it’s forgotten.
Regards.

Testy

100

Brian Bunnyhurt, I’m quite confused by the way you use polygamy, polygyny, polyandry, and polyamory. Rather than try to make sense out of your usage, allow me to define what I think they mean and let you correct me if I’m wrong.

To me, polygamy is any arrangement in which one person is simultaneously married to more than one other person. This can include a man married to two women, a woman married to two men, three women all married to each other, and any number of other possible combinations.

Polygyny is the specific case where one man has multiple wives. The wives are not “married” to each other in a polygyny situation, are not expected to have sexual relations with each other, and may not form marital or sexual bonds other than with their common male spouse. The male spouse is not permitted to form sexual bonds except by adding a new spouse to the marriage, and that decision is his alone.

Polyandry is the mirror image of polygyny: one woman who has multiple husbands.

Polyamory is the practice of having concurrent, overlapping sexual relationships with multiple partners. IMO the term polyamory is a neologism intended to reflect the same concept as polygamy without the “baggage” which has accreted to that term. I sometimes use them interchangably as a result of this belief.

Polygyny and polyandry are types of polygamy. Obviously, they are mutually exclusive. Any relationship in which more than one partner may have multiple partners is polygamous but neither polygynous nor polyandrous. In addition, both polygyny and polyandry are defined in terms of heterosexual relationships, so a menage-a-trois is neither polygynous nor polyandrous (even when it takes the form of a man and two women or a woman and two men, since in a classic menage-a-trois all three partners are pairwise sexual partners with one another).

I am not going to address your points on polyandry and socialism or polygyny and religious moral authority as I don’t understand them.

DITWD: If I am to understand your last remarks to Testy about Utahn pologamists correctly, you oppose legalized polygamy because it would allow “brainwashed” parents to improperly (but legally) consent to allowing their “brainwashed” children to marry 45-year-old lechers. The way to deal with that is to state that a 15-year-old cannot marry anyone over the age of 25, even with parental consent. Problem solved. Can we move on now to your other substantive objections to decriminalization of polygamy? Frankly, I’m tired of hearing about 45 year old men boinking teenagers. Nobody is questioning the immorality of that.

Another argument against continued criminalization is that criminalization doesn’t seem to be stopping the problem, and unnecessarily restricts the liberty of those who aren’t the problem. By criminalizing polygamy, we are using a sledgehammer to swat a fly on a glass table, and missing.

To answer your questions (although in doing so I am repeating myself; perhaps you should try reading my posts for a change): I object to 45 year olds marrying (or having sex with) 15 year olds. I do not object to a man marrying his wife’s sister (as long as neither objects, and they aren’t expected to have sex with one another, which would be incest).

I am disagreeing with your attitude toward polygamy and your narrowminded focus on incest and sexual exploitation of children as if those were part and parcel of polygamy, your expressed belief that the criminalization of polygamy is necessary to prevent those evils, and your unwillingness to justify that belief. I also object to your characterization of my support for the decriminalization of polygamy as support for “female sexual slavery”; decriminalizing polygamy will not legalize that any more than it will legalize incest or sexual exploitation of children.