Polygamy: all aboard

[ciretose]

@Kirth

I'm not saying the government should stop people who want to live polyamourously. I'm saying they shouldn't get special benefits for more than one spouse, as that would be a special privilege.

@deadmanwalking
The lack of evidence isn't evidence. I've provided a ton of links to studies and legal problems. You've provided "But maybe we could make it work!"

And how can you not say that the ability to have multiple people receive benefits is not an advantage?

@thejeff

But we do have a long documented history of how it makes rights less equal for women, and contributes negatively to the society as a whole.

Because you want something doesn't make it a right.

[pres man]

Kirth Gersen wrote:

ciretose wrote:

And the burden isn't on me, you are the one asking for special privilege. The government functionally gives each person a voucher that they can use to designated one person to be their spouse.

Next you can claim that aerobic exercise is a special privilege, because the right to breathe public air does not implicitly involve extra use from panting. Of course, this comment is coming from a guy who believes that everything not expressly forbidden by the constitution is a specific right automatically granted to U.S. citizens, so take it with a grain of salt.

I can't unfortunately take it with a grain of salt. The first lady took away all of it. :.(

;)

[Deadmanwalking]

ciretose wrote:

@deadmanwalking

The lack of evidence isn't evidence. I've provided a ton of links to studies and legal problems. You've provided "But maybe we could make it work!"

No, I've provided reasons your studies aren't applicable, and the very reasonable argument that practical difficulties aren't good arguments in matters of principle, as well as several solutions for specific practical difficulties you implied were insurmountable.

ciretose wrote:

And how can you not say that the ability to have multiple people receive benefits is not an advantage?

When those people can all also hold you significantly accountable for your behavior. I'm not saying it's not potentially nice, I'm saying it (like all marriages) has both advantages and disadvantages.

ciretose wrote:

@thejeff

But we do have a long documented history of how it makes rights less equal for women, and contributes negatively to the society as a whole.

You have no such thing. You have something like that on exclusively polygynous societies. Using it as evidence regarding making all polygamy legal is (to repeat myself once again) like basing all your evidence of how democracy works on places that deny women the right to vote, and comparing them to monarchies where women have equal rights. It's not a reasonable comparison, or one that actually implies democracies are worse than monarchies.

ciretose wrote:

Because you want something doesn't make it a right.

Indeed. Not wanting something doesn't make it wrong, either.

[Don Juan de Doodlebug]

Did you guys see that picture of the president of South Africa with his three wives? I was kind of surprised.

[Kirth Gersen]

pres man wrote:

I can't unfortunately take it with a grain of salt. The first lady took away all of it.

That's about the fist thing either Obama has done that I've been on board with. Seriously, when I go out to eat most places, I can't taste anything else because of the insane mountains of salt they put in everything. Salt in cooking is like makeup on women -- a little bit goes a long way. If people are addicted and need a bigger "fix," they can use the shaker on the table -- no need to force everyone to eat meat and vegetables that are supersaturated in brine.

[Hitdice]

Ugh, tell me about it Kirth. Take 1 cup salt, 1 cup sugar, 1 pound butter and deep-fry: a masterpiece of american cuisine!

[ciretose]

@deadmanwalking

You can't dismiss the fact that the reason we have no information about anything other than polygynous societies is due in large part to the fact that throughout recorded history, polygamy has been polygynous.

It is the same argument people make about communism not becoming totalitarianism "this time" despite all history indicating that without checks and balances, absolute power collapses absolutely.

If you have any evidence of it working, feel free to present it. If you have a way of showing that being able to grant benefits to more than one person is not an advantage over only being able to select only one person, feel free to present that as well.

At this point, your argument seems to be "It could work this time, so we should restructure family law to give people the special privilege of not having to pick a spouse!"

[Deadmanwalking]

The fact that things have been one way throughout history does not necessarily mean they will continue to be so (see patriarchy and the treatment of women as a whole, for both an example of something that has changed and the reason polygamy won't necessarily continue to be polygynous in our society).
.
.
.
Y'know what? Screw it. I'm done, I've argued every point (including the one above) at least twice, and I'm tired. Clearly nobody is going to be convinced one way or another by this thread who hasn't been already, and I'm tired of repeating myself. Let's just let the thread die, people. I'm going to.

[ciretose]

Or you don't have any evidence for your position that you can submit.

[Caineach]

ciretose wrote:

Or you don't have any evidence for your position that you can submit.

No evidence existed that giving women the right to vote would be a good thing.

Or allowing interracial couples to marry.
Or allowing gay marriages.

The only "evidence" you have is inapplicable because the fundamental underpinning of the society is so completely different than modern society that any conclusions will be murky at best.

[Hitdice]

That's all true, Cain. It goes back to my point about how courts don't care about morals so much as rights. None of the examples you list there went into court and made the argument, "It would be a good thing if..." If polygamy is going to gain legal recognition, it'll probably happen with an argument that there's a denial of rights.

[ciretose]

Caineach wrote:

ciretose wrote:

Or you don't have any evidence for your position that you can submit.

No evidence existed that giving women the right to vote would be a good thing.

Or allowing interracial couples to marry.
Or allowing gay marriages.

The only "evidence" you have is inapplicable because the fundamental underpinning of the society is so completely different than modern society that any conclusions will be murky at best.

Actually I have lots of evidence that giving women the right to vote improves society, and that gay marriage doesn't cause negative impacts on society, and generally are net positives for the societies in which they exist.

These things happen, studies were done, outcomes were measured, the results were good.

And the same thing was done with Polygamous societies, with the results not being positive.

Feel free to cite otherwise.

[ciretose]

Hitdice wrote:

That's all true, Cain. It goes back to my point about how courts don't care about morals so much as rights. None of the examples you list there went into court and made the argument, "It would be a good thing if..." If polygamy is going to gain legal recognition, it'll probably happen with an argument that there's a denial of rights.

Because morals should not be law.

Morals can be really stupid.

If I say "Everyone on earth can have a free car" it is not a denial of rights to say "You have to pay for the second one."

You can religiously marry as many people as you like, but only one of them gets spousal benefits and will legally be your spouse.

[Caineach]

ciretose wrote:

Caineach wrote:

ciretose wrote:

Or you don't have any evidence for your position that you can submit.

No evidence existed that giving women the right to vote would be a good thing.

Or allowing interracial couples to marry.
Or allowing gay marriages.

The only "evidence" you have is inapplicable because the fundamental underpinning of the society is so completely different than modern society that any conclusions will be murky at best.

Actually I have lots of evidence that giving women the right to vote improves society, and that gay marriage doesn't cause negative impacts on society, and generally are net positives for the societies in which they exist.

These things happen, studies were done, outcomes were measured, the results were good.

And the same thing was done with Polygamous societies, with the results not being positive.

Feel free to cite otherwise.

You have a study on giving women the right to vote from before the suffrage movement? I would love to see it.

Nor have you given 1 study on polygamous societies that are comprable to current culture. You see, so many other negative factors were in place besides polygamy at those times that they are not comprable, and you have no evidence that those negative factors would return if polygamy were re-intorduced.

[Caineach]

ciretose wrote:

Hitdice wrote:

That's all true, Cain. It goes back to my point about how courts don't care about morals so much as rights. None of the examples you list there went into court and made the argument, "It would be a good thing if..." If polygamy is going to gain legal recognition, it'll probably happen with an argument that there's a denial of rights.

Because morals should not be law.

Morals can be really stupid.

If I say "Everyone on earth can have a free car" it is not a denial of rights to say "You have to pay for the second one."

You can religiously marry as many people as you like, but only one of them gets spousal benefits and will legally be your spouse.

Which is denying the additional spouses the rights. I'm still waiting on a good reason why we should do that.

[ciretose]

Because the exchange of marriage is you give up your ability to be a person who can choose anyone they want by selecting a person.

When you do this, you receive a large number of advantages and responsibilities.

It's a trade. You get security by giving up freedom. If you don't want to pay your portion, my not saying you get the benefit isn't denying your "rights".

As to women voting do you want modern info or do you want ancient

I know it hurts your argument that there a long history of Polygamy having negative effects that has been studied and peer reviewed.

I want to eat lots of food and not get fat. But I can't find any peer reviewed evidence of that being good for me. Because it doesn't.

Facts is facts.

Again, post something refuting. Otherwise it's just "Truthiness".

[thejeff]

Unless someone has something new to say, can we just give this up?

I mean, we're really down to:

"Are to!"

"Am not!"

"Are to!"

"Am not!"

at this point.

[ciretose]

I thought we were down to me posting a ton of links about why it would blow up the family law system, in addition to the fact that multiple studies have shown the negative effects it has on societies, and the other side saying "But we wanna!"

Choosing to ignore facts that don't jibe with reality isn't strictly the purview of the Tea Party...

[thejeff]

I didn't speak to the merits of either side.

You keep posting links that make the same points. Others point out what they see as the flaws in the argument from those links.

Rinse and repeat.

Whatever. As long as you're all having fun.

[stringburka]

I think the issue with polygamy apart from monogamous marriage is mainly that it has been used to exponentially increase the sexist structures in marriage, and has historically been used mainly in societies in which women are considered property.

I do believe that multiple people can have loving relations together, and I don't see any reason to prevent those from getting married while allowing monogamous relations to gain marital status. However, _every single non-sexist polyamorous person_ I've talked with about this, including myself (yes I talk to myself xD) wouldn't want to get married anyway.

I think it's very hard for a relationship at all to be equal and not contain strongly patriarchal structures, and polygamous ones even more (especially those with several straight women and one man, which has historically been common). I think it requires a consciousness of social structures and a view of life that would mean most people who have those kind of relations wouldn't really see the point (other than possibly economical ones) of getting married.

I do not think we can just look at historical data though. While society is still heteronormative, we've never before had a society with such a large awareness of social structures.

EDIT: Of course though, I think we should abolish marriage completely :)
EDIT2: Abolish it as a juridical institution and as the "standard", I mean. I do not mean that we should forbid people from having monogamous long-term relations.

[ciretose]

thejeff wrote:

I didn't speak to the merits of either side.

You keep posting links that make the same points. Others point out what they see as the flaws in the argument from those links.

Rinse and repeat.

Whatever. As long as you're all having fun.

Actually, if you clicked on them I haven't posted the same link twice.

I literally can link to so many articles written by different people citing different studies and examples that I don't have to repeat links to make the argument.

That is how much evidence against polygamy exists.

[Don Juan de Doodlebug]

Actually, if you read jeff's post, he didn't say you were reposting links, just that your links all said the same thing.

EDIT: Okay, I've pretty much stayed out of this conversation because 1) my position has always been gov't shouldn't be in the marriage biz (and now I'm repeating myself); and 2) I don't know much about fundamentalist child-raping Mormons.

But, now that I've gone back and read through the posts and the links, my main objection to all of the Lost Boys-style arguments is that they seem to make the assumption that just because polygamy is decriminalized, everybody, or even a sizeable minority of the population is going to do it.

All of the stuff about the "bare branches" or whatever is based upon this, imho, strange and illogical leap.

That is all.

[cranewings]

ciretose wrote:

I want to eat lots of food and not get fat. But I can't find any peer reviewed evidence of that being good for me. Because it doesn't.

You can eat as much brown rice, oatmeal, watermelon, chicken breast and green vegetables without dressing as you can stand to cram down your throat and you probably won't gain weight.

Just like you can eat the maximum amount you can stand of certain foods without getting fat, you could probably marry the maximum amount of women you can stand without causing problems for society as long as all the people involved are as perfect as far as people go as sweet potatoes and chicken breast are good as far as food goes.

[Naja]

@BigNorseWolf: “How does a 15 person marriage file a tax return?”

Possibly as a literal corporation, though one that size would be very rare. I don't actually know of any. Legal incorporation is one of the options a poly family can take if they want to do something like buy property together. But it really depends on the state, and on what the individuals in the family want to do. Note that I'm talking about modern consensual/egalitarian polyamory, which is a very different economic model than nonconsensual/forced polygamy.

Most of the people in a larger polycule will not own property in common with everyone else, and are not likely to be closely connected to everyone else - it's generally more of a web of interlocking relationships. They may share finances with one or two or possibly three others, but it would be relatively rare for everyone to buy in or to live in the same place if the poly group is larger than three or four. Shared finances are often not involved in poly relationships at all, as there tends to be a pretty big emphasis on independence and personal choice. Modern polyamory is very much *not* economically driven, as polygamy historically has been.

I have heard about some more creative solutions, including one setup where they literally took turns being married. I think that was a four or five person polycule though, so effectively it functioned as two married couples with co-owned real estate and mutual power of attorney. Who was married to whom switched around depending on who needed to be doing what.

“Employers need to let someone go to look after their wife and kids. Is it fair to ask an employer to let someone go look after 1 of 15 wives?”

Or husbands. As long as we’re talking consensual polyamory and not religiously-mandated polygamy, it tends to be extremely egalitarian and is likely to involve partners of all genders.

In a multi-adult household, it's actually less likely to come up. There is almost always someone handy to pick up the kids or look after someone who is sick. One of the more recent surveys of children growing up in a modern egalitarian poly family had a lot of those kids expressing pity for classmates who have only one or two parents instead of three or four. They couldn’t even fathom how sad it would be not to have extra parents who could always be relied on, plus the advantages of more than one income.

As to what’s fair to the employer of a poly person in terms of health coverage and taxation, that’s a whole different ballpark. I agree it isn’t fair to an employer to be expected to cover more than one additional adult. I don’t actually know of many poly households that have more than one person doing the stay-at-home thing, so it's just as likely that a poly partner will have his or her choice of benefit plans rather than a lack of them.

@ciretose: “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. Much like you can't effectively have two presidents, you can't give two people equal rights over marriage.”

So parents can’t have multiple kids, because you can’t love more than one child or treat them equally? Employers can’t hire more than one employee and give them equal rights? How does that even come close to making sense?

And why does the logic change when we’re talking about adults consciously creating families of choice? Especially when those adults are perfectly well equipped to clearly negotiate the terms and rights of their own relationship? Or are you saying that you are better equipped than they are to decide how their relationships work? That’s a pretty slippery slope right there, just saying.

Please note that I am not talking about messed-up power imbalance situations where women and children are treated as chattel, forced into marriage by older relatives, etc. I’m talking about how multiple-party marriages between fully sensible, clearly communicating, assertively consenting adults of all genders actually work in the real world.

A summary of how I've seen them work is “pretty darn well” and “remarkably egalitarian". It does take exponentially more hard work and good communication/negotiation skills to maintain long term successful relationships with multiple people rather than with just one other person. Yes, poly can go pear-shaped in a hurry if anyone in the relationship fails in those departments. And it happens; poly folks aren't immune to human failings any more than monogamous folks are. However, I am personally acquainted with a number of poly families that have been solid for decades. Possibly you are too. For good reasons, most of them don’t advertise.

If I had to pick whether my poly friends or my mono friends had more stable and lower drama relationships with a higher incidence of calm and mutually supportive breakups where people stay friends, I’d definitely have to go with the poly crowd. Better negotiation and communication skills make a difference, and you generally don’t get into poly at all unless you’re awfully good at those things and pretty well in touch with who you are and what you want. Those are good qualities to go into any relationship with, and they tend to be something of an entry level requirement in poly.

@Uninvited Ghost: “Like Anarchy, I have nothing against Polygamy in theory. I just don't think it works well in practice. Making a single partner happy is often beyond one's means.”

Nonconsensual polygamy doesn’t tend to work well, no. Very few forced relationships do. But in polyamory, we’re talking about fully empowered adults who WANT to form families of choice. Or loosely interconnected polycules where the ends may not meet very closely in the middle, but will wave cheerfully in passing to their wife’s girlfriend’s boyfriend. Yes, there is an etiquette for those relationships. Yes, consenting adults get to have them if they want to. Yes, they do work, and quite happily for the most part for the people who prefer that configuration.

@thejeff: “we have no data on what happens when polygamy is legal in a society that enforces equal rites for women.”

We actually do, albeit for a somewhat imperfect definition of both legal polyamory and equal rights. In American, it is quite legal for triads and quads and polycules to cohabit, to co-own property and to form whatever personal relationships they choose. And they do, in nontrivial numbers. I don’t know the statistics offhand, and I don’t think they’re possible to get really accurately because most poly folk are closeted, and for good reason. But enough are identifiable that researchers have been able to do quite a few interesting studies.

So what happens? Well, speaking as someone who grew up playing D&D in a ridiculously complicated, sprawling poly household that is still going strong after thirty years, mostly good things. The kids tend to be happy and well adjusted – and that’s not just my personal experience, it’s been borne out pretty well by studies. The household has multiple incomes. The kids have a higher standard of living AND a parent who is always around. The women are definitely not oppressed and are equally likely to be the wage earners or to date outside the family if they choose.

How many monogamous marriages do you know that are still going after 30 years, and that have all that? Yeah, me neither. Growing up, poly folks were my most stable role models. And the coolest, too.

@Caineach: “Which is denying the additional spouses the rights. I'm still waiting on a good reason why we should do that.”

Very simple: it’s an unfair burden on the employer, and would very likely lead to employers discriminating against poly folks because they literally couldn’t afford to employ them. It might be reasonable to cap benefits at a certain level and allow them to be split however the employee liked, but I’m not sure that would be an ideal solution either.

Honestly, not very many poly folk seem to consider this a huge issue, mainly because poly household usually equals multiple working adults.

[Hitdice]

Naja wrote:

Most of the people in a larger polycule

Please don't introduce legal classifications without defining them. /wink

[Naja]

Hitdice wrote:

Naja wrote:

Most of the people in a larger polycule

Please don't introduce legal classifications without defining them. /wink

Polycule = Sort of like a molecule, only substitute people of various genders and orientations for the atoms and various kinds of relationships for the covalent bonds.

There are a whole lot of different ways to be a polycule. You might have Andy and Adam and Alexia as the primary live-in triad, with Alexia's girlfriend Betty spending most of her time in the household as well, while Adam's other boyfriend Carlos lives 75 miles away and they spend about half their weekends together, giving Andy and Alexia time to do the SCA events that Adam isn't really interested in. Carlos has a live-in primary partner, Denny, whom Andy used to date, but is now just good friends with - they raid together most evenings with their WOW guild. They save a lot of money on hotel rooms at gaming conventions when the whole group goes together, even if two king beds do get kind of crowded.

Do they own property together or tie their finances? Some of them do - Carlos and Denny are a financial unit, though they can't be legally married in their state. Andy and Alexia are legally married for tax benefits. Adam works separately and has his own insurance. They split the rent three ways. Betty is still finishing up her postgrad work and doesn't (yet) contribute much to expenses, but doesn't live there full time either. Adam does not share any finances with Carlos and Denny. Betty is friends with Andy and Adam (and Carlos and Denny too, though she rarely sees much of them) but she does not date men. Her sole romantic connection is with Alexia.

You know it's a polycule when you have to start drawing diagrams to explain who's connected to whom. The above is one example, reasonably typical in my experience, of a larger poly group relationship. There are only about eight and a half quadzillion other ways to do it, ranging from "tightly knit trio or quad who date only each other" to "huge, sprawling group", the far ends of which may never actually meet each other.

[Naja]

I should probably add that while I agree that it is an unfair burden for a poly person to be granted greater total financial benefits from an employer or the government due to having multiple adult partners, other spousal rights that don't carry a price tag absolutely do need to apply. Specifically, hospital visitation rights.

I know of gay and transgendered people who were denied access to their beloved long time partners on their deathbeds on the grounds they were not legal family, and that is just not okay. There have been poly families similarly affected. That doesn't cost anyone anything and is not an unfair financial burden. It's just a basic human rights issue, and denying it is criminal.

Smart LGBT and poly folks draw up mutual power of attorney before the fact, but life happens and not everyone is always prepared for the worst.

[Irontruth]

I'm willing to consider legal polyamory if solutions to child and spousal abuse are tied with it. We have gender inequality in our society, and I've seen too much evidence of polyamory leading to greater child and spousal abuse to be comfortable supporting it.

[ciretose]

Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:

But, now that I've gone back and read through the posts and the links, my main objection to all of the Lost Boys-style arguments is that they seem to make the assumption that just because polygamy is decriminalized, everybody, or even a sizeable minority of the population is going to do it.

That is all.

I have no issue with decriminalizing Polygamy. It is functionally decriminalized if you look at how infrequently it is prosecuted. People can date/marry as they wish. It doesn't effect me or my life in anyway who you screw.

I do have an issue if you are going to allow many people to have access to rights and priviledges specifically, legally designed to apply to a single person.

I don't want the family laws to be completely re-written, and I don't want every future law to have to consider "But this could be applied to multiple spouses..."

That would significantly effect the law, and it would significantly, legally, effect people who are married.

If you want do live polyamourously, do so. Go ahead with your bad self and get down.

But when 50% of marriages end in divorce, and we live in a society that gives significant legal benefits and responsibilities to spouses that would have to be fundamentally changed to accommodate multiple spouses, you better have a brilliant way to do the above without reducing those benefits.

So far I have seen "Don't point to other cultures" when I point out the lack of societal benefit on the one hand and "Other cultures figure it out" when I point to the legal issues.

It is completely intellectually dishonest to try to argue for another legal system when at the same time demanding not to be compared to those cultures. And as I pointed out above, point me to a polygamous legal system that isn't ridiculously cruel and unfair to the women.

If you want to be honest, you will admit that the vast majority of Polygamy is polygyny, which I think we can all agree is historically horrible for women.

Polyandry has been fairly rare, and generally limited to places with very few resources. Group Marriage, be it large like the Kerista or small like two couples cohabitation, has generally been either part of social and cultural movements, or just a few people (often in my experience, people who have read to much Ayn Rand...) who decide to be polyamourous.

If you want to argue those things should be allowed, you will find no quarrel from me. If you want to argue we should change the law to accommodate being able to give many people benefits through a single spouse...

Oh hell no. Why?

Because I can see no way to do that without reducing benefits available to a spouse, in general. Feel free to link to anything that says otherwise or explain a process that would work without risking a loss of benefits or being open to easy exploit, since it would have almost no cost for me to "marry" someone for them to get benefits using a prenup, since I can still marry someone else later.

[stringburka]

I think it's completely absurd that people get specific rights and privileges based on marital status at all. It forces people to marry and makes the economically weaker group (women) dependent on attracting the economically stronger group (men).

[ciretose]

@naja

By current law, if they were actually married they would all own the land unless it was written otherwise in a prenup.

"Tends to" isn't a legal term.

Giving equal love and providing equal financial benefit are not the same thing. In fact, employers don't treat employees equally. They pay them different amounts and give them different titles and positions.

If you are looking to receive full legal rights, you also get full legal benefits and responsibilities. When you get married, your stuff is our stuff, unless a prenup is done saying otherwise, and even then...

If you just want to be polyamourous, feel free to do so. Much in the same way if you want to stay single, feel free to do so. But if you want to have all the rights and benefits of marriage, you can't provide them communally without completely changing family law for everyone, because it is entirely designed for a two party system.

Same sex works fine because it is basically the same. Two people agreeing to financially functionally become one in exchange for additional legal and financial benefits.

[ciretose]

stringburka wrote:

I think it's completely absurd that people get specific rights and privileges based on marital status at all. It forces people to marry and makes the economically weaker group (women) dependent on attracting the economically stronger group (men).

And I like being able to have my wife inherit all of my assets should I die, as well as receiving healthcare through my job, etc...

So don't mess with my benefits because you have personal philosophical views.

[Paul Watson]

ciretose wrote:

stringburka wrote:

I think it's completely absurd that people get specific rights and privileges based on marital status at all. It forces people to marry and makes the economically weaker group (women) dependent on attracting the economically stronger group (men).

And I like being able to have my wife inherit all of my assets should I die, as well as receiving healthcare through my job, etc...

So don't mess with my benefits because you have personal philosophical views.

Ciretose,

You realise that argument means we should ignore your arguments on polygamy, right? Don't mess with a polyamorous group's benefits because you have personal philosophical views.

[Don Juan de Doodlebug]

"ciretose' wrote:

I am going to go ahead and read "one" everywhere you wrote "you." Otherwise, I might get as obnoxious as Citizen Meatrace at his worst.

As others have said, I find it hard enough to attract one potential life partner, let alone three or four, so I am not going to be getting down with my bad self anytime soon.

I'll pass over your American marriage law arguments, because as I've said before, I'm opposed to the government being involved in marriage. If one would like to interpret that as an attack on their own marriage and its benefits, well, sorry.

But getting back to cultures where polygamy is currently practiced: since I am all in favor of intellectual honesty, yes, in those societies, polygamy is part of an overarching system for the oppression of women.

Here are some other things they've got that we don't: theocracy, arranged marriages, purdah, female circumcision, "honor" killings, child-brides, legalized stoning of homosexuals, and, since you're going to post links about the rights ancient Egyptian women enjoyed vs. ancient Greek women, suttee. While I am all in favor of discussing other cultures, I think it is intellecutally feeble to think that polygamy in our society is going to be exactly like polygamy in other societies.

Finally, I couldn't help but notice that you didn't address my actual objection to all of your scholarly, peer-reviewed links.

[Don Juan de Doodlebug]

The Oppression of Women in the Third World: The Musical Interlude

[ciretose]

Paul Watson wrote:

ciretose wrote:

stringburka wrote:

I think it's completely absurd that people get specific rights and privileges based on marital status at all. It forces people to marry and makes the economically weaker group (women) dependent on attracting the economically stronger group (men).

And I like being able to have my wife inherit all of my assets should I die, as well as receiving healthcare through my job, etc...

So don't mess with my benefits because you have personal philosophical views.

Ciretose,

You realise that argument means we should ignore your arguments on polygamy, right? Don't mess with a polyamorous group's benefits because you have personal philosophical views.

Have you read literally anything else I have posted.

1. I have posted links that show the historical negative impacts it has had on societies.

2. I have posted links to benefits and responsibilities currently provided to spouses or put upon spouses that are incompatible with having multiple recipients, demonstrating that a complete re-write of family law would be needed.

The other side has posted "But we wanna!"

I've had better luck getting actual evidence beyond truthiness from Tea Partiers...

This was a response to a post basically saying "We should remove all marriage benefits so it is more fair!" or in my words "I want to take away your benefits!"

Polyamourous groups don't get benefits BECAUSE THEY DON'T MAKE THE SAME SACRIFICES MARRIED COUPLES DO.

It isn't equal rights, because it isn't equal sacrifice.

You also don't get an item that isn't on the dollar menu for a dollar.

[ciretose]

Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:

Finally, I couldn't help but notice that you didn't address my actual objection to all of your scholarly, peer-reviewed links.

Because frankly it is an utterly ridiculous argument.

Would you say we don't need to worry how we legislate murder, since it is such a small group of people that do it?

Further, the lost boys argument was made because it actually happens in societies where polygamy is legal. It is actually occuring, and they have done peer reviewed studies as to it's effect.

Saying "That won't happen here because not a lot of people will do it" and presenting absolutely no evidence isn't something that could be refuted any more than if I said "I believe that the world exists on top on an infinite number of turtles" is something you can refute.

It is opinion without evidence.

If someone, anyone, would like to point me toward a successful polygamous society that isn't based either on oppression of women or resource scarcity, please do so.

It isn't like there is a lack of examples of Polygamy in history we can look to in order to see how it works.

Just a lack of examples that help the case of the other side.

[Don Juan de Doodlebug]

Do you really think that murder is comparable to polygamy?

[ciretose]

Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:

Do you really think that murder is comparable to polygamy?

I said nothing of the kind. I simply pointed out that your argument that "It won't happen that much" was irrelevant to it's impact, or need to worry about how it would effect existing law, even if you had any evidence to support your presumption.

At root, you seem to be arguing that since it isn't common, it should be legal. But you can't just change the law for a subgroup to give them special benefits that are greater than other groups and not expect other groups to not want those same special benefits.

I'm married. I have friends who have no healthcare. If I could "marry" them so they could have access my healthcare, I totally would do that.

Again, if anyone would like to submit evidence of how it works legally in other countries that aren't horribly oppressive to women or suffer from incredible resource scarcity, feel free.

[stringburka]

ciretose wrote:

stringburka wrote:

I think it's completely absurd that people get specific rights and privileges based on marital status at all. It forces people to marry and makes the economically weaker group (women) dependent on attracting the economically stronger group (men).

And I like being able to have my wife inherit all of my assets should I die, as well as receiving healthcare through my job, etc...

So don't mess with my benefits because you have personal philosophical views.

I'm all for you having benefits. I'm not for you having benefits due to your marital status. I think everyone should receive healthcare and if we should have inheritage, I think it should be based on who we want to have the things as well as who needs the things.

I'd like my room mate to receive healthcare through my job. That we're of the same gender and have romantic relations on our own shouldn't affect it.

[Don Juan de Doodlebug]

ciretose wrote:

At root, you seem to be arguing that since it isn't common, it should be legal.

That is not my argument at all. My question was: given the vast differences between our society and societies where polygamy occurs in women's rights, religious practices, social organization, etc., etc., why is it assumed that the legalization of polygamy is going to turn rich American men into Warren Jeffses and Jacob Zumas (?--South African president), poorer American men into South Asian bare brances and American women into docile, preyed-upon sheep?

EDIT: In my original post I wrote "my main objection," which could be read as "I refute this!" That was not my intention.

[stringburka]

ciretose wrote:

Paul Watson wrote:

ciretose wrote:

stringburka wrote:

I think it's completely absurd that people get specific rights and privileges based on marital status at all. It forces people to marry and makes the economically weaker group (women) dependent on attracting the economically stronger group (men).

And I like being able to have my wife inherit all of my assets should I die, as well as receiving healthcare through my job, etc...

So don't mess with my benefits because you have personal philosophical views.

Ciretose,

You realise that argument means we should ignore your arguments on polygamy, right? Don't mess with a polyamorous group's benefits because you have personal philosophical views.

Have you read literally anything else I have posted.

1. I have posted links that show the historical negative impacts it has had on societies.

2. I have posted links to benefits and responsibilities currently provided to spouses or put upon spouses that are incompatible with having multiple recipients, demonstrating that a complete re-write of family law would be needed.

That's irrelevant though. When I said "giving privilege to married people is bad because it causes the "weak" to become even more dependent on the "strong"", you said that my "personal philosophical views" shouldn't "mess with your benefits".

Now your philosophical views of what's good and bad for a society and whether it's a good or bad thing to rewrite family law is used as an argument against polygamy.

It's a bit like people saying "BAN GAY MARRIAGE!!! THEY'RE JUST BUDDIES IN IT FOR THE BENEFITS!!!" and then someone says "Well, but straight people can be in it for the benefits too!" which is answered by "DON'T YOU DARE MESS WITH OUR BENEFITS!!!". It's a double standard.

EDIT: And what are those sacrifices that monogamous people do that polygamous people don't do?

[ciretose]

Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:

ciretose wrote:

At root, you seem to be arguing that since it isn't common, it should be legal.

That is not my argument at all. My question was: given the vast differences between our society and societies where polygamy occurs in women's rights, religious practices, social organization, etc., etc., why is it assumed that the legalization of polygamy is going to turn rich American men into Warren Jeffses and Jacob Zumas (?--South African president), poorer American men into South Asian bare brances and American women into docile, preyed-upon sheep?

Our society has had failed polygamy that were studied as well, in the form of the Mormons, the Oneida society, etc...

And why is it presumed our society is magical?

[ciretose]

stringburka wrote:

I'm all for you having benefits. I'm not for you having benefits due to your marital status. I think everyone should receive healthcare and if we should have inheritage, I think it should be based on who we want to have the things as well as who needs the things.

I'd like my room mate to receive healthcare through my job. That we're of the same gender and have romantic relations on our own shouldn't affect it.

And because I am married, I have a ton of legal responsibilities and obligations you and your roommate don't have.

It is a trade. But in order for trades to work, both sides have to sacrifice something.

You are calling for repealing inheritance tax, and many forms of income tax (as I can give my spouse as much money as I like, and vice versa, without it being income), as just one small example.

On the other side, if my wife's credit is horrible, now so is mine.

[ciretose]

stringburka wrote:

EDIT: And what are those sacrifices that monogamous people do that polygamous people don't do?

Aside from having to chose a single person?

[Don Juan de Doodlebug]

ciretose wrote:

Our society has had failed polygamy that were studied as well, in the form of the Mormons, the Oneida society, etc...

And why is it presumed our society is magical?

I added an edit above.

Everything I know about fundamentalist Mormons I learned from this thread. Unless I am mistaken, within those sects polygamy isn't just an option, it's an obligation. I don't know much about Oneida other than it was some utopian socialist commune in upstate New York. Did it result in Lost Boys, bare branches and the oppression of women?

I do not presume that American society is magical. I do presume that there are differences--especially in women's rights--between a secular, industrialized, democratic republic and, for example, a theocratic, agricultural neocolony.

[thejeff]

ciretose wrote:

stringburka wrote:

EDIT: And what are those sacrifices that monogamous people do that polygamous people don't do?

Aside from having to chose a single person?

Yeah, pretty much. What else?

Are there really that many people that you and your wife would both want to marry, who would want to marry both of you that it's such a great sacrifice to give that up?

[thejeff]

ciretose wrote:

Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:

ciretose wrote:

At root, you seem to be arguing that since it isn't common, it should be legal.

That is not my argument at all. My question was: given the vast differences between our society and societies where polygamy occurs in women's rights, religious practices, social organization, etc., etc., why is it assumed that the legalization of polygamy is going to turn rich American men into Warren Jeffses and Jacob Zumas (?--South African president), poorer American men into South Asian bare brances and American women into docile, preyed-upon sheep?

Our society has had failed polygamy that were studied as well, in the form of the Mormons, the Oneida society, etc...

And why is it presumed our society is magical?

It's not a religious cult?

[Don Juan de Doodlebug]

Oneida Community

I understand the limits of wikipedia, but I don't see polygamy listed as one of their features. Promiscuity, I don't think, is the same as polygamy.

EDIT: In fact, I'm not big on God, but I kind of wish I was raised there. Hello, nurse!

[thejeff]

ciretose wrote:

stringburka wrote:

I'm all for you having benefits. I'm not for you having benefits due to your marital status. I think everyone should receive healthcare and if we should have inheritage, I think it should be based on who we want to have the things as well as who needs the things.

I'd like my room mate to receive healthcare through my job. That we're of the same gender and have romantic relations on our own shouldn't affect it.

And because I am married, I have a ton of legal responsibilities and obligations you and your roommate don't have.

It is a trade. But in order for trades to work, both sides have to sacrifice something.

You are calling for repealing inheritance tax, and many forms of income tax (as I can give my spouse as much money as I like, and vice versa, without it being income), as just one small example.

On the other side, if my wife's credit is horrible, now so is mine.

And if you had multiple spouses, if any of their credit was horrible, so yours would be as well. Distinct from the roommate situation, but not an argument against polygamy.

Nor would it be repealing inheritance tax. Most people want to pass their money (assuming they actually have any left and it would be subject to inheritance taxes which only applies to well under 1%) on to their children, otherwise, since most spouses don't die at the same time, the survivor could just marry someone else and pass the money on that way. Oddly, this doesn't happen very often. When it does, it's assumed to be someone after the money, not a scheme to avoid taxes.