So what's wrong with polygamy, anyway?

[Kulindahr]

Just as the biblical view of "one man one woman" does not matter to the law in terms of making marriage only monogamously heterosexual, so to does the Koranic view of "four wives for every husband" not matter to the law in terms of providing support for polygamous unions.

We're basing marriage on the quality of the relationships involved and in the public good that comes from supporting them. Until it is clear what the nature of the polygamous union is, and until it is clear what the public interest is in supporting it, then it will not happen.

The public interest is in honoring human rights.

Marriage is a matter of freedom of association. If the government decides to provide benefits to one kind of association and not another, it's engaged in discrimination. Discrimination is against the public interest. Liberty and equality are always assumed to be in the public interest until shown otherwise -- and that's as it should be, because the government's only legitimate purpose is upholding liberty and equality.

One of the biggest arguments gays have made for same-sex marriage is to be with the one they love. Well, what if it isn't just one person you love -- is that love to be penalized, just because it's different?

 

[refujiunderground]

as long as it's two consenting adults that are aware of what they're doing, let them do it. separation between church and state. the only time the state should intervene with marriage is when it involves a party that can't consent(someone under 18, an animal, someone who cannot think for themselves properly such as a mentally challenged person or someone who is clearly insane and etc).

 

[pat grimshaw]

@ post 26 jerks like him is why I get so angry with the wimpy PC laws in my country.
You Americans need to be vigilant so you don't get screwed like Britain, Australia and Europe are being right now~

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...uburb-worrying-social-moral-implications.html

 

[Kulindahr]

This is an interesting viewpoint but one that does not hold much weight. People can easily say what public good comes from supporting same sex marriages? The public interest shouldn't be involved in the marriage of a couple, or two or more people (as I don't think polygamy should be illegal).

The public interest isn't relevant.

Public interest comes in, in law, only on the negative side: if clear harm to the public can be shown, there's a good argument for a legitimate interest in limiting something. But that harm has to be systemic, not random.

The public interest was very much involved in the instance given in post no.# 14. The public taxpayers are paying for the food and shelter of one husband, two wives and multiple children.

That has nothing to do with marriage, and everything to do with fraud.

 

[Kulindahr]

@StarCrasher and RobinGoodfellow:

no more arguing about what the Bible says, please, or I'll have this thread labeled on-topic and ask for any more such posts to be deleted.

 

[Kulindahr]

as long as it's two consenting adults that are aware of what they're doing, let them do it. separation between church and state. the only time the state should intervene with marriage is when it involves a party that can't consent(someone under 18, an animal, someone who cannot think for themselves properly such as a mentally challenged person or someone who is clearly insane and etc).

There's some good points. Religious liberty is a big one -- and it's one to support gay marriage, too, because Hawaiian and other Polynesian cultures had it.

The other is the limited mental capability. I know a gal who's mentally about the equivalent of a fifth grader, who is married. She had to go to court to establish that she knew what she was doing before the marriage license was issued.

But but those are matters of self-ownership: the government doesn't own us, so it has no business telling us who, or how many, we can marry. What it does have is an interest in making sure that a marriage isn't violating anyone's self-ownership, which in this case means being sure that the parties involved can actually consent.

 

[Kulindahr]

I fail to see where polygamy is a threat to the public interest though.

That's why I pointed out the "systemic" part of it. It's easy enough to dredge up examples of abusive situations involving polygamy, but to the law that's not relevant, in terms of public interest. What has to be shown is a harm that comes from the thing itself, that is, in this case, that harm arises by and from the nature of polygamy. Given some of the polygamous situations I'm aware of, that would be impossible to do.

Just one example from my dad's foreign experience is illuminating: in a small Asian area where he was for a time, whenever a man had multiple wives, the wives became the ones in charge of the property -- the husband couldn't make any decisions about the domestic property at all! His job was to be out working to support the wives, and any meddling in domestic affairs was taken to mean he wasn't paying attention to that task. It sounds to me like a tweak on the Muslim version of polygamy, where a man can have more wives if he can support them, but I'm not sure.

 

[fetaby]

There's nothing wrong with polygamy. There's something wrong with people.

 

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

There's nothing wrong with polygamy. There's something wrong with people.

haaaaaaaaaaa

ya got not say dat

haaaaaaaaaaaaa

ooh ma ankles

haaaaaaaa

 

[oakpope]

I think we can't say in the one hand that marriage between same sex couples is valid because it is based on love of two consenting adult, and on the other hand say that polygamy where more than two people are in equal love with each other and want to make it official legally are not right.
The difficulty being sure that all party are equally wanting it and that nobody is abused by the "polymarriage".

Love which is not destructive or abusive can express itself in way more than one way, and who could dare say which way is better than another ? (apart from some foolish religious bigots who haven't begun to understand the meaning of concepts laid by so illuminated minds that they had to make parables, symbolic ridden sentences to be meaningful for thousand of years without the need to address problem like car or nuclear fission). What is so difficult to understand in "love thy neighbour like thyself" or "love thy enemies as thy friends" ?

 

[palbert]

I fail to see where polygamy is a threat to the public interest though.

It's not. Their children are. Let the polygamists escrow (tithe) the monies to take care of the social needs of their children. (NOTE: Let the non-polygamist couples do likewise.) Self-ownership begins at home.

 

[Wafflecakes]

It's not. Their children are. Let the polygamists escrow (tithe) the monies to take care of the social needs of their children. (NOTE: Let the non-polygamist couples do likewise.) Self-ownership begins at home.

What you are saying really has nothing to do with polygamy and everything to do with the nutjobs practicing it nowadays.

 

[bankside]

There is a difference between forbidding a relationship and providing it with the status and benefits of marriage.

Since 1967 homosexuality has been legal in canada, thus there is no impediment to a relationship and the state quite properly does not intervene. However that is not the same thing as positive recognition through marriage. The only reason possible for the state to make such a recognition is because it's in the public interest. Thus the state acknowledges both heterosexual and homosexual relationships through civil marriage because of the benefit to society in doing so.

Since the late 90's, group sex, swingers clubs, bathhouses, involving consenting adults, have also been found to be legal. Thus people are at liberty to configure their relationships as they please and their human rights are not infringed. If any of those formulations create a public good, they will be recognised in the law of marriage.

Incidentally do they make beds big enough for that? Is there an "Emperor" sized bed?

 

[palbert]

What you are saying really has nothing to do with polygamy and everything to do with the nutjobs practicing it nowadays.

NOTE: I included the secular religionists in with the polygamists. I see no reason why I should have the pleasure of raising everyone's children.

 

[Kulindahr]

There is a difference between forbidding a relationship and providing it with the status and benefits of marriage.

Yes -- it's called government discrimination, and it's immoral.

Incidentally do they make beds big enough for that? Is there an "Emperor" sized bed?

There's an "NBA" size bed, but I think that's mostly length.

 

[Benvolio]

How many men can afford to support multiple wives and their children?
Not a good idea but I would point out that if a man had one wife and a dozen live in girl friends with children, it would be legal. It is only when he marries two that it becomes illegal.

 

[PolterGUYst]

I have nothing against polygamy. Yes, it makes things much more complex, but that's their business. Anything that takes place between consenting adults should not be illegal. My opinion is as simple as that.

 

[Kulindahr]

I have nothing against polygamy. Yes, it makes things much more complex, but that's their business. Anything that takes place between consenting adults should not be illegal. My opinion is as simple as that.

Inscribe that about the Speaker's chair in the House of Representatives.

 

[Stardreamer]

I have no problem with polygamy IF you can make it work. In physics/engineering the triangle is the beginning of stability and strength, a two legged stool doesn't work very well. But in relationships the triangle is the beginning of instability. If a group of people can develop a family relationship where all are consenting adults and EQUAL in their feelings and power then more power to them. I think such a group is exceedingly rare though.

Since one of the purposes of civil marriage is to promote the formation of STABLE family units as a foundation of society, society has a vested interest in avoiding the inherent inequalities of polygamous marriages.

The civil and legal comparisons of same sex marriage and polygamous marriage is misleading though. There is civil inequality in bans against same sex marriage that doesn't exist in polygamous marriages.

Same sex bans isolate a group of citizens and deny them a privilege and right that other citizens enjoy. Thus there is a clear inequality in how same sex couples are treated.

A ban on polygamous marriages is not the same because the ban is applied to all citizens equally. That is not to say whether the ban is right or not but it is not the same as the inequality that is imposed on same sex couples. Such a narrow inequality MUST be justified by a serious and immediate impact on society.

What we have seen in the prop 8 trial and others that such an impact does not exist so the state has no real justification to ban same sex marriages. There may however be such a justification in polygamous marriages due to the possible inherent instability of those relationships and the impact they would have on society and the children of those relationships.

 

[Kulindahr]

Since one of the purposes of civil marriage is to promote the formation of STABLE family units as a foundation of society, society has a vested interest in avoiding the inherent inequalities of polygamous marriages.

Marriage is a matter of decision by individuals about committing their lives to each other. It is not a creature of government.

And I have yet to see anyone demonstrate that there are "inherent inequalities" in polygamous marriages.

A ban on polygamous marriages is not the same because the ban is applied to all citizens equally. That is not to say whether the ban is right or not but it is not the same as the inequality that is imposed on same sex couples. Such a narrow inequality MUST be justified by a serious and immediate impact on society.

This is just like the dorks who said that gays are free to marry, just like straights -- just find a woman.

It isn't applied equally to everybody: it doesn't apply to those not interested in marrying more than one person at all, but it discriminates against those who do.