Polygamy and group marriage

[bonosloveslave]

Until I entered the building and rained on both of your parades.

Melon

It's ok, I had my umbrella up.

 

[martha]

Many of the posts describing polygamy as a "cultural" thing that makes Westerners upset admit that the women are either coerced, outright forced into it, viewed as property, or married to aid in the farm work.

THAT'S what makes this Westerner upset. If polygamous marriages are truly consensual and equal, then fine. When that starts to happen, polygamy will fade away.

 

[Dreadsox]

Is the guiding principle: we can ban things as long as we treat those who are gay and straight equally?

I am not sure that this holds water......

Polygamy...if I am not mistaken is a choice....unless you fit the examples that Martha (Welcome Back Girl) mentioned.

Can we agree that homosexuality is NOT a choice? If it is not a choice, as the color of ones skin is not a choice, shouldn't equality be afforded to people?

This is why I am still believing in a defined amendment of what marriage is.....however.....my amendment would specifically outline that marriage is between TWO concenting adults.


If we go back to your guiding principle....what other choices or kinds of marriage do you envision?

 

[Dreadsox]

THAT'S what makes this Westerner upset. If polygamous marriages are truly consensual and equal, then fine. When that starts to happen, polygamy will fade away.

I think when we look at this...and maybe this is from my Western prospective.....

if there is more than one wife/husband...how is property treated, how are social security benefits treated, what about pensions.

If the husband dies....where do the wives go? Do they sell everything and divide it evenly.....I am not sure that our system of law is capable of this situation.

I do believe that it is a much different argument and jump from polygamy to marriage of gay/lesbians.

I just realized something.....since I am a minister in the Universal Church of Life.......I can perform Marriages in Massachusetts......

Hmmmm.........

 

[beli]

If polygamous marriages are truly consensual and equal, then fine. When that starts to happen, polygamy will fade away.

I respectfully disagree. Im not sure what your basis is for this statement. That one individual only has the capacity to love one other individual? If this is what you meant (and Im not sure that it is) then I disagree. The human capacity for love is limitless. I fell in love with a gorgeous man - my husband. Years later we produced a gorgeous daughter who I love equally as much as my husband. When my next child arrives I will love that child as much as my other child and my husband - no favourites. Im trying hard not to sound too much like a hippy but I honestly believe that if a person was really into any sort of consenting multiperson marriage then the capacity to love all the other people in the marriage would also be easily achievable.

If that is not your intended implication of your statement above, my sincere apologies. If so, what did you mean, please?

 

[Dreadsox]

How are polygamous marriages=to loving your children and husband?

I'm confused now

 

[beli]

I just meant loving more than one person is achievable. Did that make sense? Im a bit tired this morning.

 

[beli]

I was trying to interpret Marthas statement. Im a bit bamboozled by it. Either I have gotten the wrong end of the stick (which is probable) or what shes stating is so foreign to me I dont understand it. (also likely)

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Give me a break. A preposterous statement by another angry straight male.

I'm gay. I haven't made it a secret here, but I also don't feel that I have to make my life an after-school special and announce it to the world here every time I enter the forum. So let me tell you, since I probably know more gay people than you would ever care to know: it's not a choice. When you are young and you enter puberty, I'm guessing that you knew you liked girls. You didn't wake up one day and say, "Shall I like boys or girls today?" Gay people grow up the same way. As they grow older, they realize that they are sexually attracted to people of the same sex, and, most of the time, they don't have a word for what they feel. Most of the time, it takes years to discover a word for what they feel: homosexuality.

thank you again for your normal assumptions on what someone who "leans to the right" thinks and believes. they always bring joy to my day. angry straight male... as opposed to angry gay male? let's get one thing clear here... i do not care about anyone's sexuality. if you're gay? fine... if your'e straight? fine... if you bang the borro's? fine. my uncle is gay. he's also a great man. the fact that he's gay didn't matter to me as a kid who had no clue what gay was, and it doesn't matter to me now, and it never will matter to me. my best friend is jewish, i've dated an african-american, my uncle is gay, i am pro-gun control, pro gay marriage, i only attend church for weddings and funerals, and i'm a friggin' republican. go f'ing figure. i made those statements not because of what party i claim to be my own. i made those statements not because i'm gay, straight, bi, or donkey. i made them because it's what i believe. seems to me that i've never actually declared my sexuality in this forum... because it doesn't matter. you just happened to assume that because i tend to argue what are considered "republican" issues, that i'm some top 1% church going conservative. now please let me quote myself...

i think you're born with your sexuality, and the rest is just sexual confusion and experimentation

gee... seems like i'm agreeing with you there, doesn't it? wowzers... how preposterous a statement. now let's take a step back to reality and have a nice civil debate without slapping labels on people that you don't know 1 friggin thing about.

 

[melon]

thank you again for your normal assumptions on what someone who "leans to the right" thinks and believes.

I don't know who you are at all. You could be Janet fucking Jackson for all I know. All I have to go on is by your words, and when you start talking about being gay as "choices" and fucking "burros," then what the hell am I supposed to think? If you want people to react to you more objectively, then maybe you'll figure out how to say it in a manner that isn't the most repugnant manner ever. You knew what you were doing; I have never believed you to be dumb.

Now, on the basis of what you wrote here, I understand where you are coming from more. Write like this more in the future, and you'll get a more rational answer out of me. But, I guess, that would be less fun, eh?

Melon

 

[beli]

Hey, hey, hey, everyone back in their corners, please. Its okay. Everyone is entitled to their opinions. And everyone is entitled to be treated with respect. If someone doesnt treat you respectfully then just wish them well and mentally write them off as a dickhead.

 

[Dreadsox]

I just meant loving more than one person is achievable. Did that make sense? Im a bit tired this morning.

got it!

 

[pax]

Polygamy is about male hegemony (damn I love that word) and women as property. My point was that if polygamous marriages ever truly become marriages of equals, men won't participate with such eagerness.

Note, for example, that in *most* (perhaps not all, but certainly most) cultures that practice polygyny, there exist elements of patriarchy more prevalently than in North American and Western European cultures (which is pretty much what we're talking about here). I also note that most pro-polygamy spokespersons I've seen and read about are men, and most activists against polygamy are women.

This is to say nothing of polyandry, of course, but when compared with polygyny, it's incredibly rare. If we lived in a truly equal society, rid of all elements of patriarchy, I could support polygamy as "one way to get things done," I guess. But the fact that too many people in this society still consider men to be the de facto, default heads of their respective households leads me to have a bad feeling about polygamy. In Western societies, polygyny rather than polyandry is the norm when polygamy happens. I've read too many horror stories of how women suffer in polygynous arrangements to be totally comfortable with it.

 

[pax]

A website by and for women against polygamy:

http://www.polygamy.org/

 

[verte76]

Polygamy isn't about love. Go back and reread my posts when you are less tired.

Polygamy is about male hegemony (damn I love that word) and women as property. My point was that if polygamous marriages ever truly become marriages of equals, men won't participate with such eagerness.

I think you've got a valid point Martha. Liberal Moslems *hate* polygamy for this reason. In the "Princess Trilogy" Sultana was furious when her husband wanted to take a second wife, left him, and talked about a divorce. Her husband eventually agreed not to take another wife, so they didn't get divorced. When they made polygamy illegal in Turkey, the law was promoted as being protective of women's rights. It's a complicated issue.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

I think most of us will agree that alcoholism and drug addiction are harmful. However, using the analogy of a drug addict always having the "urge" to use drugs and a gay person always having the "urge" to fall in love with someone of the same sex is inaccurate IMO. Inherent in the argument is the assumption that there is something bad or harmful about being gay in the same way there is something inherently harmful about drug abuse. Being gay is no more harmful then being straight and therefore it makes no sense to suggest that a gay person just has to resist their "urges" in the way a drug addict resists the "urge" to use drugs.

In addition, to suggest that a gay person just needs to resist the urge to fall in love with someone of the same sex as them is suggesting that they should deny themselves something which is absolutely fundamental to most people's lives. It's no different than telling a straight person they just need to resist the urge to fall in love, and I can just imagine the outrage people would express if they were told that.

This isn't really directed only at your post, but...doesn't the Bible also tell us not to lie? Not to envy? And yet I don't see huge campaigns to remind people that the Bible tells us that lying is a sin. I don't see people picketing funerals condeming the dead person for envy. Why is homosexuality so much more deserving of condemnation?

In any case, America supposedly has a separation of church and state, so how can anyone call for laws to be made based on what is in the Bible? It seems to me that many of those calling for gay marriage to be banned are doing so based on their religious beliefs, but you wouldn't have much of a separation of church and state left if people could have their religious beliefs made into law.

.

Dreadsox...the whole "sin is sin" thing...why exactly is homosexuality looked at as a sin to begin with? What exactly is it that they're doing that's so wrong in the eyes of some people? I've always associated the idea of sin with things that hurt or kill other people. Since homosexuality does neither of those things...I don't see how it can be sinful.

Angela

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

I think there are two different issues being discussed here.

Firstly, human rights abuse. I agree completely the abuse of human rights is wrong and I would be down at the protest rally with you on this one. I also believe that human rights abuses are not resticted to the unions being discussed in this forum. There is spousal abuse in heterosexual relationships (married or otherwise), as well as in relationships involving gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and intersex (GLBTI) people. ie all forms of relationships.

Bit about me: I worked fulltime for 4 and a half years at Oxfam (here in Perth), volunteered in the evenings at Amnesty, and did the occasional Greenpeace protest on the weekend. I dedicated most of my twenties to what I considered to be 'doing my bit' to contribute to the planet. So I agree with you 100% - human rights abuses are completely wrong.

What I was typing about in this thread is the other side of the coin, the positive side, when things go right. Just as hetrosexual relationships can be respectiful and loving, so can multipartnered and GLBTI relationships. I have been happily in a loving supporting relationship for the past 10 years and I wish the same happiness on everyone - whereever you may find it.

Peace.

Agree wholeheartedly. Very well said.

All homosexual couples want is to be allowed to have their marriages seen as valid ones. They deserve compaionship as much as anybody else.

And if they did want children, they could find ways-artificial insemination, or the male couple could find a surrogate mother or something. Or, they could adopt. Take in a kid who just wants a home, who wants to be loved and cared for.

Also, verte brought up the whole thing about some people seeing marriage as strictly for the purpose of procreation-as people have said numerous times in these kinds of debates, if homosexual marriages are somehow wrong because the couple cannot produce children naturally, then, going by that logic, straight couples who are unable to have kids shouldn't have their marriages legally recognized, right? There's some people I know who have no intention of ever having children. Would their marriages, when the time comes, be considered invalid then, too?

Angela

 

[Dreadsox]

.

Dreadsox...the whole "sin is sin" thing...why exactly is homosexuality looked at as a sin to begin with? What exactly is it that they're doing that's so wrong in the eyes of some people? I've always associated the idea of sin with things that hurt or kill other people. Since homosexuality does neither of those things...I don't see how it can be sinful.

Angela

Why am I getting hit with this...??? There were others in the thread that said this....They said that "acting" on sexual urges was wrong...For the sake of argument...my point was a marriage license is NOT going to prevent the behavior.

There are many here in this forum that believe through biblical teachings it is SIN. Rather than argue if it is or isn't I am trying to say, how does a marriage license change it?

Finally, I see that the post I was referring to is not there anymore.....it was edited. I went to bed came back this morning thinking about it not realizing his post had changed.

Peace

 

[Kristie]

so... what does the bible say about polygamy?

 

[pax]

Please see bulletin stuck at top of page for info on this thread.

 

[pax]

Here's the polygamy thread...go at it...

 

[BVS]

How exactly does this make polygamy non-consensual? I read the other posts but maybe I'm having a stupid day or I'm blind or something. I don't see how having more than one wife to choose from has anything to do with consent, as long as the wife chosen on a particular night consents and as long as all of the wives have consented to that form of relationship.

Submitting and consenting are two different things.

consent

\Con*sent"\, v. i. 1. To agree in opinion or sentiment; to be of the same mind; to accord; to concur.

After the marriage the women are left with no power. They can say yes or they can say no and that's it. But that doesn't make them of like mind. They no longer have any power to request because if he doesn't want to grant her desire be it dinner, a vacation, sex, or even just a talk he doesn't have to, he can move on to another wife. Consent is not the same as agree to. Consent implies a certain equality.

Sorry if that doesn't make sence, that's the best I can do right now, I'm exhausted.

 

[Liesje]

Submitting and consenting are two different things.

consent

\Con*sent"\, v. i. 1. To agree in opinion or sentiment; to be of the same mind; to accord; to concur.

After the marriage the women are left with no power. They can say yes or they can say no and that's it. But that doesn't make them of like mind. They no longer have any power to request because if he doesn't want to grant her desire be it dinner, a vacation, sex, or even just a talk he doesn't have to, he can move on to another wife. Consent is not the same as agree to. Consent implies a certain equality.

Sorry if that doesn't make sence, that's the best I can do right now, I'm exhausted.

It makes sense, I just don't see how it's any different that a partner in a monogamous (sp?) marriage refusing to have sex, or go on vacation, or vacuum the living room on any given night..... I've always thought that if all of the wives consent to marrying such a man, then they've consented to be part of a relationship where they are only a single choice out of many, but that's what they've chosen.

 

[meegannie]

It makes sense, I just don't see how it's any different that a partner in a monogamous (sp?) marriage refusing to have sex, or go on vacation, or vacuum the living room on any given night..... I've always thought that if all of the wives consent to marrying such a man, then they've consented to be part of a relationship where they are only a single choice out of many, but that's what they've chosen.

I agree. What's the difference between this situation and when a husband and wife disagree on something and one gives in to the other? Does that invalidate the entire marriage?

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

After the marriage the women are left with no power. They can say yes or they can say no and that's it. But that doesn't make them of like mind. They no longer have any power to request because if he doesn't want to grant her desire be it dinner, a vacation, sex, or even just a talk he doesn't have to, he can move on to another wife. Consent is not the same as agree to. Consent implies a certain equality.

You could equally make these comments about a marriage between one man and one woman. What happens when the wife wants something which the husband disagrees with? Does it mean their entire marriage is no longer based on consent because they had one disagreement.

Yes, in a polygamous marriage the husband might be able to leave one wife and spend time with another wife if he disagrees with the first wife. However even in a marriage between one man and one woman the husband could choose to go and spend time with people outside of the marriage. Would that mean their marriage isn't based on consent?

 

[BVS]

You could equally make these comments about a marriage between one man and one woman. What happens when the wife wants something which the husband disagrees with? Does it mean their entire marriage is no longer based on consent because they had one disagreement.

No, men and women will always have disagreements and compromises in a monogamous relationship, I agree. But after the resolvement of that argument they return to an equal playing field. In a polygamous relationship there is no returning to that equal playing field. Yes I agree the initial consent is there, but after that it's not a continuous relationship built upon consent.

I guess the best way I can explain it is if you work for a company you consent to their rules and policies and then your company merges with another and all policies change, you either submit or don't submit, you weren't asked about the policy change.

 

[meegannie]

No, men and women will always have disagreements and compromises in a monogamous relationship, I agree. But after the resolvement of that argument they return to an equal playing field. In a polygamous relationship there is no returning to that equal playing field.

Why not? I'm confused about your analogy....if someone of age, male or female, willing enters into a polygamous relationship, how is that a 'policy change'? I'd understand your point a bit more, perhaps, if you were referring only to polygyny or polyandry, especially among religious groups where the sole man or women is deemed the head of the household, but what about polyamorous relationships where there are multiple partners of both sexes or where the wives and husbands are married to each other, rather than to just the single person?

 

[BVS]

Ok obviously my view on this is much different than everyone else so I'll bow out. I understand what everyone is saying about consenting to go into the marriage. I guess to me a true consentual relationship takes more than the initial consent, it takes a continuous relationship of consent. But I guess one can consent to a life of submission, if that's what they choose. To me though I think there would be legal ground to legislate on relationships that are structured in a way where one will never have equal ground. But that's just me.

 

[Liesje]

Ok obviously my view on this is much different than everyone else so I'll bow out. I understand what everyone is saying about consenting to go into the marriage. I guess to me a true consentual relationship takes more than the initial consent, it takes a continuous relationship of consent. But I guess one can consent to a life of submission, if that's what they choose. To me though I think there would be legal ground to legislate on relationships that are structured in a way where one will never have equal ground. But that's just me.

I guess what I'm not understanding is what you mean by "consent". I would consider consent as the choice. Women have a choice of whether or not to enter a polygamous relationship, they have a choice whether or not to accept or refuse their husband on any given night, the husband has a choice whether or not to accept his wife on any given night... Actually, I think it's easier to think of consentual behavior as the opposite of NON-consensual behavior. For example, if the husband were to force one of his wives to have sex with him when she didn't want to, that's non-consensual. If the husband were to take in a second wife and the first wife did not agree, that would be what I consider non-consensual polygamy.

EDIT: I'm not saying your view is wrong or trying to change your mind, I'm just trying to understand exactly what you mean. Either way, I'm not in favor of polygamy.

 

[ThatGuy]

I think a better word for the argument that BVS is making is "equality." A polygamous marriage can never be totally equal for the reasons he described.