Polygamy: Should it be legal?
A Federal Case is being put forth on the question of polygamy and its’ legality under the privacy doctrine. What do you think?
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
91 Answers
No. It creates a dysfunctional home where children are going to have to deal with too much stress. They’re going to turn into unbalanced individuals which will be a long-term concern for the sustainability of society at large.
Even if the multiple partners themselves are well adjusted, the children will be scarred for life.
The way I see it, what goes on between consenting adults should not be regulated by the government, so long as it doesn’t harm anyone else.
@atlantis So, a loveless marriage where they fight all the time is okay so long as there are only two people of opposite genders? Sorry, but I can’t believe you. You argue that such things would harm children but cramming your morality down people’s throats doesn’t? I know that scarred me.
Yes. Consenting adults should be allowed to make whatever decisions they want. Obviously, polygamy that involves young girls being married off against their will is a different story.
Most of history is filled with polygamous marriages and ,...well, I submit the Christian Bible. As to how two (or more) consenting adults decide to join their lives – none of my business, imho.
I don’t know why we’re so busy outlawing “unusual” forms of love when there is so much hate we could be putting our energy towards dealing with.
So long as it’s not coercive and everyone involved agrees to the setup, I see no reason why not. I’ve known a handful of polyamorous “couples” who’ve even raised happy healthy children in such a setup. Bet they wish they could get married how they want.
Of course it should be legal.
@jerv So, a loveless marriage where they fight all the time is okay
Please read my answer again. That is not what I stated.
Kindly tell me how you deduced so logically or I will lose sleep over it
@atlantis Your answer didn’t say that, but it gave reasons for disallowing polygamy (invalid and ethnocentric ones, to boot) that could easily be applied to bad monogamous marriages. What @jerv is saying (I think) is that your standards don’t work.
Sure as long as they have the means to support themselves without expecting the taxpayer to support their way of life. Does that sound elitist? Yes, it probably does as I will be disappointed if one of you fails to call me on it.
@atlantis Why would the offspring be scarred for life? I am serious in asking as I cannot see how such a blanket statement could be made.
It is the usual form of unions, which are outlawed while the “unusual” unions are being made law. Traditionally polygamous marriages date back centuries, even this day, certain nations still have polygamous unions. If there should have been any legal marriages outside the tradition one-man-own-woman union it should have been polygamous marriages, logically from a secular standpoint. Based on the current way the nation is going I think it is way overdue.
I see no reason why not. As @Mariah said, why are we spending so much time defining love at the government level? It’s really quite foolish. That being said, @atlantis, do you have evidence to support your claim? If so, I I’d reconsider my position.
Edit: evidence or reasoning or anything else really.
@incendiary_dan And there are laws for keeping bad monogamous marriages in check. The failure of some monogamous marriages is no guarantee or an excuse that polygamy is going to be an evolutionary score for human sociology.
How will the law regulating polygamous marriages deal with the situation when one spouse wants a polygamous marriage and the other one doesn’t? Does the one who does not have only one option? Get out? What say does the latter spouse have in a relationship that they built alone with the former spouse?
@atlantis Yea, what are those laws? And why would they be any different for polygamous partnerings? Like I said, I’ve actually known a number of polyamorous people living in what were essentially polygamous partnerings, just without legal documentation. Polygamy is actually the human norm, by the way. Most cultures allow for it, even if it is seldom practiced.
How would the laws deal with polygamy? Umm, exactly as they would a monogomous partnering: allowing people to divorce one another. Did you even need to ask?
I know I’m not going to take your word for it. It sounds like you’ve simply had bad experiences with polygamy and want to apply your experience to every other case. So unless you let us all know why you think these things, I’m gonna stick with my guesses.
No, I think it is bad for any children that come from the unions.
I think it would be codifying patriarchal values.
@incendiary_dan How would the laws deal with polygamy? Umm, exactly as they would a monogomous partnering: allowing people to divorce one another. Did you even need to ask?
Yeah I did. Because that’s the answer I would categorize as classic mainstream view. And I interpret mainstream as patriarchal. Kinda borderline sexist if you get my drift
The cultures which tolerate and encourage polygamy are sociologically simple with simple politico-economic structures. It actually suits their needs becasue they require a constant birth rate.
I don’t know if we’re doing it for the same reasons.
@atlantis Awfully sorry, but I’m afraid I can not do that (take you at your word) on this matter. Having known the offspring of a number of such unions I must disagree with your stand on this matter.
@marinelife At least you say it is a matter of opinion – Bravo. Patriarchal values? Not necessarily as quite often it seems that Matriarchies dominate such systems. Both in human and in wildlife. But then, you did denote it as “I think” , so, there you have it,eh?
As long as they don’t exclude same sex polygamy, make it legal!
Anything involving consenting adults should be legal in my book.
-Don’t force it on people who don’t want it.
-Be sure every involved party is capable of consenting.
And we’ll be good.
@atlantis My friend one said this to someone: a bad reason is better than no reason. At least, if someone gives a bad reason for something, it can be discussed. But “take my word for it” is effectively the same as giving no reason. Now, I’m not saying you don’t have a good reason for your belief. It’s quite possible that you do. If it’s personal and you don’t want to talk about it, that’s fine, but please say so or at least don’t just tell us to take your word for it. We won’t and we shouldn’t. It makes no sense for us to trust your instinct over our own without some reason to do so.
You mentioned two other potential issues
1) You mentioned that it would re-enforce patriarchal values. However, I don’t see why that should be true. If this were codified properly, there could be multiple men in the relationship as well.
2) I don’t see why it would be difficult for the law to handle this. Any group of people could enter into a marriage at any point. At any point in time, if all the members of the marriage agree, they could allow a new person in. If anyone ever wants to leave, they can do so. I don’t see Thus, at any time, there are a number of marriages each of which includes at least two people. Of course, we’d have to figure out how this affects other parts of marriage law e.g. tax law, etc.. but I don’t see that as a serious problem (unless, again, you have a reason why it would be).
There might well be a number of other difficulties relating to polygamy. However, I think that if we stat with the view that we should try to allow it we will be able to solve these problems. If we come up to one that is insurmountable, e.g. if we have a reason to believe that its bad for kids (statistically speaking) then maybe it shouldn’t be legal. But for now, I don’t see any such insurmountable challenge.
@Fiddle_Playing_Creole_Bastard I would also add: make sure there aren’t side effects that end up harming other people (on balance anyway).
A federal case? What country? Can you provide a link?
@throssog Polygamous societies are almost always patriarchal.
@roundsquare.
make sure there aren’t side effects that end up harming other people (on balance anyway).
That sounds good, but how would you do that? How could anyone predict and provide for all possible consequences of a thing, and would we want to anyway? It seems to me that we are already choked with legislation designed to protect us from the consequences of our actions and choices. We can’t banish risks from life, no matter how many laws we make, nor should we try to banish personal responsibility.
I really don’t mean to hammer on your remark—I just wonder at the apparent general belief that there is in fact any way we can make sure no one will be harmed by something.
As for polygamy: I’ve never been clear on why it was illegal. As long as it isn’t one-sided (polygyny, polyandry), what exactly is wrong with it? I think its most grievous sin is that it offends traditional Christian moral values.
@Pied_Pfeffer It is in the USA and it , the info, can be found on Findlaw. It originates with the “Sister Wives” program and is being brought by the females from that program. As I do not watch TV I can offer nothing on it. However, it seems that the women are in Nevada, now and are bringing the case from there.
take a check on these and see if they help:
Sister Wives Polygamy Lawsuit – Constitutional Law – CourtSide
... Law Tags : bigamy , lawsuit , polygamy , sister wives , TLC , Utah No TrackBacks TrackBack… Texas Governor Over Prayer Day Sister…
http://blogs.findlaw.com/courtside/2011/07/sister-wives-polygamy-lawsuit.html
‘Sister Wives’ Family Investigated for Bigamy – Celebrity Crime – Celebrity Justice
... lifesyle can be. Related Resources: Sister Wives Family Under Investigation for… Celebrity Crime Tags : bigamy , polygamy , sister…
http://blogs.findlaw.com/celebrity_justice/2010/09/sister-wives-family-investigated-for-bigamy.html
‘Sister Wives’ Lawsuit to Challenge Polygamy Law – Celebrities in Court – Celebrity Justice
... bigamy , lawsuits , polygamy , reality television , sister wives , utah No TrackBacks TrackBack URL… the Stolen Font Lawsuit ‘Sister…
http://blogs.findlaw.com/celebrity_justice/2011/07/sister-wives-lawsuit-to-challenge-polygamy-law.html
‘Sister Wives’ stars challenge Utah bigamy law
... This Thursday, July 14, 2011 ‘Sister Wives’ stars challenge Utah bigamy law… featured on cable television’s “Sister…
http://news.findlaw.com/ap/e/1401/07-14-2011/20110714050502_13.html
In a society that accepts is, I see nothing wrong. In the US, it is still too controversial.
Echoing the sentiments that polygamy need not be patriarchal, here is an excerpt from a great article published in the NYT recently:
“The mistake that straight people made,” [advice columnist Dan Savage] told me, “was imposing the monogamous expectation on men. Men were never expected to be monogamous. Men had concubines, mistresses and access to prostitutes, until everybody decided marriage had to be egalitarian and fairsey.” In the feminist revolution, rather than extending to women “the same latitude and license and pressure-release valve that men had always enjoyed,” we extended to men the confines women had always endured. “And it’s been a disaster for marriage.”
@nikipedia, I can’t make any sense of that remark. “The feminist revolution”? The one that started in 1963? He thinks that’s when monogamy began? Even if you go back to the beginnings of the women’s suffrage movement in the 18th and 19th centuries, you’re still not predating monogamy as firmly embedded social and moral law in so-called Christian nations, which has been in place for nearly as long as Christianity itself.
@marinelife Historically, it is true that more polygamous societies were patriarchal than not. This does not mean, however, that most polyamorous relationships in the US or anywhere else (serial) monogamy is the norm are patriarchal. All of the people in polyamorous relationships that I know were egalitarian—and if anything, the women were a bit more in charge than the men. This is even true in the one case I know of where there were more men in the relationship than women.
@Jeruba Dan Savage is talking about how monogamy evolved, not how it began.
@Jeruba, I don’t mean to derail the thread, and maybe this would be a good separate conversation—but I think expectations about marriage did change as women gained more power—cheating became a Much Worse Thing, and there was a lot less head turning. I think women having power is a good thing, and cheating is a bad thing, but I also fundamentally agree with Dan Savage—if we are going to have honest and egalitarian relationships, I think it’s surprising that we opted for more restricted rather than more permissive ones.
@throssog Thank you for the links, particularly the last one.
The lawsuit asks a federal judge to declare Utah’s bigamy statute, unconstitutional. Under the law, it is illegal for unmarried persons to cohabitate, or “purport” to be married. A person is also guilty of bigamy if they hold multiple legal marriage licenses. Source
If this is the case, good luck to them. The US federal government has a history of leaving marital ceremonies to the decision of the individual states. This sounds more like a marketing ploy for the show and law firm to me.
@atlantis The cultures which tolerate and encourage polygamy are sociologically simple with simple politico-economic structures.
That’s ethnocentric bullshit. It’s also not an answer to any of my questions. Your assertion that the ability to divorce is sexist is unintelligible. Simply deciding something is mainstream and that that alone makes it patriarchal is shallow and non-critical. The right to divorce is universally accepted by any feminist worth their salt as critical to women’s rights, and in any egalitarian or matriarchal society divorce is the primary control for good treatment in a marriage.
I’d like an answer not laced with ethnocentric falsehoods and non-critical analyses, please.
@marinelife If we’re talking strictly “one man, many wives” then yes, they’re basically all patriarchal. But there have been numerous societies in the world in which multiple marriages by anyone has been allowed, under the right circumstances.
@atlantis I will not defend my views at this time simply because @incendiary_dan is typing what I am thinking, except to say that it appears that you are coming from a “traditional” Christian viewpoint that not all people share, and that your original post made assertions with nothing to back them up other than your own prejudices.
@marinelife Most societies period are patriarchal. Your point is invalid.
@jerv Most societies now. Over the full span of human history, it does not appear to have been the case that most societies have been patriarchal, particularly since patriarchy seems to be connected to particular conditions in societies. Just a small note of little consequence, at least to this conversation.
@jerv ….it appears that you are coming from a “traditional” Christian viewpoint that not all people share I find it curious that secular society which says ”gay marriage, no problem. Wanton fornication, no problem”, but suggest polygamy or legalized prostitution they get the heebie jeebies.
@Hypocrisy_Central
“I find it curious that secular society which says ”gay marriage, no problem. Wanton fornication, no problem”, but suggest polygamy or legalized prostitution they get the heebie jeebies.”
Where in the world are you getting that? Most rational secular people that I know have no problem with gay marriage, polyamorous relationships, or legalized prostitution, as long as all parties involved are doing so of their own free will. “Wanton fornication” is a value judgement rather than an actual practice.
it can and does work, our the children are well adjusted, healthy, happy and contributing members of society. They choose for themselves what kind of life they want to lead.
There are laws that protect poly families and their lifestyle (at least in Illinois) BTW 2 person households have a 62% chance of divorce, that is not what I would call stable
Legally, there are all sorts of ways for a group of people to share resources, including joint tenancy and co-ops and partnerships.
If you’re talking about a “marriage” contract registered with the local authorities, well those are so far constrained to two-party relationships.
When it gets stranger than that you can go custom, get a lawyer and spell it out.
Marriage to several people is illegal, but living as a poly family is legal
@DrBill Do I gather you live or have lived in some sort of poly arrangement?
@incendiary_dan I was referring to the present, and I know things used to be different.
@jerv Well sure, you might know that. But it hardly gives me opportunity to show of my knowledge, now does it? :P
After all, what else am I going to do with an anthropology degree?
I think that @DrBill indirectly raises an important point: dyadic relationships are—by their very design—less stable than triadic (or tetradic, etc.) relationships. If one person leaves a dyad, the relationship structure goes away and leaves two individuals behind. If someone leaves a triad (or a tetrad, etc.), there is still a relationship structure left intact that can continue and possibly be rebuilt.
This fact carries over to the issue of children, which people insist on dragging into the discussion despite the fact that it is perfectly possible to be married without having children and perfectly possible to have children without being married. If we assume that there is some sort of disadvantage to having only one parent, a child with two parents is more at risk of being brought into that state than a child with three or four parents. Polygamy increases the chances of there being a parent around to care for the child; and just like the relationship structure, the parental structure is more stable.
This isn’t necessarily a reason to go out and adopt polygamy if it does not suit your tastes, but it does undermine claims that polygamy will somehow ruin a child’s life. Besides: if polygamy was really that bad for children and society, we—and it—would have never made it this far through history. In short, claims that polygamy will destroy civilization as we know it are absurd on their face. History already did the experiment for us, and civilization is still here.
I wouldn’t recommend it for most people, but I feel it should be legal between consenting adults, though I also feel it should be a state marriage license issue, so that if some part of the country feels strongly otherwise, they could not support it. However I think there is enough historical and foreign cultural practice that it would seem to me ridiculously arrogant and insulting to not support the possibility. For example, if some such families moved here from another culture, we’d need to support it and not illegalize it, even for their children.
@incendiary_dan I’m not saying women don’t have the right to divorce. They most certainly do just as they also have the right to not be divorced.
I was referring to the nonchalance reeking of the manner in which you stated your assertion of the right to divorce. I wonder if you’ll be so reductionist if you’re at the receiving end of an unwanted divorce brought on by the insistence of your partner to have a polygamous marriage. I know, I know you’re not averse to the idea, but what if you were?
Ethnocentric relative to what?! Americanism?
In the 1960’s I lived in a group situation we called a commune. Marriage wasn’t an important concept to us at the time. We had adult cabins for whoever wanted one and the children slept in one large room of the common cabin, which also held the kitchen and eating area.
@atlantis, I know I’m a couple beers in, but I have no idea what you were trying to say there.
I thought about this a little more and would say that my recommendation is the government should back out of marriages, and all people to define their own family groups, and then have laws for people in family groups. Then there wouldn’t need to be rights arguments about who can marry whom, because marriage per se wouldn’t be part of the law. One consideration that makes me think this, is that I know of several “intentional communities” which invent their own groups of people living with or in support of each other where they assign various domestic relationships as they feel work best for the various people, and these are particularly socially developed people, who should be allowed to do so, and shouldn’t have to run into weird situations with laws that can’t handle them.
@atlantis Considering how I generally feel about people in general, I stopped trying to draw the distinction years ago :p
Response moderated (Flame-Bait)
Just as an aside: If poly-however were to be made legal,. What hen of inheritance rights?
@Pied_Pfeffer Were it not for the type of challenge to Utah’s law(s) I would agree. However, it is being prosecuted,i.e., pursued, on some very strong/solid rights-platforms. Probably it won’t go any where but it may well lay the ground work. We’ll see.
@throssog Inheritance rights in the case of multiple spouses can be handled much as inheritance rights in the case of multiple children are. Just as one cannot disinherit one’s spouse upon death, one would not be allowed to disinherit any of one’s spouses in a polygamous relationship. Families are already treated as mini-collectives under current laws, so it seems that could continue with minimal adjustments.
Although I am not an authority on the law, and I have not completely read all the posts here, I did grow up in Utah. I know or know of a fair number of polygamous families, or people who have come from a polygamous culture.
As far as I know, I have never heard of anyone being prosecuted for having many wives, as long as they were legally married to just one of them (the rest were married in a religious ceremony only). I presently know two families from polygamous cultures (one Muslim the other FLDS-Fundamental Latter Day Saint) that voluntarily chose to be monogamous. When I asked why to each of them, the FLDS people said “it’s not for me, but I believe in the religion” and my Muslim friends said “polygamy makes the women sad”.
Traditionally polygamists have been prosecuted for breaking laws already on the books (welfare and food stamp fraud, child abuse, or child rape). With the current culture of men fathering multiple children and unable or unwilling to care for their needs, I’m not seeing legalizing polygamous marriages as a viable option.
When we lived in Utah, my daughter graduated from high school with maybe 12 kids with the same last name. These kids were all from the same polygamous family (they lived in a series of houses and trailers out in the country). As far as I know, this particular family has never been in the news because of any issues with abuse of resources (food stamps, welfare, etc) or child abuse, etc. They owned at least one business in town, and did very well for themselves.
@CunningLinguist I wonder…lawyers being as they are, eh? Aside from that , obvious, caveat, there are some problems as it would relate to which spouse was “married” in a civil sense – wouldn’t you agree? State inheritance laws being as they are. While you are correct these issues ‘could’ be handled with common sense…I rather doubt they would be.
@throssog You asked about what would happen to inheritance rights if polygamy were made legal. If it were legal, all of the spouses would be married in a civil sense. That would be part of the legalization process. So what I’m saying is that the current laws would be extended. Insofar as they work now, they would work then.
@snowberry “Muslim” is not a polygamous culture. There are Muslim cultures that include polygamy and Muslim cultures that do not include polygamy—same as for Christianity. Perhaps you meant that your friend came from a culture that was both Muslim and polygamous?
@CunningLinguist Polygamy in Islam is an exception to the rule not the norm: ‘Marry woman of your choice in twos’ threes’ or fours’ but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly, (with them), then marry only one’ [Al-Qur’an 4:3]
Despite the religious precepts, there is no “muslim” polygamist culture.
@throssog If polygamy were to be made legal, it would require an inspection of all marriage and family law. Many laws would need to be changed in order to deal with the kinds of issues you are talking about. For inheritance, maybe all the other members of the family would split the earnings or maybe some other solution. Hopefully it would be the legislatures, and not lawyers, making this decision. Of course, judges and lawyers would have to sort out the details and there will be some confusion for some time, but that happens every time anything to do with family changes in any significant way.
Speaking of Islam, it has a very elaborate inheritance code differentiating between the siblings from each parent. For example, the siblings of an individual related by a common mother have a certain share in the inheritance. But on the other hand siblings of an individual related by a common father are excluded from inheritance.
Furthermore, an unborn child is also entitled to a share in inheritance from it’s deceased father’s estate.
@roundsquare Hmmm, aren’t most legislators attorneys? Ah, perhaps that explains the incomprehensible/nonsensical nature of the USA’s laws?
@atlantis But, lest we forget: What , in Islam, is the inheritance status of the child of a concubine? You know, like ben Sultan? The former, long term ambassador from Saudi Arabia to the USA? Islam has much experience with all of this but,...the context (tribal) is , I trust, somewhat non- apropos.
@throssog Sorry, to be clear, what I meant was “lawyers in the midst of a lawsuit.” In other words, I am hoping that these things are settled by people who are “neutral” and not “defending their client” (at least in the first instance).
@roundsquare Well yes, but – are the legislature not usually “defending their client” when they confuse and confabulate the law to such a degree that laymen cannot quite know what is legal and what not? Or when they write a law that makes illegal that which is none of society’s business. Perhaps it only seems a make work project for other lawyers. :)
@atlantis Why are you correcting me and not @snowberry? I was basically saying the exact same thing you said.
@throssog I doubt it. I’ve only had one year of law school so I suppose I might learn otherwise as I become a lawyer, but I can draw on experience from my previous job: as a software developer. When you are trying to create software which handles all possible scenarios, you sometimes end up writing very complex code. I’ve read a lot of code that I had to spend days going through to finally realize what it’s doing and what funky scenario it is handling. Other developers have said the same thing. Sometimes it means the code is poorly written but other times it means that the situation is more complex than one would initially guess.
The same is true for laws. They need to handle all sorts of possibilities. A well written law should look for as many possibilities that might occurs and try to handle them. What seems unfair in certain instances is often the result of an attempt to make laws that take into account things that most people don’t consider. This also means there is a need to be precise. The language of precision is, for people not use to it, very confusing. It takes time to get used to reading something like that and figure out what it “means.”
In any event, it is usually obvious what is legal and what is not. Think about every day life: how often do you even have to worry about it? In 99% of situations (where a legal question is relevant) its quite obvious what is legal. For the other situations, a lawyer can usually figure things out 99% of the time without question. So that leaves a very small percentage of times where things are actually in question. Of course, in these situations, things will be confusing, but that is inevitable. The world is complex and unpredictable, we can’t expect the law to lay out exactly what should be legal and illegal.
To be honest, I don’t know if I’ve answered your question mostly because I don’t understand what you’re driving at. My main point is that you need to see the legalization of polygamy as a project; one that involves looking over a huge swath of laws and figuring out what doesn’t fit and what does. The legislature should, hopefully, leave as little as possible up to haggling between lawyers in individual cases. In the end, some things will be up for grabs and case law can handle that, but my guess would be that basic inheritance would be handled by whatever law legalized polygamy.
“Perhaps it only seems a make work project for other lawyers. :)”
I don’t understand this statement in this context.
Please feel free to correct me because I am by no means an expert, nor have I taken the time to read all your replies yet.
Historically, polygamy has caused problems in societies mainly because usually its only accepted form was polygany (many women for one man); polyandry (many men for one woman) was not well accepted. Assuming most societies contain a roughly equal amount of men and women, do the math: if each woman is with only one man, and some men are with many women, then many men will be with no women at all. This creates a rather desperate situation in the male brain, which is generally programmed to try to have sex with many women. Knowing that this is a lot to lose and potentially much to be gained, men in polyganous societies are generally more prone to violence in competition for mates. Allowing both polgany and polyandry mostly resolves many of the problems that exist in some polygamous societies. The problems will still exist to an extent because, even if both polygany and polyandry are allowed, polygany will always be more prevalent than polyandry. More men on average will be inclined to have polygamous relationships, because the male brain is generally programmed to want to have sex with many people more than the female brain is.
(Disclaimer: this is all according to evolutionary psychology, and therefore theoretical.)
Also the ratio of women to men in most countries is higher by a couple of millions.
@roundsquare May I disagree with you without causing a problem? Well, we’ll see. As you are a law student I’m pretty sure you will have accessed:
http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/
Prof. Berman’s website – which deals with many sorts of legal problems/questions/etc. May I commend it to your attention?
There are a number of others on the “Blog Roll” of his site which might also benefit your studies. Best of luck in Law School – hard row to hoe.
@Mariah May I say that you present your POV quite succinctly and rather well – however, are you aware of the polyandry practiced by the Eskimo and the Polynesians? Made it work for some time. But then…no longer, as they were ‘civilized, eh?
As to the ‘ratio’ question: this, usually, doesn’t surface in the societies normally recognized as polygamous as they tend, today, to be tribal sorts. Therein the male is not permitted ‘manhood’ , and marriage, until and unless he has killed an enemy (human or otherwise) and been accepted into the male portion of the tribe.
In a goodly number of the polygamous peoples I have been around the women/wives tend to be the ones who decide who shall be taken as the next wife and when. Sharing of ‘labour’ as it were from kitchen to bedroom and child bearing. Ah well, there you have it, eh? :)
@throssog No, I was not aware, which is why I always preface these things with a disclaimer – I definitely don’t know enough to make a good judgement, but wanted to throw what I do know into the mix to be considered. Thanks for enlightening me.
@throssog Does being subjugated/dominated by another nation/culture count as “civilized”? I mean, if I practiced polygamy and then armies with disruptor pistols and disintegration rays told me to stop, I think I probably would!
Gawd help when the aliens invade, and let us hope that they don’t do anything worse to us than we humans have done to each other.
@throssog Of course. I don’t take offense easy. I’ll take a look at the blog in the morning, but is there any specific article on there that you would point me to?
@Mariah You are most kind and quite courteous as well – a delightful and rare combination. A pleasure to interact with you.
@jerv Good friend, did you not notice the single quotes (’) around my use of ‘civilized’ ? It would seem not, eh?
@roundsquare No, no particular article…just take a bit of a look. Booker/Fan Fan; any of the cases you are or have studies should do the trick.
Silly @jerv, did you see my interview question about civilization? Subjugation and domination are the norm for civilization’s history. :P
@atlantis I’m with @nikipedia in that I don’t understand what you’re saying, aside from ascribing to me an attitude that I don’t have. Don’t do that, it’s poor internet communication and rude. Don’t rush yourself or anything. We’re all here (I hope) for intelligent discourse, not a race to post the most.
Your answer was a shining example of ethnocentrism being wielded like a weapon. You made broad generalizations about peoples from another culture using fictitious and loaded measures to make your point. Using pseudo-anthropological terms to disparage others’ practices and dismissing them as “simple” is too reminiscent of the 19th century propaganda that passed as anthropology.
In terms of law, I’ve been thinking more fully on this. Marriage is a social contract between people, regarding their sexual and often economic behavior. If one person doesn’t consent to a change in the contract (i.e. their partner wanting to take on another partner), it’s legally a breach of contract, assuming that their terms of marriage were monogamy initially. That’s when divorce comes in, on the grounds of breaching contract, and damages could be sought.
@throssog Using the term “tribal” is fairly useless in terms of describing society, unless your goal is to perpetuate stereotypes and the narrative of progressivism, and I don’t think you want to do that. Furthermore, the details you give are fictitious. I’ve never heard of a single society in which killing an enemy was necessary to marry (not saying there aren’t any), let alone it being some major theme. Fictionalized generalizations don’t make for good discourse.
I think @Mariah makes important distinctions in terms of forms of polygamy. I get the feeling at least a few people were under the impression we were talking strictly of polygyny, which doesn’t appear to be the case. Indeed, societies whose only form of polygamy is polygyny and that deny polyandry are highly suspect. But polygamy and mysogyny don’t necessarily go hand in hand, and like I’ve said many egalitarian and matriarchal societies have practiced different forms of it. If one takes issue with the oppression of women (as I do) and the concept of owning women as chattel (particularly through marriage), then it’s best not to conflate that with non-oppressive traditions of marriage that are social contracts between two or more people. Any practice can be patriarchal if done in a patriarchal setting; who was it that said “In patriarchy, every act of sex is an act of oppression” or something similar? (I bet Simone would know the reference if she read this)
@incendiary_dan Well, well, how odd, as when I was in Afghanistan the tribal/clan system where I was (Northern and Eastern ) required it of those who were members. Further several of the Southern African tribes required killing of Lions before manhood was achieved. A number of other examples come to mind but…gosh, I guess I’m just inventing them, eh? :) Perhaps in your Anthropology studies you were subjected to historical revisionism? Or , perhaps such folk as Sir Richard Francis Burton were as mistaken and fictionalizing as I? Might I suggest that you review the literature a bit further. Oh, by the way: Are you familiar with the indig. peoples of the Triangle area? You know Mongs, Trangs, Yards? Spent a bit of time there, long ago, and they were quite taken with the need for proof of manhood by killing. But… there you have it , eh?
@throssog Just because you label something as “tribal” doesn’t suddenly give the term legitimacy. It’s historically been a term used to denigrate peoples. Use clearer and more descriptive terms if you’re going to look for generalizations.
And I did say that just because I hadn’t heard of such traditions, it didn’t mean they weren’t in existence. But that doesn’t change the fact that it’s not some truism of all “tribal” peoples, particularly since that term, as I’ve said, has no fixed or anthropologically useful definition.
And uh, yea, Burton is basically useless in terms of modern anthropology.
I have no moral objections to how people who love each other choose to live. Government has no place in the bedrooms of its citizens.
Government does have a place in the protection of children from abuse of all kinds. It also insists on involvement in the way estates are distributed.
From my own experiences, it seems that the trust in intimate relationships seems to require exclusivity. This no doubt results in how most of us have been socialized.
If the legal rights of partners and any offspring can be deal with properly, then I see no reason to forbid polygamy and other variations of family structures.
@incendiary_dan How nice a question, or in this instance statement, begging response. Tribal has only recently become a term of denigration. Most of those who view themselves as tribal members don’t find it a term of denigration but one of membership – proud membership. Complete with responsibilities, obligations and the whole panoply of social network and familial contexts. But then, who would dare to challenge the USA Universities modern politically correct understandings, hmm?
Do , please, forgive me , that I , in my obvious ignorance, would refer to these folk as they see themselves. What a horrid , ethnocentric , non-p.c. stance to take and how far from my desired stance. Ah well, there you have it.
Yes, quite a few indig. peoples refer to themselves as tribal members and that only after careful recitation of there clan memberships. Clan, you’ll, I hope , note – not klan. :) Wouldn’t want to get you started on that. Be well my friend , be well.
Yes because either all marriages between consenting adults should be legal or none should be. I agree with @Zaku and @incendiary_dan on this thread. @marinelife Patriarchy exists whether there is ‘normal’ marriage, same-sex marriage, no marriage or multiple marriages – you want to help the poor dear children and the helpless women? Join a different fight than one against polyamory and polygamy.
@throssog I love that you kept the picture I gave you years ago for an avatar.
Answer this question 
