So what's wrong with polygamy, anyway?

[Kulindahr]

There are some very unified, vocal polygamist groups. Go back and look at what I am saying, I am not saying that polygamists don't exist, I'm saying they are not a unique isolated minority. The ability to fall in love with more than one person exists in every Human being. That our society has a 'true love' mythology that somehow your ability to fall in love is turned off once you get married doesn't change that. The fact of the matter is we choose to not act on our romantic attractions to other people and not pursue them when we form a monogamous relationship. Are you going to say that sexual orientation is a choice? Because that is where you have to go to equate homosexuals and polygamists.

Elephangelicals say that the ability to love a woman exists in every man.
And they absolutely "know" that being gay isn't biological.

What Yummy and I are trying to get across to you is that you sound just like them.


Polgamists are as easily identifiable in society as gays: in order to tell them from the rest, you have to ask. That's it. Whether it's a choice or not is irrelevant, and is also unknown.

 

[Kulindahr]

How readily you fall in love is not the same thing as sexual orientation. Trying to equate the two is silly. I can choose to be monogamous or not, I cannot choose who I am attracted to. By this logic, people who cheat on their spouses can't help themselves and should have a right to do so.

We treat joining a church and being black, under the law -- they're both protected. And that's the only measure here: something that sets some people apart from others. Wanting more than one spouse sets people apart from the rest, just as being gay sets people apart from the rest, just as being Catholic sets people apart from the rest.

You can choose to be monogamous, but not who you're attracted to? Well, then you can choose to marry a woman, regardless of who you're attracted to.

 

[oakpope]

There is a debatable argument that they are due to the rarity of finding such a marriage where the partners are truly equal and therefore stable.

As opposed to the Kardashian marriage of 29 days I suppose ? ...

 

[RobinGoodfellow]

The ability to fall in love with more than one person exists in every Human being.

Falling in love isn't an issue here; it's the willing to spend a lifetime with them that is. That is, if marriage with one person is hard enough, especially when the kids are brought in, how much harder is marriage with two or more people? And then you have the cultural problems (lost boys, women being used as rewards) that are generally attached to it as well. It's not the falling in love that's a problem, it's the staying that is....

RG

 

[TheFireGod]

Personally, it's not for me or most people. If they are all of consenting age, then I couldn't care less about them.

 

[Stardreamer]

Elephangelicals say that the ability to love a woman exists in every man.
And they absolutely "know" that being gay isn't biological.

What Yummy and I are trying to get across to you is that you sound just like them.


Polgamists are as easily identifiable in society as gays: in order to tell them from the rest, you have to ask. That's it. Whether it's a choice or not is irrelevant, and is also unknown.

Actually this is the argument I use to counter conservatives that put forward that civil recognition of same sex marriage inevitably leads to polymarriage. Really no more than pointing out the differences between the civil rights cases of the two subjects to show they are different but that the polymarriage issue requires addressing some additional issues than the just the ones involved in same sex marriage.

Republicans are as easily identifiable in society as gays, just ask them. So is party affiliation the same as sexual orientation?

Lets flip the argument around and look at it that way. Would civil recognition of polymarriages inevitably lead to same sex marriage. Again the answer is maybe but there are differences in the cases. The old history issue actually works in favor of polymarriage, it is the most common form of marriage historically. In structure is the same as monogamous marriage only expanded to include more partners, traditional as one argument put it, a set of one man/one woman marriages occurring simultaneously. Nearly every argument used against same sex marriage can be applied positively to polymarriage except for the stability and equality issues.

The civil rights cases between civil recognition of polymarriage and same sex marriage are similar even sharing some issues of debate due the similar subject but are distinct and separate.


Moving back to the original question, I don't think there is anything generally wrong with polygamy, some would even argue it is a more natural form of relationship and that Humans are not meant to be monogamous. Oddly I hear that argued more from the male side than females. There has been some studies that imply that men are more naturally inclined to roam than woman who favor dedicated relationships. I think there are issues of stability and equality in a relationship involving more than two partners but that simply says that a true polymarriage is harder to achieve not that it is impossible.

 

[Stardreamer]

We treat joining a church and being black, under the law -- they're both protected. And that's the only measure here: something that sets some people apart from others. Wanting more than one spouse sets people apart from the rest, just as being gay sets people apart from the rest, just as being Catholic sets people apart from the rest.

You can choose to be monogamous, but not who you're attracted to? Well, then you can choose to marry a woman, regardless of who you're attracted to.

Yes but that does not mean that all associations are protected to the same level, racial characteristics and religious association are considered special categories requiring special protection under the law. You do not get the same level of protection under the law of your right to join the high school cheerleading squad.

Because of its nature homosexuality being a fixed personality trait should be protected similarly to race. The civil rights cases for race and sexual orientation are similar but distinctly different just like monomarriage and polymarriage are. Which is the reason why even though racial marriages have been recognized as a right, we are still having to fight for the right to same sex marriage.

 

[Stardreamer]

As opposed to the Kardashian marriage of 29 days I suppose ? ...

Noone said that stability is assured in monomarriages, just that adding more people to the mix doesn't make it more likely or even equally likely.

 

[Stardreamer]

Falling in love isn't an issue here; it's the willing to spend a lifetime with them that is. That is, if marriage with one person is hard enough, especially when the kids are brought in, how much harder is marriage with two or more people? And then you have the cultural problems (lost boys, women being used as rewards) that are generally attached to it as well. It's not the falling in love that's a problem, it's the staying that is....

RG

Which is the issues related to the stability of marriage and its impacts on society. The issue of falling in love has to do with whether people who seek polymarriage are a unique group requiring civil rights protections on the same level as race and sexual orientation.

 

[Kulindahr]

Moving back to the original question, I don't think there is anything generally wrong with polygamy, some would even argue it is a more natural form of relationship and that Humans are not meant to be monogamous. Oddly I hear that argued more from the male side than females. There has been some studies that imply that men are more naturally inclined to roam than woman who favor dedicated relationships. I think there are issues of stability and equality in a relationship involving more than two partners but that simply says that a true polymarriage is harder to achieve not that it is impossible.

Whoa -- that brought up a strange one I encountered (in, of all places, Iowa): "Communal marriage". This group of people all considered themselves married to each other, or at least all the guys wedded to all the gals. Each man had a "primary wife", who lived with him, but all the women in the community were his wives, too, regardless of the primary husband. They claimed it worked quite well; any man was free to "dally", as they called it, with any woman, and there was no jealousy.

The bizarre aspect was that there was clearly Mennonite influence to the community, yet they'd arrived at that. I talked to one of the younger wives, who mentioned that there were more wives than husbands; I never did get how that worked.

But if they liked it, and were all consenting, I'm not going to complain -- in fact I'll applaud them for being different from the norm.
Weird, though. And the husband I talked to said to them it seemed natural.