What do you think of plural marriage?

Into statistics? Curious what everyone else thinks? Then start a poll here.

What is your opinion on same sex marriage and polygamy?

I accept both.
16
64%
I oppose same sex marriage but approve of polygamy.
0
No votes
I oppose polygamy but approve of same sex marriage.
4
16%
I oppose both.
5
20%
 
Total votes : 25

Re: What do you think of plural marriage?

Postby Keep The Reason » Tue Oct 02, 2012 10:34 pm

Loki wrote:
gary_s wrote:Now you've got me curious. What makes the issue of polygamy difficult for you, Loki?


I have absolutely no problem with the legalization of a modern polyamorous group marriage. My problem lies in the manifestation of a more traditional polygamous marriage - one man with many wives.

This type of marriage - to me - is detrimental to the empowerment of women in a society. I think it's inherently sexist and I have trouble seeing how it's not. While I have no problem with consenting adults marrying whoever they want, in this sort of situation there is hardly ever a level of 'consent' that I find to be sufficient.

There are cultures - I'm thinking strict Mormon areas - that do/will raise their female children to think that their ultimate goal in life is to be a great wife to a polygamous man. These women are indoctrinated with these ideals from birth, and by the time they are old enough to make their own decisions their minds are already made up. They then enter into a relationship that I feel is not healthy or sexually progressive. I liken this strongly to the Islamic tradition of forcing their girls to wear burkas - something else I see as having no positive impact on society.

Obviously indoctrination is not a problem specific to polygamy, but I am still conflicted in my support when I expect legalization will manifest into sexist institutions.


Why not ask the women themselves if they consider it sexist?
To cut some folks off at the pass, I don't advocate for violence, oppression, genocide, war, hatred or intolerance. Instead, I advocate for education, organization, activism, and the democratic process. ~~ KtR
User avatar
Keep The Reason
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 10395
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 4:50 pm
Affiliation: Reasonist

Re: What do you think of plural marriage?

Postby Loki » Tue Oct 02, 2012 11:31 pm

Keep The Reason wrote:Why not ask the women themselves if they consider it sexist?


I don't have to ask. The majority of women in polygamous marriages don't say they consider it sexist, nor do the vast majority of Muslim women consider it sexist that they must wear a burka.

Your point?
“Her new boss was an undead automaton from hell, true. But, no job is perfect.”
User avatar
Loki
recruit
recruit
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 10:28 am
Affiliation: Liberal Christian

Re: What do you think of plural marriage?

Postby Keep The Reason » Wed Oct 03, 2012 6:06 am

Loki wrote:
Keep The Reason wrote:Why not ask the women themselves if they consider it sexist?


I don't have to ask. The majority of women in polygamous marriages don't say they consider it sexist, nor do the vast majority of Muslim women consider it sexist that they must wear a burka.

Your point?


It really depends. I know numerous people who engage in polyamory, and the women are not ignorant, brainwashed, nor weak; they decided this type of life based on their own volition -- hence, they would argue your worries / conflict are moot.

I don't consider your burqua comparison valid however, and here's why. What defines a woman choosing polygamy versus a woman wearing a burqa lies in the word "choosing". If a Muslim woman decides not to wear the burqa, there are repressive, onerous, and oftentimes violent repercussions. A woman deciding not to be in a polygamist arrangement suffers no such consequence (at least, not legally so).

Even if the burqa wearing woman is raised to think the burqa is necessary, it's the levying of punishment upon resistance that defines it as sexist, not their personal opinion. At the same time, if a woman would choose to wear it or not as it pleases her own desires, then the wearing of the burqa becomes volitional and loses its sexist/repressive status (I know some women who wear these as well, for traditional ceremonies. They can and do take them off whenever they wish.)
To cut some folks off at the pass, I don't advocate for violence, oppression, genocide, war, hatred or intolerance. Instead, I advocate for education, organization, activism, and the democratic process. ~~ KtR
User avatar
Keep The Reason
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 10395
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 4:50 pm
Affiliation: Reasonist

Re: What do you think of plural marriage?

Postby Loki » Wed Oct 03, 2012 3:19 pm

Keep The Reason wrote:It really depends. I know numerous people who engage in polyamory, and the women are not ignorant, brainwashed, nor weak; they decided this type of life based on their own volition -- hence, they would argue your worries / conflict are moot.


That's great for them, and I completely support their freedom to choose that lifestyle. I have no inherent problem with polyamory.

KTR wrote:I don't consider your burqua comparison valid however, and here's why. What defines a woman choosing polygamy versus a woman wearing a burqa lies in the word "choosing". If a Muslim woman decides not to wear the burqa, there are repressive, onerous, and oftentimes violent repercussions. A woman deciding not to be in a polygamist arrangement suffers no such consequence (at least, not legally so).


Who's to say I wasn't talking about Muslims in America, where there are no legal consequences for not wearing a burka?

KTR wrote:Even if the burqa wearing woman is raised to think the burqa is necessary, it's the levying of punishment upon resistance that defines it as sexist, not their personal opinion. At the same time, if a woman would choose to wear it or not as it pleases her own desires, then the wearing of the burqa becomes volitional and loses its sexist/repressive status (I know some women who wear these as well, for traditional ceremonies. They can and do take them off whenever they wish.)


I think that's a pretty weak and dangerous definition for the term 'sexist'. I think it's a lot more complicated than simply whether or not there is punishment levied against those who disobey.
“Her new boss was an undead automaton from hell, true. But, no job is perfect.”
User avatar
Loki
recruit
recruit
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 10:28 am
Affiliation: Liberal Christian

Re: What do you think of plural marriage?

Postby Keep The Reason » Wed Oct 03, 2012 4:52 pm

Loki wrote:Who's to say I wasn't talking about Muslims in America, where there are no legal consequences for not wearing a burka?


I think you'll find in the USA any man or cleric who advocates violent reprisals against a woman choosing not to wear a burqua will find themselves where they belong-- in jail. So if you're talking about Muslims in America, these women already have undisputed rights AND (and this is the important part) the punitive weight of a large complex society that would advocate in their defense. In other words, a woman who would "dare" to throw off the burqua in the USA would be protected, whereas in L=Pakistan, she might very well be stoned to death. So if you are talking about Muslim women in the USA, (and you brought this up in comparison) I ask you what you asked me: Your point?

I think that's a pretty weak and dangerous definition for the term 'sexist'. I think it's a lot more complicated than simply whether or not there is punishment levied against those who disobey.


Well you can champion philosophical and abstract definitions of sexism all you want but if there's no objective behavior attached to the sexism, you're dealing merely with thought crime (which I suggest is vastly more dangerous than your criticism that my definition is "weak"). We're in a thread about the legislation towards behaviors. If I am sitting on the subway mentally undressing and having perverse sex with a female paasenger sitting nearby, you can accuse me of sexism all you want but unless I act on it, I'm perfectly free to daydream and fantasize. Now, when we cross over into actions, a whole 'nother herd of cows come in from the field.

And where we find mutual grounds for affecting actual behaviors is in the consequence of those behaviors. So yes, sexism only has meaning if there is some punitive action applied to someone for their not obeying the guidelines of repression enabled by others (simply contrast a man saying, "I wish my wife would always obey me without question" and does nothing with that wish, with a man who says "When you do not obey me without question I shall beat you" -- and then beats her -- and this becomes instantly clear. The first guy can wish for it all he likes (good luck), but he is harmless. The second guy is an oppressive tyrant).

I think the topic of how we deal with these arenas of "morality" is complicated (because you can always find one-offs and rare examples of something that doesn't quite fit), but sexism as some complicated human condition? Nah. It's not complicated. It's pretty simple actually.
To cut some folks off at the pass, I don't advocate for violence, oppression, genocide, war, hatred or intolerance. Instead, I advocate for education, organization, activism, and the democratic process. ~~ KtR
User avatar
Keep The Reason
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 10395
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 4:50 pm
Affiliation: Reasonist

Re: What do you think of plural marriage?

Postby Loki » Wed Oct 03, 2012 11:01 pm

Keep The Reason wrote:I think you'll find in the USA any man or cleric who advocates violent reprisals against a woman choosing not to wear a burqua will find themselves where they belong-- in jail. So if you're talking about Muslims in America, these women already have undisputed rights AND (and this is the important part) the punitive weight of a large complex society that would advocate in their defense. In other words, a woman who would "dare" to throw off the burqua in the USA would be protected, whereas in L=Pakistan, she might very well be stoned to death. So if you are talking about Muslim women in the USA, (and you brought this up in comparison) I ask you what you asked me: Your point?


My point - as I previously stated - is that I rarely see a sufficient level of choice in the adult women who choose to wear burqas. These women are indoctrinated from birth with the idea that they must wear a burqa, and then maintain that philosophy for the rest of their lives, even when in a country without negative repercussions for discarding it. I don't think that this sort of inherently sexist indoctrination is desirable. Does that mean I think we should outlaw the wearing of burqas? Obviously not, but that doesn't mean I have to completely support it, or that I can't work towards what I believe is a more desirable future.

KTR wrote:Well you can champion philosophical and abstract definitions of sexism all you want but if there's no objective behavior attached to the sexism, you're dealing merely with thought crime (which I suggest is vastly more dangerous than your criticism that my definition is "weak"). We're in a thread about the legislation towards behaviors. If I am sitting on the subway mentally undressing and having perverse sex with a female paasenger sitting nearby, you can accuse me of sexism all you want but unless I act on it, I'm perfectly free to daydream and fantasize. Now, when we cross over into actions, a whole 'nother herd of cows come in from the field.


Now you're just putting words in my mouth. We've talked about thought crime before so you should know I am not in favor of any such thing. I never stated that I think there should be legal repercussions for thinking something.

I wouldn't consider fantasizing about sexual acts to be sexist. But then when you go home and teach your children that their main goal in life should be to find a good husband and be a good and obeying wife? When you indoctrinate your kids with your sexist beliefs, and then they in turn pass on your sexist beliefs to their kids, well, that's something I see as an issue. That's something I think we can work towards stopping.

KTR wrote:And where we find mutual grounds for affecting actual behaviors is in the consequence of those behaviors. So yes, sexism only has meaning if there is some punitive action applied to someone for their not obeying the guidelines of repression enabled by others (simply contrast a man saying, "I wish my wife would always obey me without question" and does nothing with that wish, with a man who says "When you do not obey me without question I shall beat you" -- and then beats her -- and this becomes instantly clear. The first guy can wish for it all he likes (good luck), but he is harmless. The second guy is an oppressive tyrant).

I think the topic of how we deal with these arenas of "morality" is complicated (because you can always find one-offs and rare examples of something that doesn't quite fit), but sexism as some complicated human condition? Nah. It's not complicated. It's pretty simple actually.


I disagree, but it looks like you have it all figured out.
“Her new boss was an undead automaton from hell, true. But, no job is perfect.”
User avatar
Loki
recruit
recruit
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 10:28 am
Affiliation: Liberal Christian

Re: What do you think of plural marriage?

Postby NH Baritone » Wed Oct 17, 2012 1:09 pm

In concept, I don't necessarily consider plural marriages morally reprehensible. However, the implications for the contractual/emotional elements are so complicated and potentially harmful, I would not support them until the following possible problems were effectively dealt with:

  • In a plural marriage involving 3 spouses, is the marriage between all 3 persons, or are there independent contracts between Spouse A and Spouse B and Spouse A and Spouse C? Or instead is there an equal commitment between all three spouses? If there are more than 3 marriages, how are these relationships dealt with?
    If it represents independent marriages, what is the legal relationship between the unmarried spouses?
  • If there is common property, and Spouse C wants to leave, how does the property get divided? Can Spouse C, by requiring the selling of the family home, render Spouse B's children homeless, even though there may be no legal relationship between them?
  • What are the legal responsibilities in a plural marriage over the children when you have no biological or legal ties to them?
  • When divorcing, does the departing party divorce only one spouse or all other spouses?
  • If there is inequity in treatment (e.g., one spouse gets more wealth than the other), can the aggrieved spouse sue for equitable treatment without divorce?
  • In a community where men (for example) are accumulating wives, what is the responsibility of the community to care for the unlucky men who left (because of the equal numbers of the sexes) with no possibility of finding a compatible wife? (The Lost Boy phenomenon.)
  • If a plural marriage has been agreed to, how does one change their mind and return to traditional/couple marriage?
The children, in the event of divorce, can be harmed by a person who is not even their parent. No judge would be able to prevent this. At least in divorce among 2-person marriages, both parents have responsibility to care for the kids, and a judge can order equitable treatment. But in a plural marriage, a 3rd party has a claim on family assets and can harm children with whom they have no legal tie.
Diversity is the offspring of Liberty. Nonetheless, frightened, mainstream ideologues treat diversity like a bastard stepchild, instead of like a welcome indicator of our overall well-being.
User avatar
NH Baritone
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 3040
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 10:38 am
Affiliation: Agnostic Atheistic Meditator

Re: What do you think of plural marriage?

Postby Moonwood the Hare » Sat Oct 20, 2012 3:50 pm

NH Baritone wrote:In concept, I don't necessarily consider plural marriages morally reprehensible. However, the implications for the contractual/emotional elements are so complicated and potentially harmful, I would not support them until the following possible problems were effectively dealt with:

  • In a plural marriage involving 3 spouses, is the marriage between all 3 persons, or are there independent contracts between Spouse A and Spouse B and Spouse A and Spouse C? Or instead is there an equal commitment between all three spouses? If there are more than 3 marriages, how are these relationships dealt with?
    If it represents independent marriages, what is the legal relationship between the unmarried spouses?
  • If there is common property, and Spouse C wants to leave, how does the property get divided? Can Spouse C, by requiring the selling of the family home, render Spouse B's children homeless, even though there may be no legal relationship between them?
  • What are the legal responsibilities in a plural marriage over the children when you have no biological or legal ties to them?
  • When divorcing, does the departing party divorce only one spouse or all other spouses?
  • If there is inequity in treatment (e.g., one spouse gets more wealth than the other), can the aggrieved spouse sue for equitable treatment without divorce?
  • In a community where men (for example) are accumulating wives, what is the responsibility of the community to care for the unlucky men who left (because of the equal numbers of the sexes) with no possibility of finding a compatible wife? (The Lost Boy phenomenon.)
  • If a plural marriage has been agreed to, how does one change their mind and return to traditional/couple marriage?
The children, in the event of divorce, can be harmed by a person who is not even their parent. No judge would be able to prevent this. At least in divorce among 2-person marriages, both parents have responsibility to care for the kids, and a judge can order equitable treatment. But in a plural marriage, a 3rd party has a claim on family assets and can harm children with whom they have no legal tie.

These are very good questions and exactly the kind of issues I was trying to formulate. It becomes even more complicated when you get into other kinds of group marriage. On the basis of this a person could have very good grounds for accepting gay marriage and rejecting plural marriage.
All shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of thing shall be well.
User avatar
Moonwood the Hare
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 5183
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 10:24 am
Affiliation: Christian - pretty traditional

Re: What do you think of plural marriage?

Postby mitchellmckain » Mon Oct 29, 2012 9:18 am

NH Baritone wrote:The children, in the event of divorce, can be harmed by a person who is not even their parent. No judge would be able to prevent this.

Agreed. BUT that is NO DIFFERENT than a same sex marriage! And by extention this applies to a heterosexual marriage that adopts. So it seems to me that you are pointing to the same kind of difference here that many people see between heterosexual marriages and same sex marriages.


NH Baritone wrote: At least in divorce among 2-person marriages, both parents have responsibility to care for the kids, and a judge can order equitable treatment. But in a plural marriage, a 3rd party has a claim on family assets and can harm children with whom they have no legal tie.

In divorces among 2 person marriages, often only ONE parent has responsibility to care for the kids. In MANY families including my own there are more than 2 people/parents that have responsibility for the care of the kids so I am not really seeing your point in this case.
Out of Skull for the Stars My first book is now available on Amazon.com
User avatar
mitchellmckain
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 10316
Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2009 1:32 am
Location: Salt Lake City
Affiliation: Christian

Re: What do you think of plural marriage?

Postby NH Baritone » Mon Oct 29, 2012 8:38 pm

mitchellmckain wrote:
NH Baritone wrote:The children, in the event of divorce, can be harmed by a person who is not even their parent. No judge would be able to prevent this.

Agreed. BUT that is NO DIFFERENT than a same sex marriage! And by extention this applies to a heterosexual marriage that adopts. So it seems to me that you are pointing to the same kind of difference here that many people see between heterosexual marriages and same sex marriages.

I assume any adoptive parent IS the child's parent. Any couple, either same-sex or opposite sex, who adopts a child together become the child's co-parents. You're the one who appears to be nullifying adoptions via your argument.

NH Baritone wrote: At least in divorce among 2-person marriages, both parents have responsibility to care for the kids, and a judge can order equitable treatment. But in a plural marriage, a 3rd party has a claim on family assets and can harm children with whom they have no legal tie.

In divorces among 2 person marriages, often only ONE parent has responsibility to care for the kids. In MANY families including my own there are more than 2 people/parents that have responsibility for the care of the kids so I am not really seeing your point in this case.

I don't know how things are managed in your state, but in New Hampshire there is a concerted effort to have both parents take equal responsibility for their children. And while every child has several people who are allowed BY THE PARENTS to care for the children, it is at the approval of the parents. This is a legal issue, not a babysitting one, and I fail to see why you would seek to trivialize it. As worded it seems to be a poorly formulated and bigoted point.
Diversity is the offspring of Liberty. Nonetheless, frightened, mainstream ideologues treat diversity like a bastard stepchild, instead of like a welcome indicator of our overall well-being.
User avatar
NH Baritone
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 3040
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 10:38 am
Affiliation: Agnostic Atheistic Meditator

Re: What do you think of plural marriage?

Postby mitchellmckain » Tue Oct 30, 2012 8:12 pm

Your presumption of exactly 2 parents implies that by the word "parents" you mean biological parents and that was the reasons for my conclusions above. Are you saying that two and only two people can adopt children? I was under the impression that one person could adopt. Furthermore a restriction to a maximum of 2 people adopting is just another feature of the law that does not support polygamist marriage.

So the point is that this idea of yours, that divorse means that a child can be harmed by a person who is not their parent, doesn't apply to a polygamous marriage any more than it applies to a same sex marriage. Both same sex marriage and polygamous marriage neccessarily mean that some member of the marriage is not a child's biological parent and if the law cannot possibly recognize a member of the marriage as a parent by adoption then that would be a problem with the law being biased against that type of marriage. Having a law that says that a maximum of two people can be the adoptive parents of a child is no less prejudiced against polygamous marrage than a law that says that only one male and one female can be the adoptive parents of a child would be prejudiced against same sex marriage.

I think any bigotry you are perceiving is coming from you alone.
Out of Skull for the Stars My first book is now available on Amazon.com
User avatar
mitchellmckain
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 10316
Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2009 1:32 am
Location: Salt Lake City
Affiliation: Christian

Re: What do you think of plural marriage?

Postby gary_s » Mon Dec 17, 2012 5:45 pm

mitchellmckain wrote:In divorces among 2 person marriages, often only ONE parent has responsibility to care for the kids.


Not always. I know many families who split up and take equal time with the children. The kids spend a few nights with one, then move to the other, then back again. It must be hell on a kid.
Just trying to get along
User avatar
gary_s
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 1201
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 6:08 am
Affiliation: agnostic

Re: What do you think of plural marriage?

Postby mitchellmckain » Tue Dec 18, 2012 5:09 pm

gary_s wrote:Not always. I know many families who split up and take equal time with the children. The kids spend a few nights with one, then move to the other, then back again. It must be hell on a kid.


Well children are not all the same. If there is a universal maxim about children that is it.

I certainly think it is pretty hellish if the parents continue their battle with each other through the kids. That is what happened in my case, whose parents broke up when I was four years old. It didn't affect me too badly but it really tore my (younger) sister apart.
Out of Skull for the Stars My first book is now available on Amazon.com
User avatar
mitchellmckain
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 10316
Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2009 1:32 am
Location: Salt Lake City
Affiliation: Christian

Re: What do you think of plural marriage?

Postby ever0193 » Sat Jun 15, 2013 7:06 pm

great topics
ever0193
new recruit
new recruit
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Jun 07, 2013 12:27 am

Re: What do you think of plural marriage?

Postby Rian » Sat Jun 15, 2013 7:38 pm

Gotta say, I love the built-in babysitter aspect of polygamous marriages - good babysitters are hard to find, and they keep growing up, and they're expensive!
"Aurë entuluva! Auta i lómë!" ("Day shall come again! The night is passing!") -- from JRR Tolkien's The Silmarillion

Christianity is the red pill - go for it! Seek the truth, wherever it leads you.
User avatar
Rian
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 6210
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 12:36 pm
Location: Arizona, USA ... for now ...
Affiliation: Christian/truth-seeker

PreviousNext

Return to Polls

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest