|
I am saying that prenups still presume partnership.
If you become a partner with Charter Communications, you are then charter communications, or whatever you now decide to call yourselves.
If that partnership group decides to join with another group, that is a separate contract, presumably between equals. Which is impossible when you are dealing with people, since you can't make one person equal to two people.
No, but three people can all be equal with each other. Or two couples can be equal to each other.
Adding new people to an existing group dynamic (including a relationship) is always tricky, but being tricky isn't a good reason for something to not be allowed. It can certainly be made legally fair, and any interpersonal problems potentially resulting aren't really anyone but the people involved's business.
And might be ameliorated by allowing polygamy, since as it is, if you're married and bring in a third erson there's inevitably some issues with them being a real equal member in the relationship since they can't be legally.
Let us presume marriage gives specific privileges to a person. It is easy to do this, because that is what it does. You marry someone and they legally become the person who is afforded the rights, privileges and advantages of being your spouse.
Okay, sure. That sounds more or less correct.
If multiple people have equal privileges, who adjudicates conflict between the parties?
Marriage counselors? I mean, you already have two people, who adjudicates between them? Hell, at least with three you have the advantage of a tiebreaker.
The whole point of marriage is to say "I choose this person to become a partner with, and I give them all of the rights and privileges of the position."
And you can't have three people all having those rights and positions? Why not?
Partnerships of only two people aren't necessarily any better than a cohesive group of three to five, say.
Much like you can't effectively have two presidents, you can't give two people equal rights over marriage.
You can't have two presidents because a president has authority and a chain of command, and having two would result in contradictory orders. Most marriages don't invove one person giving orders to the other, or at least not ones that are regularly obeyed. Such an arrangement certainly isn't part of your standard marriage contract.
|
|
Tell me how making polygamy legal will magically increase the ratio of females to males in First World countries. Because, unless you can prove that, then you can't honestly pretend that the Lost Boys problem is incidental. It is, instead, inherent.
Only if you assume polygamy to only allow one man with multiple women. That would, presumably, not be something legalized. Any legal arrangements would allow several men and one woman as well.
So it'd still be a problem in communities where it already is...but there's absolutely no reason to believe it will spread, as the issue is tied to the standardization of one specific form of poygamy, not the legalization of all forms. And 'child brides' are still gonna pretty much not be cool whether multiple brides are illegal or not.
I think there are two things at play.
I agree.
1. An understanding that polygamy is generally not a partnership among equals.
Neither, historically, is marriage. Things like this can only be fixed out in the open, not when anyone with that relationship style has to hide it.
2. The legal and logistical impassibility of making multiple people the person who is given the legal authority afforded a spouse.
Again, not that hard to establish. You can have three people on a joint account and hierarchies of responsibility on medical decisions easily enough. Just for example.
I believe he's referring to things like medical decisions. If you're in a comma and no living will, one of your wives wants to you be kept alive, the other says to pull the plug. Which one should the doctor listen to?
|
|
Frankly, the issue with the different wives doesn't concern me. The issue of child abuse concerns me, because the children never asked to be born into such a mess.
Actually, evidence suggests that the more parental figures a kid has the better. Extended families are better at bringing up children than insular ones, for example.
Now, someone leaving the relationship might be somewhat traumatic, but no dynamic is perfect.
But, there are obvious problems with your answers regarding the wives. Who makes the legal/medical/financial decisions if the husband is rendered medically incompetent? Who gets power of attorney to decide when to stop life support, for example? Who pays for medical care for the husband if one wife decides to stop life support and the other doesn't?
I believe he's referring to things like medical decisions. If you're in a comma and no living will, one of your wives wants to you be kept alive, the other says to pull the plug. Which one should the doctor listen to?
Hierarchies of responsibility in such instances are easily arranged. Hell, I think I mentioned being part of one in real life (not as part of a multiple person romantic relationship or anything, but this a legal issue, so that's irrelevant).
|
|
Anthropologically speaking, polyandry (one wife, many husbands) is really, really, really rare. I can think of only one case where its known.
Evolutionarily speaking, it makes sense that polyandry would be really, really, really rare.
Almost all such research is in economies where women are incapable (for one reason or another) of being the primary provider in a household. This is not the case in modern society and profoundly changes the likelihood and demographics of such things.
You are also ignoring the multiple women/multiple men relationship style. Doesn't help with the particular problem in question, but it's worth noting as a possibility.
In other words, based on what we do know, polyandry would not balance polygeny. You'd still have a problem with Lost Boys.
But 'what we know' isn't really applicable considering the vast cultural and sociological differences between our society and those the information is gleaned from.
|
|
Which is not the issue. The issue is how it affects society.
Please read up on the Lost Boys problem before posting further on it.
Here
http://www.childbrides.org/boys.html
And, once again: Making polygamy legal doesn't make 50 year olds marrying 14 year olds either legal or societally acceptable. So it's pretty much not a relevant example.
It's like saying that allowing Catholic Priests to marry is bad because they'll all marry little boys. It just doesn't actually make sense, since the behavior in question would still be disallowed.
|
|
That's not true.
I suppose I should say economies or cultures to be truly accurate. The child brides you keep bringing up are in the U.S....but they have neither jobs, nor any expectation of getting them, and are culturally expected to be subservient to their husband. So they're effectively in an economy where men are the only possible providers.
Neither is true in more mainstream U.S. culture. And would not suddenly become so simply because polygamy was legalized.
The First World is not the same as those the information is gleaned from - which is why polygamy works better in those cultures (because the male to female ratio is lower).
And again, not relevant unless you assume vastly more polygeny than polyandry.
Even if he doesn't run away, he might be pushed out of the community until he returns with a woman of his own. This also happens.
|
|
Even considering marrying 14 year olds is illegal, the Lost Boys problem still exists.
Potentially. For the isolated communities who practice it, yes.
I think that's the point you're missing.
No, I get that it's a real problem. It's just not a problem with polygamy per se. I'll detail why momentarily
Have two kids grow up in a community, call one "John" (male) and one "Jane" (female). The community knows that John is going to be competing for the same pool of females as his elders once he reaches 18. His elders want Jane. So, while his elders still have significant influence over John's life (when he's still pre-18), they make his life enough of a hell that he runs away.
Okay, the problem here isn't polygamy, it's inter-generational marriage being the norm, combined with a gender imbalance in the forms of polygamy allowed. It's a very specific problem based on a very specific cultural context, and not readily generalizable to mainstream U.S. culture, where such behavior is not considered acceptable even with one woman (as a general rule).
This isn't fiction. This actually happens.
I'm not denying the problem. I'm denying it's applicability to the issue under discussion (legalizing polygamy).
Abuse of women and children is already too much. A lot of it has to do with gender equality, which we still don't have in this country. Polygamy heightens already present gender inequality.
|
|
Again, not true and, also, irrelevant to the issue of Lost Boys.
Really, women are the primary breadwinners in these situations, working independently outside the community as opposed to under their husband's authority? Citations, please.
Honestly, I can't tell what the hell you're talking about now.
I'm talking about cultural context, a rather relevant topic under the circumstances.
For example, in Spartan society it was common for an older man to take a teenage boy under his wing and engage in a sexual relationship with him. Expected even. This doesn't mean that all or even man mentor/student relationships between men and boys result in such things outside that specific cultural context.
Same thing here.
You want to assert that everything we've learned about how humans behave in cultures/societies is irrelevant unless it comes from the First World. That assertion is baseless. Humans are still humans. Their actions are predicated on biology. We are all the same species. Yes, we need to be careful in understanding human drives, but that's not the same as saying that we need to just ignore them all.
Oh, we are. But the reasons polygeny is more common than polyandry are primarily cultural and economic, not biological. They have to do with a single, powerful, individual taking advantage of that power to have and provide for several spouses. Historically, that's pretty much always a man, because gew women had that sort of power and those that did had to work hard to fit in with their male-dominated society, necessitating the avoidance of culturally unacceptable behavior as much as possible.
So, it's not really applicable in a society with much greater gender equality.
|
|
Not true.
"Generation" is a fiction. "Adam" may be 50, so he competes with "Bob" who is 45. "Bob" competes with "Chuck" who is 40. "Chuck" competes with "Dan" who is 35. "Adam" would rather "Bob" compete with "Chuck", so "Adam" puts pressure on "Chuck". "Adam" also puts pressure on "Dan" so that "Adam" can further motivate "Chuck" to compete downwards which, in turn, helps to focus "Bob" off of "Adam's" females. The net result in all this power play is that "Zachary" who is 16 is fighting against a society who are trying to keep him from entering the dating pool.
There's an element of truth here, but it's not the whole story. After all, if there's only a ten year age gap allowed, the problem becomes somewhat less severe.
Still, I'll admit that it's the gender imbalance that's the primary problem, though. Of course (as mentioned repeatedly) I see no reason it would continue to be so in a society with gender equality.
Abuse of women and children is already too much. A lot of it has to do with gender equality, which we still don't have in this country. Polygamy heightens already present gender inequality.
I agree that avbuse is unacceptable pretty much categorically.
And it can, sure. That's a good reason to get rid of gender inequality, not disallow Polygamy.
|
|
That's not what I said. What I said is that women aren't totally dependent on men. There was a really good book on the Third Economy and how women operate in it. I'll see if I can find it.
Oh, I'm not saying they're totallly dependent, just that a significant power imbalance exists. Which the men in question are taking advantage of.
Its a lot more complicated than that because "power" is culturally constructed and there has never been a case where one person had all the power.
No disagreement here. I'm just giving the cliff notes version since this is a message board discussion. My point should be clear though, yes?
Also, you're separating biology from culture which is just plain fundamentally flawed.
Eh. Biology certain helpsdetermine culture, but cultural overlays certainly do often result in very different behaviors than biology alone. And marriage traditions and customs are so varied that it's clearly one of the areas more effected by culture than biology.
|
|
Your argument is that, despite all evidence to the contrary, polygyny would be as popular as polyandry.
Eh. More like it wouldn't be vastly more popular. Or universal within communities in the same fashion.
Which are the real problems after all. A community can easily absorb one polygynous family without the Lost Boys problem setting in, it's when polygyny becomes nearly universal that the problems start to crop up.
I don't think that'd happen much, if at all.
Sure. And despite all evidence to the contrary, Santa Claus will make sure that all the Lost Boys grow up in Never Never Land where they'll never know hunger or cold or sickness.
We have evidence against those things. This is more like "Can this animal we've never seen before survive in captivity?" Some can, some can't, no definitive evidence either way. We have evidence of it's behavior in the wild, but that's not relevant to the question at hand.
And it's not a perfect analogy, I know, but you see what I'm geting at?
|
|
That's old school feminism which isn't all that highly accepted anymore. What happens is that while men take advantage of certain power imbalances, women take advantage of others.
Sure. But that doesn't mean that the toital balance of power isn't strongly favoring one gender over the other in some societies, now does it?
Though I suppose in the one under discussion it doesn't really favor a gender so much as 'the Elders' a specific group who simply happen to be male.
No. Your point is not clear.
My point is that conditions determine behavior. Whether you blame it on culture or ecology, that's pretty indisputable.
Conditions for women in mainstream society today are different enough from those in any society where this phenomenon has been studied (and in a way that encourages polyandry and discourages polygyny, speaking comparatively) that there's no real reason to believe that the current data is generalizable to the current population.
No. Ecology is also quite varied. Its to be expected that biology responds different in different ecologies.
This is somewhat in dispute, speakng as a student in a social science. But even if true, isn't our current society a very different ecology thatn those in which polygamy has been demonstrated? Wouldn't one expect it to
|
|
Its ALREADY happening much in Utah. Making polygamy legal will make it happen more.
Is it spreading? I wasn't aware of that, and it's unfortunate.
Still, I'd be inclined to say that, long-term, legalizing polygamy would have the opposite effect on such groups to what you'd expect. If it were legal, I doubt they'd remain isolated to the same degree, as more and more family groups would leave for one reason or another and rejoin more mainstream society, fragmenting the group as such until it eventually ceased to exist in anything resembling it's current form.
Persecuted religious minorities often flee into isolation and become extremist, even while they're relatively benign sans persecution. It's having them all clustered and getting more and more out-of-synch that's a large part of the particular problem you discuss. If you just have a few such families mixed in with the rest, the whole thing becomes much less problematic (well, not the marrying underage girls, that's always gonna be a problem...but not one legalizing poygamy will have any effect on at all one way or the other).
|
|
I believe he's referring to things like medical decisions. If you're in a comma and no living will, one of your wives wants to you be kept alive, the other says to pull the plug. Which one should the doctor listen to?
Exactly. And that is just one of many issues.
Someone above is 100% correct that historically and even internationally, marriage was not an agreement between equals.
But in our country, legally it now is.
|
|
It means that we can't just make assumptions as to whether and which gender has the power.
True to some degree. But not really on-point exactly. The women lack the specific variety of power I'm referring to, and that's the differenc I'm trying to point out.
What's your evidence for this assertion?
All of the social sciences ever? Data dealing with fringe groups or a particular society is not usually generalizable to societies significantly divergent from the one where the data is gathered. That's just the way it works.
To get real, generally useful, data on how people as a whole operate you need longitudinal cross-cultural studies with good methodology. We have none of those on polygamy being allowed to both genders. Absolutely none. Any speculation you, or I, may have on the subject is just that: speculation. And pretty groundless speculation, too, by any reasonable scientific standard.
I mean, it's like basing all studies of democracy on societies where only men can vote. The data gained is not necessarily transferable to a society where women can.
Hypothetical fears with no scientific grounding are not sufficient reason to deny people a legal right.
You think its in dispute that biology responds in different ways based on the environment?
No. It's in dispute that culture isn't important, separate from the biology.
From what I know of cults (I grew up in one and have a degree in anthropology), they seek out people already on the fringe. The isolation and extremism are a result of the power hierarchy the cult imposes. Making polygamy legal will not reduce the isolation and extremism of the cult.
Not inherently perhaps, but a common recruitment tactic for cults and other unpleasant groups to ensure loyalty is to make their members do something societally unforgivable, making it impossible for them to leave and rejoin that society. Polygamy serves many of the same functions in a cult like this, and is one factor preventing people from leaving. A fact that would change with it's legality (at least, it would eventually).
What making polygamy legal will do is allow those cults that practice it to come out of hiding. This will make it easier for them to gain members. As it will increase the incidence of polygamy, it will increase the incidence of abuse intrinsic to polygamy.
Cults that legitimately come out of hiding tend to need to ameliorate any antisocial tenfdencies in order to seem acceptable to a wider audience. But you're right, they will come out of hiding...and maybe even gain a few members (though I'm a bit skeptical of it being too many, I mean they're only going to want to recruit women and that's a bit of a hard sell).
On the other hand, they'll be out in the open, where systemic abuses can be dealt with by the legal system without the victim being blamed for having been involved in the organization at all.
Exactly. And that is just one of many issues.
Practical difficulties are a poor argument on a moral issue.
Someone above is 100% correct that historically and even internationally, marriage was not an agreement between equals.
But in our country, legally it now is.
But why only two equals? Why not three or four?
|
|
@deadmanwalking
Simple logistics. Marriage isn't a democracy or a corporation. You are picking a person who is then afforded the privileges and burdens of the job.
A hierarchical process is counter to the purpose. You can live polyamourously if you like, however only one person can get the spousal healthcare through your insurance coverage.
It isn't wrong to cap, it is wrong to deprive. That for me is a distinction.
|
|
I believe he's referring to things like medical decisions. If you're in a comma and no living will, one of your wives wants to you be kept alive, the other says to pull the plug. Which one should the doctor listen to?Exactly. And that is just one of many issues.
Someone above is 100% correct that historically and even internationally, marriage was not an agreement between equals.
But in our country, legally it now is.
If a kid is in a coma, with one parent who wants the kid kept alive and the other says pull the plug, which one should the doctor listen to?
How is that situation any different? Why can't the same rules be used to resolve it?
Because the kid has no choice as to parents. In marriage you are making a commitment to a specific person to fill a specific role.
Should insurance providers have to cover 10 spouses, for example.
There is going to be a cap, the cap is currently 1. You can see as many people as you like, you can have an open relationship, but for purposes of law, you have to pick one person.
If multiple people have equal privileges, who adjudicates conflict between the parties?
I imagine that's up to them. Sort of a private matter, isn't it? Who adjudicates what happens in a marriage now? Two people work it out.
If we continue with the "partnership" analogy, however, you have to realize there are totally LLCs with more than 2 partners. All of them being equal or having equal share in the company. It's not even rare. it's exceedingly common.
|
Deadmanwalking, in anthropology, researchers regularly take stuff learned in one culture and apply it to another. Thats what people like. Boas, Malinowski, Levi-Straus, Stewart, etc. etc. are known for.
I don't know how things work in the discipline you study, but your claim certainly does not apply in anthro.
Hmmm I thought that Boaz et al were still respected as pioneers of the field but that place / context specific research was now king and broad comparisons were out of favour. But I did my anthro eight years back and the little grad work I did outside of legal studies was in human geography which has a space and place fetish.
Because the kid has no choice as to parents. In marriage you are making a commitment to a specific person to fill a specific role.Should insurance providers have to cover 10 spouses, for example.
There is going to be a cap, the cap is currently 1. You can see as many people as you like, you can have an open relationship, but for purposes of law, you have to pick one person.
The cap is not one for spouses, or at least that's not written into the actual insurance.
Can we use this logic to make it so only one child gets insurance coverage? "Sorry Billy, we can't treat your leukemia because you're the second, and therefore, inferior child." Of course not, insurance covers infinity children. So why not multiple wives? Or, as a last recourse (snicker) let's let the free market do its thing.
All these things you mention? They are non-issues. They are both easily solved and already being dealt with in the large portion of the world that allows multiple spouses.
I believe he's referring to things like medical decisions. If you're in a comma and no living will, one of your wives wants to you be kept alive, the other says to pull the plug. Which one should the doctor listen to?Exactly. And that is just one of many issues.
Someone above is 100% correct that historically and even internationally, marriage was not an agreement between equals.
But in our country, legally it now is.
1)The coma thing. Terry Shiavo. Remember her? The husband should have had the right to pull the plug, but wasn't allowed to. There's a court system for that sort of stuff.
2)Agreement between equals thing. NO relationship is 100% equal. In a zillion different ways. People also get married for tons of different reasons. Right now, one of the biggest reasons is to get healthcare benefits. Some people are getting married JUST for that.
Different question.With the kid, whether he chose the situation or not, there is the potential for conflict over the parent's wishes for him. Not just in healthcare but in everything. Why can't questions over conflicts between the wishes of multiple spouses be settled the same way? It doesn't seem to be an unresolvable question for parents.
The current method of resolution is family court. The two sides go in front of a judge and make their case.
|
|
@deadmanwalking
Simple logistics. Marriage isn't a democracy or a corporation. You are picking a person who is then afforded the privileges and burdens of the job.
Okay. So why can't three people all agree to do that job for each other?
A hierarchical process is counter to the purpose.
Uh...that's what I said?
I never advocated hierarchy, indeed I rejected it for most relationships, and stated how that made the analogy of 'two presidents' invalid.
You can live polyamourously if you like, however only one person can get the spousal healthcare through your insurance coverage.
Why? Multiple kids get it, why not multiple spouses?
It isn't wrong to cap, it is wrong to deprive. That for me is a distinction.
But you are depriving. You're depriving that third person of any spouse or legal standing in their relationship whatsoever.
Deadmanwalking, in anthropology, researchers regularly take stuff learned in one culture and apply it to another. Thats what people like. Boas, Malinowski, Levi-Straus, Stewart, etc. etc. are known for.
I don't know how things work in the discipline you study, but your claim certainly does not apply in anthro.
Really? That is not the impression I have received when discussing things with anthropology students and professors. Or at least not when comparing dissimilar cultures.
And my primary discipline is psychology, though I have some basic training in sociology as well.
|
|
@meatrace
Limited Liability Corporations by definition are created to limit the liability of all partners and shareholders by creating a separate corporate entity. Marriage is almost the exact opposite, in that you are expanding your risk and exposure as a legally binding show of commitment to another person. When you commit to more than one person, it more or less defeats the intent.
Children are dependents, specifically not entitled to full rights, privileges, or authority.
If we were living in the past, or in a different culture, where marriage was chattel, sure.
But lets look at the benefits afforded by marriage.
A few major problem areas when you have more than one person which would be open for abuse.
- Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse.
- All of the government and employment benefits listed.
- Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.
Etc...
The entire concept in our culture (at least legally) is a commitment to a co-equal partner, with all of the benefits and risks inherent. Not to mention, how do you adjudicate partial divorces...
Polygamy was made illegal for many reasons beyond any moral qualms. It creates legal headaches without benefit for the state.
|
|
The current method of resolution is family court. The two sides go in front of a judge and make their case.
Different question.With the kid, whether he chose the situation or not, there is the potential for conflict over the parent's wishes for him. Not just in healthcare but in everything. Why can't questions over conflicts between the wishes of multiple spouses be settled the same way? It doesn't seem to be an unresolvable question for parents.
I work in family court. It has enough difficulty with two parties...
|
|
@deadmanwalking
If you have more than two people, their will be a hierarchy in decision making or there will be constant conflict.
As I said above, dependent benefits and rights are not the same as spousal benefits and rights.
You aren't depriving a third party when you set a cap. Where would you set the cap? 5 wives? 10? 500? If I set up access to my healthcare to anyone who paid me 100 dollars a month and signed a pre-nuptial, I could make a nice profit on the whole thing and keep my wife and family with all of the legal benefits afforded to marriage.
The reason that argument was silly with gay marriage, is that by getting married you are necessarily giving up the ability to marry someone else and receive the rights and benefits with them.
Polygamy removes that risk.
|
|
The entire concept in our culture (at least legally) is a commitment to a co-equal partner, with all of the benefits and risks inherent. Not to mention, how do you adjudicate partial divorces...
Why can't three people all be co-equal partners? I'm really confused by why you think this isn't possible.
And why would a partial divorce be notably harder than a normal one? I mean, they get a fair share of the relationship's assets. That's a little more math, but it's not exaactly rocket science.
Polygamy was made illegal for many reasons beyond any moral qualms. It creates legal headaches without benefit for the state.
Indeed. This act of discrimination is very convenient for the government.
Discrimination isn't suddenly okay just because it's the easiest or most convenient option.
@deadmanwalking
If you have more than two people, their will be a hierarchy in decision making or there will be constant conflict.
What's your basis for this? I've certainly met and been part of groups of three or more where hierarchy was no more a factor than it has been in my two-person relationships. They weren't romantic relationships, but that doesn't change the fact that it seems to work fine.
I mean, legally, on a few specific decisions, yes there winds up being a hierarchy, but it doesn't need to be the same hieracrhy for all decisions (medical and financial could be very different, for example), or effect the day-to-day relationship in any way.
As I said above, dependent benefits and rights are not the same as spousal benefits and rights.
No, they aren't. But I wasn't arguing they were. I was arguing no insurance companies have collapsed due to taking care of 14 kids, why would they takng care of eight wives and six husbands?
I was arguing the practicalities of dealing with multiple beneficiaries, not that the two were equivalent in any other way.
You aren't depriving a third party when you set a cap.
How are you not? They love these people but are unable to marry them, how is that not depriving them of something they deeply wish for?
Where would you set the cap? 5 wives? 10? 500?
I wouldn't.
If I set up access to my healthcare to anyone who paid me 100 dollars a month and signed a pre-nuptial, I could make a nice profit on the whole thing and keep my wife and family with all of the legal benefits afforded to marriage.
Instituting a law regarding such a sham marriage as fraud (or something similar) would be pretty simple all things considered. Annoying to deal with? A little. Impossible? By no means.
The reason that argument was silly with gay marriage, is that by getting married you are necessarily giving up the ability to marry someone else and receive the rights and benefits with them.
Which argument are you referring to?
Polygamy removes that risk.
And what risk?