Polygamy

[Angel Androgynous]

I don't understand why it's not legalized. Oh and by polygamy I mean that women can have multiple spouses as well as men. If a few people want to get married, why not let them? Sure there might be jealousies and whatnot, but you know, I'm jealous of girls who wear huge diamond rings. They haven't made those illegal yet.... :D
Oh and those people are choosing to enter that social contract, no one is making them. If a trio believes that they can live together and have babies and whatnot, then why not let them all get married? :P Especially if they love each other. Besides, being polygamous is in nature! :D

If YOU want to be exclusive to one person and that one person exclusive only to you, well see, that are YOUR needs. There are other people in the world. (:
Ahem, it's a simple solution for those who are against polygamy:
Be monogamous. Seeeee? Simple! C:
Oh and just because it isn't traditional in your religion/tradition, does not mean that other people can't practice their tradition either.... Like Islam...and Mormonism used to be polygamous until the big scary government went like: NO.


What? I think it'll be cool to have two hubbies. xD :wub:
(After I experienced the whole "lovey dovey" first love feeling)
Heck then one of the hubbies can have a wifey! We'd be one big family! :yes:
And it would be something new to experience! Hehe. ^_^
(Though I am about 80% sure it won't happen, [me having 2 hubbies, I mean] but hey that option should be open for people!)

[PerpetualImperfexion]

I'm pretty sure religion inspired this. In "Jesus Time", for lack of better term, MEN had hundreds of wives. This probably has something to do with God wanting his people to have as many children as possible. The reason women didn't have multiple husbands was because a women can only be pregnant nine months at a time, where as a guy would be able to have as many children as he wanted depending on how many wives he had. Perhaps this is why men are so degrading toward women. Maybe that's why its illegal?

PS - When I refer to God wanting his people to have as many children as possible I meant that's what the bible said. So it was out of religious customs this was done.

[Angel Androgynous]

I'm pretty sure religion inspired this. In "Jesus Time", for lack of better term, MEN had hundreds of wives. This probably has something to do with God wanting his people to have as many children as possible. The reason women didn't have multiple husbands was because a women can only be pregnant nine months at a time, where as a guy would be able to have as many children as he wanted depending on how many wives he had. Perhaps this is why men are so degrading toward women. Maybe that's why its illegal?
But if polygamy was an option for both men and women?
Oh and I think women should have their little try at polygamy in history :P (Since it was available only to men)

[PerpetualImperfexion]

But if polygamy was an option for both men and women?
Oh and I think women should have their little try at polygamy in history :P (Since it was available only to men)

Well back then it was done for a practical purpose, population growth. Now a days it would only be done because of sexual preference. And we all know how the government reacts to those two words.

[Angel Androgynous]

Well back then it was done for a practical purpose, population growth. Now a days it would only be done because of sexual preference. And we all know how the government reacts to those two words.

*sigh* So true. They get their panties in a twist. If consenting adults wanna get married, I seriously see nothing wrong with that. :|
Just cuz monogamous marriage is a tradition, there is no reason why we can't change it and open the option of polygamy.


Burning suspected witches at stake was also a tradition
And piracy.
Do we follow those traditions of burning at stake and stealing a ship's gold? Hmm... not last time I checked. (:

[PerpetualImperfexion]

Just a side note, don't MOST animals mate for life? Where is polygamy found in nature?

[Angel Androgynous]

Just a side note, don't MOST animals mate for life? Where is polygamy found in nature?

Lions, Bonobos, Mice...etc. :P
Oh and I think gorillas.
And chickens....also some species that were thought to be monogamous are actually promiscuous...

[KylieEatWorld]

Let's get gay marriage and pot legalized first. If we're gonna be all about choice let's work on one goal at a time.

I see nothing wrong with making it legal. However, I would never partake in a polygamous relationship nor be in a relationship where my husband thought he could get away with it.

[Angel Androgynous]

Let's get gay marriage and pot legalized first. If we're gonna be all about choice let's work on one goal at a time.

I see nothing wrong with making it legal. However, I would never partake in a polygamous relationship nor be in a relationship where my husband thought he could get away with it.

Of course! Haha this is just a little...conversation. To see where the public stands on this. Who knows maybe when we have kids, this will be the thing to legalize!

[Kahn]

Of course! Haha this is just a little...conversation. To see where the public stands on this. Who knows maybe when we have kids, this will be the thing to legalize!

I doubt it. Considering I know a few people who would support it, it just doesn't seem right. More bad can come out of it than good. Whether or not you like it, there will be jealousy. People will fight, and usually that results in something going from bad to worse. I don't see a way this could work.

[Angel Androgynous]

I doubt it. Considering I know a few people who would support it, it just doesn't seem right. More bad can come out of it than good. Whether or not you like it, there will be jealousy. People will fight, and usually that results in something going from bad to worse. I don't see a way this could work.
This is your opinion and I respect it. (:
Of course there will be jealousy! There is jealousy in monogamous relationships too. :P
However if consenting adults wanna get married and they feel like things could work out: Why not?

People fight for money, inheritance, jobs, property, food, land, religion, etc. etc. No one made that illegal. All those things mentioned have caused wars. Polygamy didn't last time I checked...(:

[Kahn]

This is your opinion and I respect it. (:
Of course there will be jealousy! There is jealousy in monogamous relationships too. :P
However if consenting adults wanna get married and they feel like things could work out: Why not?

People fight for money, inheritance, jobs, property, food, land, religion, etc. etc. No one made that illegal. All those things mentioned have caused wars. Polygamy didn't last time I checked...(:

Considering it's already legal, this conversation isn't needed. It's just a matter of public policy, and some groups practice it freely. I researched a little, considering I know nothing about this. Also,

Crime rates, according to the authors, tend to be higher in polygynous societies. Worse, "high-sex-ratio societies are governable only by authoritarian regimes capable of suppressing violence at home and exporting it abroad through colonization or war." In medieval Portugal, "the regime would send bare branches on foreign adventures of conquest and colonization." (An equivalent today may be jihad.) In 19th-century China, where as many as 25 percent of men were unable to marry, "these young men became natural recruits for bandit gangs and local militia," which nearly toppled the government. In what is now Taiwan, unattached males fomented regular revolts and became "entrepreneurs of violence."

[Angel Androgynous]

Considering it's already legal, this conversation isn't needed. It's just a matter of public policy, and some groups practice it freely. I researched a little, considering I know nothing about this. Also,

Hmm that information is really interesting, may I know where you got it from? ^_^
Also, that quote is talking about medieval Portugal and 19th century China. Domestic abuse these days can be fixed with a divorce, and a lawsuit. What crime rates? (I mean, what are the crimes?) If it is domestic abuse, say a wife ran away so you beat her, is that not more leaning towards religion/tradition because wives are "supposed to be" obedient? If polygamy these days was used more as a sexual preference rather than tradition/religion, I do not think that there will be much crime. (And if there is abuse, then it can be reported and taken care of)

[Kahn]

Hmm that information is really interesting, may I know where you got it from? ^_^
Also, that quote is talking about medieval Portugal and 19th century China. Domestic abuse these days can be fixed with a divorce, and a lawsuit. What crime rates? (I mean, what are the crimes?) If it is domestic abuse, say a wife ran away so you beat her, is that not more leaning towards religion/tradition because wives are "supposed to be" obedient? If polygamy these days was used more as a sexual preference rather than tradition/religion, I do not think that there will be much crime. (And if there is abuse, then it can be reported and taken care of)

To understand why, begin with two crucial words. The first is "marriage." Group love (sometimes called polyamory) is already legal, and some people freely practice it. Polygamy asserts not a right to love several others but a right to marry them all. Because a marriage license is a state grant, polygamy is a matter of public policy, not just of personal preference.

Here's the entire article. (http://reason.com/archives/2006/04/03/one-man-many-wives-big-problem)

The crime rates are high in general. Anything from theft to rebelling. The reason for this is because they're not attached, as the article states. What's holding them back? Certainly not their families, as they're young men now and can make the right decisions. The reason they don't have a part, or multiple since we're talking about a polygamous society, is because he happens to be one of the growing unlucky ones.

What I mean by that is the fact that he happens to have no partners. This is because when one man marries two women, another man marries no women. When one man marries three women, two others don't marry. As funny as it may sound, losing the right to marry could hurt you emotionally. It skews the marriage market.

Sexual imbalance in the marriage market has no good social consequences and many grim ones.

Two political scientists, Valerie M. Hudson and Andrea M. den Boer, ponder those consequences in their 2004 book Bare Branches: Security Implications of Asia's Surplus Male Population. Summarizing their findings in a Washington Post article, they write: "Scarcity of women leads to a situation in which men with advantages — money, skills, education — will marry, but men without such advantages — poor, unskilled, illiterate — will not. A permanent subclass of bare branches [unmarriageable men] from the lowest socioeconomic classes is created. In China and India, for example, by the year 2020 bare branches will make up 12 to 15 percent of the young adult male population."

It has many disadvantages over the advantages. You seem to only present one, and that is fulfilling somebodies sexual preference. Don't worry. If you want to get married to three seperate people, it's legal, but statistics show that monogamous societies do better, behave better, and thrive better than polygamous societies. In my opinion, that's better than having sex with three people.

[Angel Androgynous]

Here's the entire article. (http://reason.com/archives/2006/04/03/one-man-many-wives-big-problem)

The crime rates are high in general. Anything from theft to rebelling. The reason for this is because they're not attached, as the article states. What's holding them back? Certainly not their families, as they're young men now and can make the right decisions. The reason they don't have a part, or multiple since we're talking about a polygamous society, is because he happens to be one of the growing unlucky ones.

What I mean by that is the fact that he happens to have no partners. This is because when one man marries two women, another man marries no women. When one man marries three women, two others don't marry. As funny as it may sound, losing the right to marry could hurt you emotionally. It skews the marriage market.





It has many disadvantages over the advantages. You seem to only present one, and that is fulfilling somebodies sexual preference. Don't worry. If you want to get married to three seperate people, it's legal, but statistics show that monogamous societies do better, behave better, and thrive better than polygamous societies. In my opinion, that's better than having sex with three people.

There are more advantages than sexual preference. For one thing, in the USA constitution, there is freedom of choice and privacy.

The law should recognise freedom of choice. If I want to marry more than one person, why should the state stop me? If my partner agrees to the addition to the family, then why should the state presume to say it knows better?We have a right to privacy, and a right to non-interference in our family life. These are not absolute rights, but they are important: breach of them needs to be contemplated with extreme care and is not merited here.

Also, more people in a marriage can provide for the family....and


Family units are not necessarily undermined by the addition of extra parental figures. Rather, more providers can make great contributions to the home. Preconceived ideas about jealousy are defeated by the happy existence often developed by members of families at ease with one another in the routine and love of everyday life in stable polygamous homes. Polygamy presents heterosexual people with the opportunity to have partners in life of their own sex, within the family home, with whom they work and to whom they are bound by something even closer than friendship. Many bad things happen in monogamous marriages. Hierarchies exist in monogamous families - between husband and wife, between siblings. That they similarly have the capacity to exist in polygamous marriages isn’t a true argument against such unions, capable as they are of producing stable homes, just as monogamous marriages do. Some marriages are good, some bad - that’s true of both monogamy and polygamy: and for those involved - partners, children, society - a good polygamous marriage is better than a bad monogamous one.

:yes:

Also,
Polygamy makes it so that there is a less chance of adultery and cheating because there can be sexual exploration within the family unit, therefore putting less strain on the marriage.

[Korashk]

I don't understand why it's not legalized.
There are hundreds of rights granted by marriage that simply can not be practically shared between more than two people. What people who think like you tend not to realize is that marriage in a legal context has NOTHING to do with love, or jealousy, or feelings, or sexual activity. It is a contract designed to bind people together and grant them rights guaranteed by the state.

[Angel Androgynous]

There are hundreds of rights granted by marriage that simply can not be practically shared between more than two people.
May I have an example of a law that cannot be shared between more than two people? ^_^

[Korashk]

May I have an example of a law that cannot be shared between more than two people? ^_^
I didn't say they couldn't be shared, technically most of them could. I said they can not be practically shared. This is because to have them shared would likely bring about the downfall of government. Too many benefits going out while not enough revenue coming in. List at bottom.

The only rights that can't be shared is next-of-kin status for emergency medical decisions and automatic power of attorney for spouses.

Can't be practically shared:
Larger benefits under veteran's disability Larger benefits under Supplemental Security income Larger benefits under disability payments Larger benefits under medicade Property tax exemptions Income tax deductions Exemptions from unemployment tax Tax free transfer of property Spousal privilege in court cases (ie. don't have to testify if hubby or wifey comits a crime) Right to ex-spouses Social Security pension Right to ex-spouses veteran's pension Right to ex-spouses survivor benefits Right to ex-spouses $100,000 KIA benefit Right to ex-spouses healthcare benefits

I could go on. None of these can be shared because it would cause so much devastation to the government that it would likely fall into ruin.

[Angel Androgynous]

I didn't say they couldn't be shared, technically most of them could. I said they can not be practically shared. This is because to have them shared would likely bring about the downfall of government. Too many benefits going out while not enough revenue coming in. List at bottom.

The only rights that can't be shared is next-of-kin status for emergency medical decisions and automatic power of attorney for spouses.

Can't be practically shared:
Larger benefits under veteran's disability Larger benefits under Supplemental Security income Larger benefits under disability payments Larger benefits under medicade Property tax exemptions Income tax deductions Exemptions from unemployment tax Tax free transfer of property Spousal privilege in court cases (ie. don't have to testify if hubby or wifey comits a crime) Right to ex-spouses Social Security pension Right to ex-spouses veteran's pension Right to ex-spouses survivor benefits Right to ex-spouses $100,000 KIA benefit Right to ex-spouses healthcare benefits

I could go on. None of these can be shared because it would cause so much devastation to the government that it would likely fall into ruin.
Wouldn't that be if the majority of marriages were polygamous ones? I don't think that the majority of people want to be in polygamous marriages...O.o

[huginnmuninn]

instead why dont we just stop expecting our partners to be our sole sexual counterpart and let people have sex with whoever they want. sounds simpler to me

[Angel Androgynous]

instead why dont we just stop expecting our partners to be our sole sexual counterpart and let people have sex with whoever they want. sounds simpler to me

Haha, I agree, that is simpler. xD

[The Joker]

I doubt it. Considering I know a few people who would support it, it just doesn't seem right. More bad can come out of it than good. Whether or not you like it, there will be jealousy. People will fight, and usually that results in something going from bad to worse. I don't see a way this could work.

It depends on each person. If there is a fair and balanced agreement where they make sure they are all in agreement about the relationships involved, then it can work. I know of a few people that are in open relationships that work so successfully it makes you wonder why it's not more popular. It's different than a husband cheating on his wife, or even a man with multiple wives. If they were to all know each other, trust each other, and were to be open with each other, it would work. Of course, I do understand the kind of thing involved in certain religions and cults involved with polygamy...I am not referring to that. I'm talking about people who have several different needs that need to be fulfilled, needs that can be fulfilled with multiple people. Instead of an intense anger anytime a spouse is naturally attracted to someone other than their own spouse, it's an understanding.

There is definitely a major difference between polygamy (based on cultural/religious traditions) and open relationships built out of wants/needs.

[Angel Androgynous]

As The Joker has said, it depends on the people. Domestic violence, war, and crime happens with monogamous marriages, and heck without marriages. The act of polygamy itself does not hurt anyone, same with religion. Religion isn't outlawed and I can provide statistics from the past of witch trials, the crusades, and heck, the present of religious extremists. Does that mean that all religious people are like this? No. It depends on the person. And if the person is reported to the authorities, the problem will be solved.

[Kahn]

As The Joker has said, it depends on the people. Domestic violence, war, and crime happens with monogamous marriages, and heck without marriages. The act of polygamy itself does not hurt anyone, same with religion. Religion isn't outlawed and I can provide statistics from the past of witch trials, the crusades, and heck, the present of religious extremists. Does that mean that all religious people are like this? No. It depends on the person. And if the person is reported to the authorities, the problem will be solved.

You are missing the point. There's enough evidence supporting me that over time, regardless of religion, a polygamous society will be doing worse than a monogamous society.

And if you look, practicing religion actually does hurt people. It keeps them from pursuing opportunities because of their beliefs, such as the study of evolution. In my experience with Catholics, almost all of them disregard evolution, regardless on their knowledge of it and how many Catholic leaders have said that evolution is in fact, fact. Almost all major religions prohibit something good, and that in itself is keeping someone back.

Christianity itself set science back a good 700 years, and in religious wars itself over 800,000,000 (800 million) (http://bookrate.wordpress.com/2006/07/22/deaths-over-history-religious-vs-nonreligous/) people have died.

[Angel Androgynous]

You are missing the point. There's enough evidence supporting me that over time, regardless of religion, a polygamous society will be doing worse than a monogamous society.

And if you look, practicing religion actually does hurt people. It keeps them from pursuing opportunities because of their beliefs, such as the study of evolution. In my experience with Catholics, almost all of them disregard evolution, regardless on their knowledge of it and how many Catholic leaders have said that evolution is in fact, fact. Almost all major religions prohibit something good, and that in itself is keeping someone back.

Christianity itself set science back a good 700 years, and in religious wars itself over 800,000,000 (800 million) (http://bookrate.wordpress.com/2006/07/22/deaths-over-history-religious-vs-nonreligous/) people have died.

And yet religion has not been outlawed yet?

Advantages

Supports of polygamy say that the law should offer people the freedom of choice to love and marry more than one individual. If both spouses agree to the addition of family members, then the state should respect their wishes. The state should also respect those in favor of polygamous relationships the right to privacy. Polygamy increases the demand for woman as spouses and polyandry increases the demand for men as spouses. Women are still able to choose their partners and are not forced into polygamous relationships. Polygamy also offers the husband more prestige, economic stability, and sexual companionship. It also offers wives a shared labor burden (cooking, cleaning, caring for children) and an institutionalized role where an abundance of unmarried women may otherwise exist. Wives who wish to work outside the home are also offered the advantage of their children being cared for by family members instead of placed in day cares with strangers. Polygamous relationships also offer the possibly of additional income and enhancement of the family budget while reducing dependency on state aid or welfare. To maintain harmony within the polygamous family, one wife is usually given seniority and each wife and their children reside in separate living quarters, providing the families security as well as privacy. Because there are so many spouses and avenues for sexual exploration, the desire to commit adultery is decreased. This can lead to reduced stress on family-life and minimize the occurrence of divorce. Supporters of polygamy believe that the notion that an individual can only love one person is false.

Also, the statistics, are they not about societies where the majority of people are polygamous/from quite some time ago?
If polygamy is practiced by say... eh... barely 5% out of 100% marriages, I don't think society will be negatively affected much. (:

[Kahn]

Also, the statistics, are they not about societies where the majority of people are polygamous/from quite some time ago?
If polygamy is practiced by say... eh... barely 5% out of 100% marriages, I don't think society will be negatively affected much. (:

When things like this are publically accepted, especially on a national scale, I guarantee more than 5% of the population will commit to a polygamous relationship. And think, you're still affecting the marriage market. That 5% could take away 10% of the population, considering how many partners each
relationship holds.

Religion hasn't been outlawed because it's gripped the world for a millennia. That's like asking why war hasn't been outlawed. It's just become human nature.

[Angel Androgynous]

Having more than one spouse is also nature, however your points are very valid. (:

(I support your statement on religion 100%, by the way xD)

Do you think the marriage market will be affected negatively?

[Kahn]

Do you think the marriage market will be affected negatively?

If polygamy became bigger? Of course.

[Angel Androgynous]

In what exact way?

[Kahn]

In what exact way?

Well in a polygamous society, women wouldn't want to marry a poor, weak man, would they? A rich man could have as many wives as he wanted. Let's say, 15. That's 15 other men that can't have a wife. Now imagine a very powerful man, like Bill Gates. If polygamy was accepted, what would stop him from not having 30 wives, or 40 wives? That's 30 or 40 other men that don't get wives. Now imagine all of the other powerful men, then work your way down the ladder until you hit the bottom. How many women will want to spend their lives with the poorer majority? None, thus leaving the poorer end of the population essentially marriage-less.

[Iris]

Advantages

Supports of polygamy say that the law should offer people the freedom of choice to love and marry more than one individual. If both spouses agree to the addition of family members, then the state should respect their wishes. The state should also respect those in favor of polygamous relationships the right to privacy. Polygamy increases the demand for woman as spouses and polyandry increases the demand for men as spouses. Women are still able to choose their partners and are not forced into polygamous relationships. Polygamy also offers the husband more prestige, economic stability, and sexual companionship. It also offers wives a shared labor burden (cooking, cleaning, caring for children) and an institutionalized role where an abundance of unmarried women may otherwise exist. Wives who wish to work outside the home are also offered the advantage of their children being cared for by family members instead of placed in day cares with strangers. Polygamous relationships also offer the possibly of additional income and enhancement of the family budget while reducing dependency on state aid or welfare. To maintain harmony within the polygamous family, one wife is usually given seniority and each wife and their children reside in separate living quarters, providing the families security as well as privacy. Because there are so many spouses and avenues for sexual exploration, the desire to commit adultery is decreased. This can lead to reduced stress on family-life and minimize the occurrence of divorce. Supporters of polygamy believe that the notion that an individual can only love one person is false.

I wasn't going to post anything here at first because I was still torn over whether I agree with legalizing it or not. But then I read this quote and it struck me how sexist it sounds. Basically a large part of it is saying polygamy is good because the man will get prestige by having multiple wives and the wives will have help cooking, cleaning and taking care of the kids. That is so sexist. And one wife being given "seniority"?? That sounds terrible! That's not love! Reading that quote I decided against legalizing polygamy because I believe the scenario above might actually be the case if it is legalized, and there's already enough sexism without regressing to a time when the more wives you had to cook, clean and pop out kids for you, the more prestigious you were.

At the very least if you're going to try to prove that polygamy is beneficial, don't use that quote. It makes it sound terrible, in my opinion.

[Angel Androgynous]

I wasn't going to post anything here at first because I was still torn over whether I agree with legalizing it or not. But then I read this quote and it struck me how sexist it sounds. Basically a large part of it is saying polygamy is good because the man will get prestige by having multiple wives and the wives will have help cooking, cleaning and taking care of the kids. That is so sexist. And one wife being given "seniority"?? That sounds terrible! That's not love! Reading that quote I decided against legalizing polygamy because I believe the scenario above might actually be the case if it is legalized, and there's already enough sexism without regressing to a time when the more wives you had to cook, clean and pop out kids for you, the more prestigious you were.

At the very least if you're going to try to prove that polygamy is beneficial, don't use that quote. It makes it sound terrible, in my opinion.

Sorry, I hope you realize I am a female. xD
Well if you replace the fact that the quote is about women having to work with it being an equal effort with all partners, and if we replace "polygamy" with group marriage (as in women have multiple husbands too) then that would be beneficial. (As in men look after the kids too) I didn't mean to sound... reverse sexist by using that quote.
And if there is no "seniority" and it's just working together to raise kids in a loving home, what is wrong with that? (So sorry for the confusion)

[Iris]

Sorry, I hope you realize I am a female.

I didn't mean you literally.

Well if you replace the fact that the quote is about women having to work with it being an equal effort with all partners, and if we replace "polygamy" with group marriage (as in women have multiple husbands too) then that would be beneficial. (As in men look after the kids too) I didn't mean to sound... reverse sexist by using that quote.
And if there is no "seniority" and it's just working together to raise kids in a loving home, what is wrong with that? (So sorry for the confusion)

With all those corrections it's a completely different quote. However the original quote made me see how, in a practical sense, polygamy probably wouldn't work. Theoretically it might sound great, but at the end of the day I think guys would be far less willing to be one of many men in a relationship, which would cause a huge imbalance. Plus the system would be abused (like all systems are), and I'm really nervous as to what would happen when it is. The whole system might just turn into a way for men to increase sexual gratification and repress women. Or maybe women may use it to repress men. Especially with the whole "seniority" thing. You might take it off the table here, but if polygamy is legalized, one spouse receiving seniority might actually be the case, which I think is a terrible thing. To never truly be loved by your husband/wife as much as another wife/husband....Jealousy would be rampant.

I'm also considering the fact that pretty much every civilization (and religion) that allowed polygamy repressed women in some way, and were generally sexist. Polygamy might even end up objectifying the opposite gender, by having a whole bunch of people to have sex with. It might just turn into one giant orgy instead of a marriage. :/

I'm obviously assuming a lot here, but these are my fears about polygamy. I just don't think it would work out. It's like communism in my mind-great on paper, but terrible in practice.

[Angel Androgynous]

Hm I guess you two are right in a way... I'll have to think about my response for a little bit.

[flumeendeavors]

I completely agree! Why should it be any of our bussiness if someone is married to 4 different people? I mean seriously...its a religion thing and we all have a right to practice our own religions and it just so happens that polygamy is a practice of religion. I think its ridiculous that we arent allowed that right. If that's what people want to do then let them!

[Sith Lord 13]

Just a side note, don't MOST animals mate for life? Where is polygamy found in nature?

Actually most are polyamorous.

I doubt it. Considering I know a few people who would support it, it just doesn't seem right. More bad can come out of it than good. Whether or not you like it, there will be jealousy. People will fight, and usually that results in something going from bad to worse. I don't see a way this could work.

Jealousy arises in many situations, the balance should be in favor of the right to self determination here.

Here's the entire article. (http://reason.com/archives/2006/04/03/one-man-many-wives-big-problem)

The crime rates are high in general. Anything from theft to rebelling. The reason for this is because they're not attached, as the article states. What's holding them back? Certainly not their families, as they're young men now and can make the right decisions. The reason they don't have a part, or multiple since we're talking about a polygamous society, is because he happens to be one of the growing unlucky ones.

What I mean by that is the fact that he happens to have no partners. This is because when one man marries two women, another man marries no women. When one man marries three women, two others don't marry. As funny as it may sound, losing the right to marry could hurt you emotionally. It skews the marriage market.





It has many disadvantages over the advantages. You seem to only present one, and that is fulfilling somebodies sexual preference. Don't worry. If you want to get married to three seperate people, it's legal, but statistics show that monogamous societies do better, behave better, and thrive better than polygamous societies. In my opinion, that's better than having sex with three people.

Unless the OP edited her post, it would remain balanced according to the OP's (and the only reasonable and fair way) to implement it, which would be to allow both genders to take multiple spouses.

The only rights that can't be shared is next-of-kin status for emergency medical decisions and automatic power of attorney for spouses.

Both can be shared, if opinions differ the court can decide, unless the spouse specifically names one of them for that power.

Can't be practically shared:
Larger benefits under veteran's disability
Larger benefits under Supplemental Security income
Larger benefits under disability payments
Larger benefits under medicade

All can be shared under different terms than it would normally be shared, with the normal payout going to the first spouse and each one there after getting a prorated additional amount.

Property tax exemptions
Income tax deductions
Exemptions from unemployment tax

Again, these can be adjusted for the appropriate number of people living in the house.

Tax free transfer of property

So long as there are no sham marriages (which can be investigated if suspicious activity comes up, as sometimes occurs with green card marriages), I don't see the danger here.

Spousal privilege in court cases (ie. don't have to testify if hubby or wifey comits a crime)

I fail to see the issue here.

Right to ex-spouses Social Security pension
Right to ex-spouses veteran's pension
Right to ex-spouses survivor benefits
Right to ex-spouses $100,000 KIA benefit
Right to ex-spouses healthcare benefits

These can be determined at appropriate quantities for increased size households.

You are missing the point. There's enough evidence supporting me that over time, regardless of religion, a polygamous society will be doing worse than a monogamous society.

And if you look, practicing religion actually does hurt people. It keeps them from pursuing opportunities because of their beliefs, such as the study of evolution. In my experience with Catholics, almost all of them disregard evolution, regardless on their knowledge of it and how many Catholic leaders have said that evolution is in fact, fact. Almost all major religions prohibit something good, and that in itself is keeping someone back.

Christianity itself set science back a good 700 years, and in religious wars itself over 800,000,000 (800 million) (http://bookrate.wordpress.com/2006/07/22/deaths-over-history-religious-vs-nonreligous/) people have died.

As religion proves, the fact that something can be injurious doesn't mean it should be banned.

When things like this are publically accepted, especially on a national scale, I guarantee more than 5% of the population will commit to a polygamous relationship. And think, you're still affecting the marriage market. That 5% could take away 10% of the population, considering how many partners each
relationship holds.

Religion hasn't been outlawed because it's gripped the world for a millennia. That's like asking why war hasn't been outlawed. It's just become human nature.

See above.

Well in a polygamous society, women wouldn't want to marry a poor, weak man, would they? A rich man could have as many wives as he wanted. Let's say, 15. That's 15 other men that can't have a wife. Now imagine a very powerful man, like Bill Gates. If polygamy was accepted, what would stop him from not having 30 wives, or 40 wives? That's 30 or 40 other men that don't get wives. Now imagine all of the other powerful men, then work your way down the ladder until you hit the bottom. How many women will want to spend their lives with the poorer majority? None, thus leaving the poorer end of the population essentially marriage-less.

See above.

[Angel Androgynous]

Sith is absolutely correct, you guys are only talking about only men having multiple wives and not women being able to have multiple spouses as well. In a group marriage, say two men and two women, there would be balance and no one will be repressed. Let's say Man 1 has a. Baby with woman 2 and runs off. Well that wouldn't be such a problem, because she doesn't hav to be a single mother now and she can work, her and the other two members can take care of the child together. It would be so much easier for her. Let's say they add another man to the group marriage. Now it's even more convenient providing for the child. Also, group marriages/polygamy doesn't only need to be used for religious reasons. Like I mentioned, it can be used for sexual satisfaction as well. You only brought up points of men having multiple wives, and not group marriages, or women having multiple husbands. If a group marriage is used for sexual gratification, I don't think there will be a problem of abuse. (Which happens quite a lot in monogomaus marriages and relationships as well...) Hell a lot can happen in any relationship. It's not the act of polygamy that's harming those people but they themselves. In polygamy there is no such rule as beat your husband or wife. There is no such rule as repress your husband/wife either. Just like in monogomaus relationships, the rules are, love them, support them, and be happy with them.

[Maxxie]

I don't like Polygamy for moral and personal reasons, but if other people feel like they need more than one spiritual partner then it's fine by me. Just don't shove it in my face.

[Angel Androgynous]

Ha ha no one shoves it in anyone's face. C:

I am like that with religion. It's fine, whatever, don't shove it in my face.

[Iris]

I still stand by my points of abuses in the system, jealousy, sexism (against women or men), past issues. Until I know that these things have little chance of occurring, I would not support polygamy.

[Angel Androgynous]

I still stand by my points of abuses in the system, jealousy, sexism (against women or men), past issues. Until I know that these things have little chance of occurring, I would not support polygamy.

Burning people at stake and stoning was also past issues.
We fixed it, why can't these issues that you speak of also be fixed?
Jealousy isn't illegal, and happens in almost every relationship. Polygamous or not.
If sexism happens, there is always something called a divorce... sexism isn't illegal either. It also happens in relationships. Polygamous or not.
These two issues can be easily fixed: Jealousy: With a balance of partners, two men and two women, for example.
Sexism, if it becomes a big problem and a strain on the relationship, can be fixed with divorce.

[dontcare97]

I don't like it because in some cases where the woman doesn't have a choice to go. Many girls were taken out their homes, forced into sex, and have babies back to back. That's not healthy at all. Also there is under aged girls being married to man three times their age. Incest is also a big problem as well. If there was away to regulate and protect the young girls in that situation than yes it should be legal.

[Angel Androgynous]

I don't like it because in some cases where the woman doesn't have a choice to go. Many girls were taken out their homes, forced into sex, and have babies back to back. That's not healthy at all. Also there is under aged girls being married to man three times their age. Incest is also a big problem as well. If there was away to regulate and protect the young girls in that situation than yes it should be legal.

I am pretty sure that there is a way to regulate this. And like I said, women may have many husbands too, or it can be a group marriage. I don't think there will be forced marriages, especially if it is regulated.

Besides one can be forced to marry into a monogamous marriage too, and there have been cases of that. Monogamous marriages aren't illegal.

[Sith Lord 13]

I don't like Polygamy for moral and personal reasons, but if other people feel like they need more than one spiritual partner then it's fine by me. Just don't shove it in my face.

Define shove it in your face. Would the three+ of them doing what normal married couples do be considered shoving it in your face?

I still stand by my points of abuses in the system, jealousy,

Jealousy happens in every relationship, mono or poly. Poly relationships are actually more stable, since if you can have relationships with other people, you're less likely to have affairs.

sexism (against women or men),

How does poly promote sexism?

past issues.

Define past issues.

Until I know that these things have little chance of occurring, I would not support polygamy.

Good to know that someone's expression of their sexual identity (and poly is as much a sexual identity as gay or bi) is contingent on your assurances.

I don't like it because in some cases where the woman doesn't have a choice to go. Many girls were taken out their homes, forced into sex, and have babies back to back. That's not healthy at all. Also there is under aged girls being married to man three times their age. Incest is also a big problem as well. If there was away to regulate and protect the young girls in that situation than yes it should be legal.

There is nothing about poly that has anything to do with that. It just so happens that some cults that practice poly also happen to practice those other behaviors. There is no real link between the two.

[dontcare97]

I am pretty sure that there is a way to regulate this. And like I said, women may have many husbands too, or it can be a group marriage. I don't think there will be forced marriages, especially if it is regulated.

Besides one can be forced to marry into a monogamous marriage too, and there have been cases of that. Monogamous marriages aren't illegal.

The reason why I said force because in Canda, where Polygamy is legal for religious reason only, there were many cases of that. Girls being kicked out of their homes and forced to push out babies they don't want. It's hard to report sexual abuse because no one will listen and the family wouldn't offer support inside the family. some girls are having are being married off as young as 12 to other families without help of the mom. The wives are know to have vicious hierarchies, seen a lot in Indian culture, that can lead to abuse and even death.

Even looking past all of that they are more complications then just sexual and physical abuse.

What if you go into a bisexual marriage where all the wives and husband intermarry? so instead of there being one partner with multiply spouses, all spouses are married to on another. If one want to get divorced from only one person in the marriage loop, how will it work?

How many is too many? We couldn't have a whole town intermarrying with one another producing thousands of off springs. What about custody battles? If a child has only genetically two parents but has five mothers and seven dads taken care

I'm not saying the notion of legal polygamy is bad but the reality might be. IT's onof them, who gets the child if one or more people divorce? the court would have to give it to the genetic parents, even if a young bride or groom took care of it. thing for religion but having it legal for everyone can cause some serious problems. Of course it isn't fair to the minority that could be in love with more than one person, but we just have to make do.

[Angel Androgynous]

The reason why I said force because in Canda, where Polygamy is legal for religious reason only, there were many cases of that. Girls being kicked out of their homes and forced to push out babies they don't want. It's hard to report sexual abuse because no one will listen and the family wouldn't offer support inside the family. some girls are having are being married off as young as 12 to other families without help of the mom. The wives are know to have vicious hierarchies, seen a lot in Indian culture, that can lead to abuse and even death.

Exactly. That is if polygamy IS for religious reasons only. If it isn't for religious reasons only, those things wouldn't be a problem. I think marriage should be between consenting people.
You are talking about religious polygamy, not polygamy where people want to get married to several people because of preferences and because that's just who they love and how they are. ^_^



Even looking past all of that they are more complications then just sexual and physical abuse.

What if you go into a bisexual marriage where all the wives and husband intermarry? so instead of there being one partner with multiply spouses, all spouses are married to on another. If one want to get divorced from only one person in the marriage loop, how will it work?

Group marriage. You are married to all of them. If you want a divorce, you have to divorce out of the group, I'm afraid. Either that, or maybe the person that you want to divorce everyone in the group wants to divorce? Or maybe you CAN divorce one person in the group marriage. (Let's say two boys and two girls and one girl wants to divorce boy 1. Fine, but you are still legally married to girl two and boy 2. Boy 1 is married to girl two and boy two, but not you.)


How many is too many? We couldn't have a whole town intermarrying with one another producing thousands of off springs. What about custody battles? If a child has only genetically two parents but has five mothers and seven dads taken care
Do you think a whole town intermarrying is realistic? O.o If a child has two parents, then those are their parents. The rest are helping to take care of them. What if these two parents are abusive? Then the child can be moved to another person (who is familiar to them) and the two parents can be divorced out of the group marriage. It's not that simple, but there are child battles in monogamous marriages too.


I'm not saying the notion of legal polygamy is bad but the reality might be. IT's onof them, who gets the child if one or more people divorce? the court would have to give it to the genetic parents, even if a young bride or groom took care of it. thing for religion but having it legal for everyone can cause some serious problems. Of course it isn't fair to the minority that could be in love with more than one person, but we just have to make do.
The court will only give it to the genetic parents if they are good parents.
Of course, it isn't fair.... but the government is supposed to treat people equally. What right do we have to stop three, four, or heck, even five people in love?

[Ben Michael]

I agree with your point but I personally wouldnt do it.

[Angel Androgynous]

Okay, well you don't have to do it. I probably wouldn't either. (I mean I have the fantasy but yeah xD) It would be a nice option for people who WOULD do it.

[Iris]

Burning people at stake and stoning was also past issues.

That's not what I meant, and those are not comparable. One of the worries I have is how in the past it only reinforced sexism, by objectifying women. Women were used for sex, babies and prestige. What if that happens again? What if having so many people to have sex with ends up objectifying them? Yes, the world has changed, and yes this can happen in a monogamous marriage, but the world is still sexist and I believe it's far more likelier to happen in polygamous marriages. I'm afraid that this'll turn into a way to abuse the opposite sex.

Jealousy isn't illegal, and happens in almost every relationship. Polygamous or not.

But there would be a lot more jealousy in a polygamous marriage, especially because of the seniority issue mentioned earlier. That is not a stable environment, for the people involved and possible children.

If sexism happens, there is always something called a divorce... sexism isn't illegal either. It also happens in relationships. Polygamous or not.

When sexism happens, it's not as simple as just getting a divorce. Divorce isn't simple. It leaves a huge emotional impact. Breaks a family apart. The divorce rate is already extremely high, polygamy would make it higher. Again, not a stable environment.

"sexism isn't illegal." Discriminating against the other sex is illegal, and that is what would happen. Even if it wasn't, that doesn't stop it from being wrong. I believe men will take advantage of polygamy and have loads of wives for use not love. Thinking there'll be a bunch of loving, caring people involved who love all the others equally is the ideal situation, which means in actuality it'll be rare. And yes, it is also found in monogamous marriages, but the extent of the damage would be much greater in a polygamous one.

These two issues can be easily fixed: Jealousy: With a balance of partners, two men and two women, for example.
Sexism, if it becomes a big problem and a strain on the relationship, can be fixed with divorce.

First of all, if these problems could be resolved, it definitely wouldn't be easy. It would actually be quite difficult, emotionally. Balancing partners isn't easy. You can't just pick people off the street. Especially since these marriages are supposed to have the same amount of love and devotion as monogamous marriages. Do you know how hard it is to find someone you wish to spend your entire life with? Let alone 3 people...And Divorce is never a "fix." it's a last resort. It should not be used so lightly.

Jealousy happens in every relationship, mono or poly. Poly relationships are actually more stable, since if you can have relationships with other people, you're less likely to have affairs.

Jealousy between the partners. And, again, jealousy in polygamy would be greater than jealousy in monogamy. There would be favorites, there would be "seniority." In most cases the love won't be distributed equally. And that's a very unstable environment.

How does poly promote sexism?

I believe one sex will use the other, for sexual gratification. The partners will become little more than sex toys. The world isn't at a place where everyone (or at least the vast majority) treats the other equally yet. Until that stage is reached, I don't think the world would be ready for polygamy. That might mean a century, or never.

Define past issues.

I'm also considering the fact that pretty much every civilization (and religion) that allowed polygamy repressed women in some way, and were generally sexist. Polygamy might even end up objectifying the opposite gender, by having a whole bunch of people to have sex with.

Past issues of sexism. Not all the attitudes towards women that existed in the past have changed. I'm worried about how that'll manifest in a polygamous marriage.

Good to know that someone's expression of their sexual identity (and poly is as much a sexual identity as gay or bi) is contingent on your assurances.

I'm voicing my worries because I'm afraid of how the people involved in polygamous marriages and society in general might suffer at the hands of polygamy. I'm saying this because I care about them. Notice my worries are not about morality or personal preferences, it's about the negative emotional impact polygamy might have. I'm not sticking to my views out of stubbornness or anything. I am open to being disproved. Go for it.

Side Note: religious polygamy has always been sexist. Things like men can have as many wives as they want and not vice versa combined with the sexism in religion in general is a dangerous mix. While a lot of polygamy wouldn't be religious, a lot would. That is worrisome.

Double side note: here are some sites that express my fears-

http://reason.com/archives/2006/04/03/one-man-many-wives-big-problem

http://www.salon.com/life/broadsheet/2010/07/28/polygamy

Notice the rarity of polyandry, how that would disturb the balance of females to males in terms of marriage.

[Sith Lord 13]

That's not what I meant, and those are not comparable. One of the worries I have is how in the past it only reinforced sexism, by objectifying women. Women were used for sex, babies and prestige. What if that happens again?

What if pigs miraculously sprouted wings and started flying? Seeing as polyamory is based on mutual trust and respect, it makes it LESS likely for that to happen again.

What if having so many people to have sex with ends up objectifying them?

How?

Yes, the world has changed, and yes this can happen in a monogamous marriage, but the world is still sexist and I believe it's far more likelier to happen in polygamous marriages. I'm afraid that this'll turn into a way to abuse the opposite sex.

Simple question. Why? Why is it more likely in poly marriages? Considering poly takes immense amounts of love, respect, and trust they're less likely to have these issues, not more.

But there would be a lot more jealousy in a polygamous marriage, especially because of the seniority issue mentioned earlier. That is not a stable environment, for the people involved and possible children.

A poly marriage is based on immense amounts of trust. Jealousy is handled and appropriately sublimated into proper outlets. Poly households tend to be more stable, as they take more work and lead to people being more highly invested in their outcome.

When sexism happens, it's not as simple as just getting a divorce. Divorce isn't simple. It leaves a huge emotional impact. Breaks a family apart. The divorce rate is already extremely high, polygamy would make it higher. Again, not a stable environment.

Simply not true. See above.

"sexism isn't illegal." Discriminating against the other sex is illegal, and that is what would happen. Even if it wasn't, that doesn't stop it from being wrong. I believe men will take advantage of polygamy and have loads of wives for use not love. Thinking there'll be a bunch of loving, caring people involved who love all the others equally is the ideal situation, which means in actuality it'll be rare. And yes, it is also found in monogamous marriages, but the extent of the damage would be much greater in a polygamous one.

Why? What about a poly marriage would make the damage greater? And seeing as poly is open to both genders, sexism isn't any more likely in poly than it is in mono marriage. Less likely actually, as the increased number of other participants would be more likely to kick a jerk like that to the curb.

First of all, if these problems could be resolved, it definitely wouldn't be easy. It would actually be quite difficult, emotionally. Balancing partners isn't easy. You can't just pick people off the street. Especially since these marriages are supposed to have the same amount of love and devotion as monogamous marriages. Do you know how hard it is to find someone you wish to spend your entire life with? Let alone 3 people...And Divorce is never a "fix." it's a last resort. It should not be used so lightly.

No one ever said it would be easy. It takes more effort to have a poly marriage than a mono marriage.

Jealousy between the partners. And, again, jealousy in polygamy would be greater than jealousy in monogamy. There would be favorites, there would be "seniority." In most cases the love won't be distributed equally. And that's a very unstable environment.

Jealousy in poly marriages would be easily rooted out during the courtship phase. When the jealousy issue comes up, it comes up directly, rather than surfacing years later, like in mono marriages.

I believe one sex will use the other, for sexual gratification. The partners will become little more than sex toys. The world isn't at a place where everyone (or at least the vast majority) treats the other equally yet. Until that stage is reached, I don't think the world would be ready for polygamy. That might mean a century, or never.

There is absolutely no reason a poly marriage is more likely to be that way than a mono marriage.

Past issues of sexism. Not all the attitudes towards women that existed in the past have changed. I'm worried about how that'll manifest in a polygamous marriage.

There is nothing about poly that makes it sexist. Sexism exists, sure, but it has nothing to do with poly.

I'm voicing my worries because I'm afraid of how the people involved in polygamous marriages and society in general might suffer at the hands of polygamy. I'm saying this because I care about them. Notice my worries are not about morality or personal preferences, it's about the negative emotional impact polygamy might have. I'm not sticking to my views out of stubbornness or anything. I am open to being disproved. Go for it.

Just like gays might suffer because they're depriving themselves of the right to have children? Are there risks involved with poly? Of course. There are risks in any relationship. The risks in poly are no more noticeable than in any other relationship.

Side Note: religious polygamy has always been sexist. Things like men can have as many wives as they want and not vice versa combined with the sexism in religion in general is a dangerous mix. While a lot of polygamy wouldn't be religious, a lot would. That is worrisome.

Double side note: here are some sites that express my fears-

http://reason.com/archives/2006/04/03/one-man-many-wives-big-problem

http://www.salon.com/life/broadsheet/2010/07/28/polygamy

Notice the rarity of polyandry, how that would disturb the balance of females to males in terms of marriage.

No one is talking about religious polygyny, which isn't actually polygamy, nor part of this debate.

[Iris]

What if pigs miraculously sprouted wings and started flying? Seeing as polyamory is based on mutual trust and respect, it makes it LESS likely for that to happen again.

Ideally it is. I think a small minority would have a polyamorous marriage based off trust and respect, and the vast majority would use it as a way to increase sexual gratification, at the other partners expense. Especially in a polygamous marriage, which would be far more common than any other kind of polyamorous marriage.

How?

Having lots of something reduces its value. That's a large part of the world's infatuation with gold and diamonds. It's not just about it's beauty, but it's rarity. When you only have one of a precious commodity, it makes that commodity more valuable. If you have one spouse, he/she is the only one, your only one, which heightens your appreciation for him/her.

Simple question. Why? Why is it more likely in poly marriages? Considering poly takes immense amounts of love, respect, and trust they're less likely to have these issues, not more.

I believe having too many spouses will objectify them. In this case the emphasis is on polygamy, which has never been beneficial for women in the past (in terms of sexism). Polygamy is a part of polyamory, and I believe it'll become the largest part. I believe some men will hoard wives to for sexual gratification and to fulfill traditional sexist roles that they expect women to perform, if given the chance.

A poly marriage is based on immense amounts of trust. Jealousy is handled and appropriately sublimated into proper outlets. Poly households tend to be more stable, as they take more work and lead to people being more highly invested in their outcome.
Simply not true. See above.

Ideally that would happen. Realistically it wouldn't. There isn't a clear solution to that kind of jealousy. You can't help having preferences, and the others will suffer for it.

People put loads of effort in monogamous marriages. Finding the right balance with more than one person is extremely difficult, and it will cause many families to splinter. Not all, of course, but more than in monogamous marriages.

On the other hand, in polyamorous marriages that really do need a divorce, in the case of an abusive partner or something, it might cause people to be emotionally unable to leave the relationship, since they'd be leaving the abusive partner as well as other partners who they love.

Why? What about a poly marriage would make the damage greater? And seeing as poly is open to both genders, sexism isn't any more likely in poly than it is in mono marriage. Less likely actually, as the increased number of other participants would be more likely to kick a jerk like that to the curb.

The fact that there's more people. In a monogamous relationship there's the abuser and the victim. In a polyamorous relationship there's an abuser and 3 victims, or even 2 abusers and 1 or 2 victims. That could be horrific.

See, just because polyamory on paper is split equally between the two sexes, doesn't mean in reality it'll be that way. In reality, polygamy would be the primary form of polyamory practiced.

And there's a complex emotional relationship between an abuser and a victim. If there's an abuser, having two or more victims might not make much of a difference. For one, there's things like Stockholm syndrome, and abusers can be very manipulative, maybe even turning the victim against each other. The possibilities of the abuses of polyamory is not something to take lightly.

No one ever said it would be easy. It takes more effort to have a poly marriage than a mono marriage.

Exactly. Polygamous partners might decide it's too much for them, all that effort, which would leave a big impact emotionally on everyone involved, including children. I bet most people getting involved in a polyamorous marriage will not realize what they're getting themselves into, and won't be able to deal with it.

Jealousy in poly marriages would be easily rooted out during the courtship phase. When the jealousy issue comes up, it comes up directly, rather than surfacing years later, like in mono marriages.

Not necessarily. As life goes on the partners will experience things that will push some closer together and some farther away. Then it will grow and surface like it does in monogamous marriages, except in this case it'll be worse. Not being as loved or preferred as equally as another of your partners is worse than catching your husband staring at another woman's ass in my opinion (though of course none are in any way preferable and both issues).

There is absolutely no reason a poly marriage is more likely to be that way than a mono marriage.

The more partners there are, the higher the danger of this.

There is nothing about poly that makes it sexist. Sexism exists, sure, but it has nothing to do with poly.

The ideal polyamorous marriage isn't sexist. Realistically though, it will be, as I explained earlier ^^^

Just like gays might suffer because they're depriving themselves of the right to have children? Are there risks involved with poly? Of course. There are risks in any relationship. The risks in poly are no more noticeable than in any other relationship.

But there's a solution to not having kids-surrogates for gay men, sperm donations for gay women. And adoption is great, people should do that more. For this there are clear solutions. For polyamory the problems aren't as clear cut. The 'solutions' are difficult, if even possible. It's too...unclear.

No one is talking about religious polygyny, which isn't actually polygamy, nor part of this debate.

Yet if polygamy was legalized, religious polygyny would be happening as well.

[Sith Lord 13]

Ideally it is. I think a small minority would have a polyamorous marriage based off trust and respect, and the vast majority would use it as a way to increase sexual gratification, at the other partners expense. Especially in a polygamous marriage, which would be far more common than any other kind of polyamorous marriage.

I'm assuming you meant polygynous marriage in the first half of your last sentence. Why? Why to everything you just said. If you want increased sexual gratification, you don't get married, you stay single or have a swinging marriage, where you just meet other couples for sex, both of which are perfectly legal now. And why would a polygynous marriage be more common than a polyandrous or polygamous (in which there are more spouses of both genders)? Seeing as it takes the consent of all involved in the marriage to take another it's not like a man can go out for the night and come home with another wife the next morning. There is zero reason to think that when women have equal say you're going to be skewed towards polygynous, and even if there was that skew, no reason it means sexual gratification is the main purpose. No one is going to get married just to be sexually gratified. It's easier to get laid when you're single.

Having lots of something reduces its value. That's a large part of the world's infatuation with gold and diamonds. It's not just about it's beauty, but it's rarity. When you only have one of a precious commodity, it makes that commodity more valuable. If you have one spouse, he/she is the only one, your only one, which heightens your appreciation for him/her.

No, it heightens your appreciation for all the people on the street who are now off limits. Forbidden fruit, rather than the same old thing at home. When you have multiple people at home it helps to keep things fresh, exciting, and engaging, reducing the rates of affairs and, ergo, divorces.

I believe having too many spouses will objectify them. In this case the emphasis is on polygamy, which has never been beneficial for women in the past (in terms of sexism). Polygamy is a part of polyamory, and I believe it'll become the largest part. I believe some men will hoard wives to for sexual gratification and to fulfill traditional sexist roles that they expect women to perform, if given the chance.

OK, first off, it's clear we have a definition failure here, so I'm gonna define four quick terms.

Polygamy - many marriages, when there are multiple spouses of both genders.

Polygyny - many wives

Polyandry - many husbands

Polyamory - many loves Polyamory has become a popular term because of the negative connotations of polygamy, but really it refers to relationships where there is no permanent bond, more like long term boyfriends and girlfriends, but no binding marriage.

Now that that's cleared up, you seem to keep forgetting one major fact. The women are agreeing to marry these men, and unless a woman simply wants to be objectified (a whole different can of worms), no woman is going to marry a man who's simply going to objectify her. A man can't hoard wives as you describe unless the women want to be hoarded.

Ideally that would happen. Realistically it wouldn't. There isn't a clear solution to that kind of jealousy. You can't help having preferences, and the others will suffer for it.

So people shouldn't be allowed to have more than one child, because they can't help playing favorites? No. While it's true that different spouses may have different favorite attributes (one games with you, one enjoys taking long walks on the beach, one enjoys your odd obsession with collecting spoons, etc), at the end of the day you love the person for who they are, as a whole person.

People put loads of effort in monogamous marriages. Finding the right balance with more than one person is extremely difficult, and it will cause many families to splinter. Not all, of course, but more than in monogamous marriages.

And what about all the families that are saved because multiple partners led to people not cheating? The increased help and support network that exists for children being raised with more than two parents?

On the other hand, in polyamorous marriages that really do need a divorce, in the case of an abusive partner or something, it might cause people to be emotionally unable to leave the relationship, since they'd be leaving the abusive partner as well as other partners who they love.

If one member of a poly situation was abusive, it would be unheard of for that person to only abuse one member and would most likely be divorced by the entire group. Having the strength of the rest of a poly family can make one quicker and more ready to stand up to an abusive partner.

The fact that there's more people. In a monogamous relationship there's the abuser and the victim. In a polyamorous relationship there's an abuser and 3 victims, or even 2 abusers and 1 or 2 victims. That could be horrific.

See above. Poly makes abuse harder to hide and easier to respond to.

See, just because polyamory on paper is split equally between the two sexes, doesn't mean in reality it'll be that way. In reality, polygamy would be the primary form of polyamory practiced.

What reason do you have at all to believe this, besides your notion that men hoard wives. In the past polygyny was the only accepted form of poly, so the past is not a good indicator of the future.

And there's a complex emotional relationship between an abuser and a victim. If there's an abuser, having two or more victims might not make much of a difference. For one, there's things like Stockholm syndrome, and abusers can be very manipulative, maybe even turning the victim against each other. The possibilities of the abuses of polyamory is not something to take lightly.

Stockholm syndrome is much, much rarer in groups of victims, and almost unheard of in cases where there is more than one victim and not an overwhelming number of abusers. It's easier to draw strength from your fellow victims than it is to be turned against them. I'm yet to see anything that suggests that poly is anything but less likely to devolve into abuse.

Exactly. Polygamous partners might decide it's too much for them, all that effort, which would leave a big impact emotionally on everyone involved, including children. I bet most people getting involved in a polyamorous marriage will not realize what they're getting themselves into, and won't be able to deal with it.

So people are stupid and we should protect them from themselves? I'm sorry, but I don't believe in a nanny state. And poly relationships go through dating and courtship just like other relationships so by the time kids are ready to come into the picture, they have a fairly good idea what they're getting into.

Not necessarily. As life goes on the partners will experience things that will push some closer together and some farther away. Then it will grow and surface like it does in monogamous marriages, except in this case it'll be worse. Not being as loved or preferred as equally as another of your partners is worse than catching your husband staring at another woman's ass in my opinion (though of course none are in any way preferable and both issues).

There are risks in any relationship. I'd rather that slight space than find out a spouse was cheating on me. And seeing as mono marriages are at about 50% failure rate, I'm hard pressed to see poly relationships as doing worse.

The more partners there are, the higher the danger of this.

Actually, going through the process of adding a new member to a poly household is long, takes serious thought, and keeps the relationship healthy.

The ideal polyamorous marriage isn't sexist. Realistically though, it will be, as I explained earlier ^^^

As you stated earlier. You never really explained why, except to say men will hoard wives, and a paltry few other points I've refuted.

But there's a solution to not having kids-surrogates for gay men, sperm donations for gay women. And adoption is great, people should do that more. For this there are clear solutions. For polyamory the problems aren't as clear cut. The 'solutions' are difficult, if even possible. It's too...unclear.

Wow. Just wow... That point went right over your head. Gays do NOT suffer because they can't have kids. (Some homosexual individuals do want kids and can have them in any of a number of ways.) The lack of something, or difference from the norm, does not make something wrong, bad, or harmful.

Yet if polygamy was legalized, religious polygyny would be happening as well.

No, because it encompasses a whole different set of crimes. Talking about religious poly here is like saying cars should be banned because they can be used for carbombings. The issue is the bomb, not the car.

[Angel Androgynous]

That's not what I meant, and those are not comparable. One of the worries I have is how in the past it only reinforced sexism, by objectifying women. Women were used for sex, babies and prestige. What if that happens again? What if having so many people to have sex with ends up objectifying them? Yes, the world has changed, and yes this can happen in a monogamous marriage, but the world is still sexist and I believe it's far more likelier to happen in polygamous marriages. I'm afraid that this'll turn into a way to abuse the opposite sex.
Well they are both past issues....
You are once again talking about religious polygamy. Women will only be objectified if they want to be. Remember, they will be married with consent. Why is it more likely to happen in polygamous marriages? ._. If they don't want to be objectified, they won't be. If he/she tries to objectify them, someone will get their butt kicked. ._.


But there would be a lot more jealousy in a polygamous marriage, especially because of the seniority issue mentioned earlier. That is not a stable environment, for the people involved and possible children.
But these people are doing this with consent, like Sith mentioned earlier, we are protecting them from themselves?



When sexism happens, it's not as simple as just getting a divorce. Divorce isn't simple. It leaves a huge emotional impact. Breaks a family apart. The divorce rate is already extremely high, polygamy would make it higher. Again, not a stable environment.
Why would sexism happen? You are basing this statement off religious polygamy.



"sexism isn't illegal." Discriminating against the other sex is illegal, and that is what would happen. Even if it wasn't, that doesn't stop it from being wrong. I believe men will take advantage of polygamy and have loads of wives for use not love. Thinking there'll be a bunch of loving, caring people involved who love all the others equally is the ideal situation, which means in actuality it'll be rare. And yes, it is also found in monogamous marriages, but the extent of the damage would be much greater in a polygamous one.
Sexism in freedom of speech isn't illegal is what I meant. Once again, why would it happen? Why do you assume only men would have loads of wives? Once again, those women that you mention are doing this with consent.


First of all, if these problems could be resolved, it definitely wouldn't be easy. It would actually be quite difficult, emotionally. Balancing partners isn't easy. You can't just pick people off the street. Especially since these marriages are supposed to have the same amount of love and devotion as monogamous marriages. Do you know how hard it is to find someone you wish to spend your entire life with? Let alone 3 people...And Divorce is never a "fix." it's a last resort. It should not be used so lightly.
No one's picking people off the street. And for some people it's not hard to find 3 people they want to spend the rest of their life with. No one's gonna make anyone get married into a polygamous marriage.... so that statement is a little weird. If there are problems in a relationship and it won't work or they can't be fixed, yes, divorce should be last resort, I was just using it as an example...

[Iris]

Ok I want to go to sleep already so I'm not going to quote, sorry guys.

Sith Lord 13: Ok first of polyamory is a loose, all-encompassing term. It includes religious polygyny. So polygyny applies to a discussion about polyamory, and it's legalization. Since polygyny is a part of (usually sexist) religious sects (such as some Mormon factions. Incidentally- http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-0805-polygamist-convicted), it would be a problem. The women would not be respected ant treated with the love and trust that an ideal polyamorous marriage should have. Only a small percentage of the population would partake in polyamory, so those small religious sects would have a pretty big impact on the numbers of polyamorous marriages.

I agree that polyamory will lessen the number of affairs. But no, if you have one of something (in this case, someone) it is far more valuable than a few of them.

Even in monogamous marriages there are women forced into (or brainwashed into) these sexist roles. Women who are used. It will be no different in a polyamorous relationship, especially because many of polyamory's practitioner's are in extremist religious sects. Except that the damage would be greater because it would be legal to do what those sects are doing.

Ideally you'd be loved for who you are. Realistically that will not be the case. There would be favorites. You'll love 'the whole person' of one of your spouses more than another. And having favorites in children is a really big problem. Good Analogy. I'll admit, I don't have a response to that.

There are pros and cons to both monogamy and polyamory, of course. Less adultery is definitely a plus for polyamory. But I believe the bad outweighs the good right now. And for your example of a greater support network-let's say one of the partners realizes he/she just can't stand another of the partners, and decides to leave the marriage, he/she can't take the child with him/her, as the child belongs to a different parent. That could be very emotionally harmful to a child who put all his/her faith in that partner.

Abuse: Again, there's a difficult relationship between the abuser and the victim. An abuser can find ways to control his/her victims. Just like he/sh'd do in a monogamous marriage, except in a polyamorous marriage the number of victims would be greater. escaping or getting rid of an abuser usually is not about numbers. For example, with children, you can have one abusive mother and ten kids and none will be able to stand up and escape/ try to get help. Especially with more numbers, actually. The abuser could use all the other victims as leverage, similar to how abusers will separate and control and threaten a child to ensure the child's mother doesn't resist the abuse.

My problem with polygamy is that I believe it has most (not all) the risks of monogamy, plus some more of it's own. I believe the failure of polygamous marriages would be higher than monogamous marriages, for all the reasons I've stated in the past few posts.

I think my post went completely over your head as well. My arguments against polyamory aren't because they are different, but because they are potentially very harmful, and that there is no clear solution for the issues faced in polygamy...where did I say gays suffer by not having kids...? How did you get that from my post?

What different set of crimes? They have the right to practice their religion, but this practice is harmful, and as the practice is encompassed under polyamory, it's an issue of polyamory.

Yay, one down...one more to go...

Angel Androgynous: Past issues that unfortunately still exist today. Objectifying, and abuse aren't so simple. So many girls get trapped into marriages because they're brainwashed or put in that situation by their parents. When I speak of this I'm only speaking of religious polygyny, which, since it is under the title of polyamory, and would also be legalized, is a problem.

Sometimes yes, you need to protect people from themselves. Are you against hospitalizing a suicidal person? Or trying to rehabilitate a heroin addict? In both cases they are trying to do something harmful to themselves. Now I'm not saying that polygamy is as bad as suicide or heroin, but the underlying theme is the same for me.

I should've been clearer-the sexist charge is intended towards religious polygyny, which is part of polyamory. So if polyamory/polygamy is legalized, so would religious polygyny. If you can prove that religious polygyny won't also be legalized, I'll drop this part of my argument.

Towards the 'weird statement' and 'divorce as an example' claim-I'm just trying to express that all this is far more difficult than you make it out to be.


Again, I'm sorry that I didn't quote...

[Sith Lord 13]

Ok I want to go to sleep already so I'm not going to quote, sorry guys.

I don't blame you. :P

Sith Lord 13: Ok first of polyamory is a loose, all-encompassing term.

While it can be used as such, to refer to any relationship between more than two people, it has two many definitions. One is the actual many loves, wherein it means multiple fulfilling relationships without long term commitment. The other is as a replacement for the word polygamy, as polygamy has various negative connotations.

It includes religious polygyny. So polygyny applies to a discussion about polyamory, and it's legalization.

But we're discussing the legalization of polygamy, not polyamory, polygyny, or polyandry.

Since polygyny is a part of (usually sexist) religious sects (such as some Mormon factions. Incidentally- http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-0805-polygamist-convicted), it would be a problem. The women would not be respected ant treated with the love and trust that an ideal polyamorous marriage should have.

The problem in religious polygyny is the other human rights violations. Not the polygyny itself.

Only a small percentage of the population would partake in polyamory, so those small religious sects would have a pretty big impact on the numbers of polyamorous marriages.

Those marriages where women are forced to marry someone without consent, or before they could consent, or any such issue, would still be illegal, on the grounds of human rights violations.

I agree that polyamory will lessen the number of affairs. But no, if you have one of something (in this case, someone) it is far more valuable than a few of them.

You still only have one of that particular person. Each relationship in a polygamous marriage is unique. If someone has three best friends with which they do everything, and looses one of them, that's not going to hurt any less than someone with one best friend loosing their best friend. (And I'm not using best friend the way the average teenager does, I'm referring to someone who's been a close friend for ten, twenty + years.)

Even in monogamous marriages there are women forced into (or brainwashed into) these sexist roles. Women who are used. It will be no different in a polyamorous relationship,

EXACTLY! The risk is there, be it a mono or poly relationship.

especially because many of polyamory's practitioner's are in extremist religious sects.

No, those are just the ones you hear about on the news getting arrested, because they make big news. Take a look at The Ethical Slut. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ethical_Slut) (No mods, it's not a porn link. :P) It's a guide for the average person to navigate non-monogamy. There are a lot more normal people who are into it than you might realize.

Except that the damage would be greater because it would be legal to do what those sects are doing.

No it wouldn't. The humans rights violations would still be illegal.

Ideally you'd be loved for who you are. Realistically that will not be the case.

Who are you to make that call? Just because some people are shallow doesn't mean everyone is.

There would be favorites. You'll love 'the whole person' of one of your spouses more than another. And having favorites in children is a really big problem. Good Analogy. I'll admit, I don't have a response to that.

That's because there is none. Yes, some people wouldn't be able to help playing favorites, and if that's a short term issue (ie. One is your favorite today, the other is your favorite tomorrow) that's not really an issue. Te issue comes in when it's a permanent thing and that would be obvious during the dating phase. Also, some people might be content not being the favorite.

There are pros and cons to both monogamy and polyamory, of course.

Exactly, everything has pros and cons. And no one here is arguing monogamy should end.

Less adultery is definitely a plus for polyamory. But I believe the bad outweighs the good right now.

While that may be true for you, what gives you the right to make that call for other people?

And for your example of a greater support network-let's say one of the partners realizes he/she just can't stand another of the partners, and decides to leave the marriage, he/she can't take the child with him/her, as the child belongs to a different parent. That could be very emotionally harmful to a child who put all his/her faith in that partner.

The same thing happens when mono couples split. There's a term for what happens in those situations. Shared custody.

Abuse: Again, there's a difficult relationship between the abuser and the victim. An abuser can find ways to control his/her victims.

This is true, but the number one tool of an abuser is isolation. S/he can't isolate the person s/he's abusing in a poly household. There are too many other people around.

Just like he/sh'd do in a monogamous marriage, except in a polyamorous marriage the number of victims would be greater.

Is it possible? Yes. The same could be said about families with multiple children. More kids, more chance of child abuse. Should we put a limit on the number of children people have?

escaping or getting rid of an abuser usually is not about numbers.

Not exactly. It's about having someone who can help you see you don't deserve the abuse and that you should get out of there and get help. That's why abusers isolate their prey. The more people who know the abused, the more likely the abused is going to realize they should get up and run.

For example, with children, you can have one abusive mother and ten kids and none will be able to stand up and escape/ try to get help.

An abusive parent/child relationship is in this way noticeably different from an abused spouse relationship. An abused spouse can get up and walk away at any time to get help, once they're convinced they need it.

Especially with more numbers, actually. The abuser could use all the other victims as leverage, similar to how abusers will separate and control and threaten a child to ensure the child's mother doesn't resist the abuse.

It's far easier to use a child in that role than it is to use another adult, as it's a level of irrational paranoia that all humans have about loosing their offspring that makes that gambit work.

My problem with polygamy is that I believe it has most (not all) the risks of monogamy, plus some more of it's own. I believe the failure of polygamous marriages would be higher than monogamous marriages, for all the reasons I've stated in the past few posts.

But it's not your place to tell people they can't take that risk.

I think my post went completely over your head as well. My arguments against polyamory aren't because they are different, but because they are potentially very harmful, and that there is no clear solution for the issues faced in polygamy...where did I say gays suffer by not having kids...? How did you get that from my post?

Because you gave a solution to the gays not having kids issue? And my whole point is that some things you see as issues are not issues to those in the poly community. There are plenty of poly people who wouldn't mind not being the favorite. It's also not your place to say what kind of relationships other people can and cannot get into. In the end, I'm likening your position to that of those who don't believe gays should have the right to be in relationships.

What different set of crimes? They have the right to practice their religion, but this practice is harmful, and as the practice is encompassed under polyamory, it's an issue of polyamory.

The different set of crimes of sexism, statutory rape, rape by coercion, forcing someone into a contract against their will, brainwashing, etc... None of those are related to polygamy, but are rather separate practices often practiced by polygamous cults.

Yay, one down...one more to go...

I hope you don't mind if I give my input here too.

Angel Androgynous: Past issues that unfortunately still exist today. Objectifying, and abuse aren't so simple. So many girls get trapped into marriages because they're brainwashed or put in that situation by their parents. When I speak of this I'm only speaking of religious polygyny, which, since it is under the title of polyamory, and would also be legalized, is a problem.

Those practices wouldn't be legalized, as sexism, brainwashing, coercion, etc are still illegal.

Sometimes yes, you need to protect people from themselves. Are you against hospitalizing a suicidal person? Or trying to rehabilitate a heroin addict? In both cases they are trying to do something harmful to themselves. Now I'm not saying that polygamy is as bad as suicide or heroin, but the underlying theme is the same for me.

Reductio ad absurdum. They're not only much worse than polygamy, they're on a whole other level. So long as someone is sanely and rationally choosing to take a risk, they have every right to take it. By your logic skydiving should be banned. Hell, skydiving has a bigger risk for less of a payoff than poly.

I should've been clearer-the sexist charge is intended towards religious polygyny, which is part of polyamory. So if polyamory/polygamy is legalized, so would religious polygyny. If you can prove that religious polygyny won't also be legalized, I'll drop this part of my argument.

See what I said above. Religious polygamy practices various human rights abuses that would still be illegal.

Towards the 'weird statement' and 'divorce as an example' claim-I'm just trying to express that all this is far more difficult than you make it out to be.

No one has said poly is easy. The truth is it's not. But though it may be a challenge, for those who want it, it's definitely worth it.

Again, I'm sorry that I didn't quote...

That's fine. It's really not a big deal.

[Iris]

Fair enough.

If there are regulations put in place to ensure that the religious polygynous marriages that will also be legalized will not violate human rights, then fine.

And a few more points:

No, those are just the ones you hear about on the news getting arrested, because they make big news. Take a look at The Ethical Slut. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ethical_Slut) (No mods, it's not a porn link. :P) It's a guide for the average person to navigate non-monogamy. There are a lot more normal people who are into it than you might realize.

Just because there's a book out to help guide polyamorous practitioners doesn't prove that a large part of those participating in polyamorous relationship aren't part of religious factions that will abuse the system. Since the numbers of people in polyamorous relationships would already be quite small, these (also small) factions would have a bigger impact.

Who are you to make that call? Just because some people are shallow doesn't mean everyone is.

Fair enough. I am a bit biased in this area :whoops:

An abusive parent/child relationship is in this way noticeably different from an abused spouse relationship. An abused spouse can get up and walk away at any time to get help, once they're convinced they need it.

Not necessarily. The same support programs that help adults escape are there for children. Also an abuser who keeps his/her spouse under control will ensure the spouse doesn't escape. Look at all the stories of (adult and child) victims who had multiple chances to escape but were psychologically unable. Besides that, when there's more than one person being abused and you have a bond with the other victims, it's extremely difficult to leave them. That is the same with children and adults. At the end of the day you don't want to leave your loved ones behind.

Because you gave a solution to the gays not having kids issue? And my whole point is that some things you see as issues are not issues to those in the poly community. There are plenty of poly people who wouldn't mind not being the favorite. It's also not your place to say what kind of relationships other people can and cannot get into. In the end, I'm likening your position to that of those who don't believe gays should have the right to be in relationships.

And my point was that the issues that gay people face, especially the children one, are generally clearly solvable, but while I'm sure there are solutions for polyamorous relationships, it's not as clear-cut (at least to me), which makes it more worrisome.

The different set of crimes of sexism, statutory rape, rape by coercion, forcing someone into a contract against their will, brainwashing, etc

To me that was already implied within the term religious polygyny.

Those practices wouldn't be legalized, as sexism, brainwashing, coercion, etc are still illegal.

Since theses practices are inherently a part of religious polygyny, and religious polygyny is a form of polyamory, it's a problem. If regulations are put in place to prevent this though, I will be satisfied.

[Sith Lord 13]

Fair enough.

If there are regulations put in place to ensure that the religious polygynous marriages that will also be legalized will not violate human rights, then fine.

It's not so much that regulations would be put in place as that other laws governing human rights wouldn't be repealed.

Just because there's a book out to help guide polyamorous practitioners doesn't prove that a large part of those participating in polyamorous relationship aren't part of religious factions that will abuse the system. Since the numbers of people in polyamorous relationships would already be quite small, these (also small) factions would have a bigger impact.

If you look at teh book, you'll see it's designed for regular polyamory/polygamy, and not the crazy religious kind.

Fair enough. I am a bit biased in this area :whoops:

Honestly, saying that makes me respect you even more. I have to admit I'm somewhat biased too, although where the line between bias and simply having a conviction is, I'm not sure.

Not necessarily. The same support programs that help adults escape are there for children. Also an abuser who keeps his/her spouse under control will ensure the spouse doesn't escape. Look at all the stories of (adult and child) victims who had multiple chances to escape but were psychologically unable. Besides that, when there's more than one person being abused and you have a bond with the other victims, it's extremely difficult to leave them. That is the same with children and adults. At the end of the day you don't want to leave your loved ones behind.

No, you don't, but the stronger your support network, the easier it is to stop the abuse. In a poly household, there's a built in support network.

And my point was that the issues that gay people face, especially the children one, are generally clearly solvable, but while I'm sure there are solutions for polyamorous relationships, it's not as clear-cut (at least to me), which makes it more worrisome.

Honestly, the solution is simple. Hard work and open honest communication. There are plenty of other little things that can help smooth the edges, but it really only takes those two.

To me that was already implied within the term religious polygyny.

It is wrapped up in religious polygyny usually, but legalizing polygamy doesn't legalize the other human rights abuses.

Since theses practices are inherently a part of religious polygyny, and religious polygyny is a form of polyamory, it's a problem. If regulations are put in place to prevent this though, I will be satisfied.

See what I said above.

[Iris]

It's not so much that regulations would be put in place as that other laws governing human rights wouldn't be repealed.

It is wrapped up in religious polygyny usually, but legalizing polygamy doesn't legalize the other human rights abuses.

I don't think that's enough. Even now, with polyamory being illegal, there are religious polygynous 'marriages' being conducted with these human rights violations. Older men hoarding young wives to have sex and babies with. If polyamory is legalized it'll be much more difficult to find the abusers guilty, as part of what they are doing is legal. Most of the time the girls are brainwashed and scared, they might not dare to object to anything their husband says, or try to get help. Something more than the regulations in place now needs to be created for this kind of situation.

If you look at the book, you'll see it's designed for regular polyamory/polygamy, and not the crazy religious kind.

You're missing my point-I'm not denying what the book says, but that it's speaking to the majority of those willing to be in a polyamorous relationship. Again, religious polygyny would be a problem (even though it's pretty rare) because a polyamorous community would already be small.

Honestly, saying that makes me respect you even more. I have to admit I'm somewhat biased too, although where the line between bias and simply having a conviction is, I'm not sure.

I'd say when bias is based on more than personal experience, which is where it originally begins. I don't know of any study done to test the shallowness of people though... ;)

No, you don't, but the stronger your support network, the easier it is to stop the abuse. In a poly household, there's a built in support network.

I'm feeling very repetitive...the support network is based on numbers, and numbers don't make much of a difference in an abusive relationship. If anything, having to worry about others besides yourself holds you back.

Honestly, the solution is simple. Hard work and open honest communication. There are plenty of other little things that can help smooth the edges, but it really only takes those two.

That is a whole other debate in itself.

[Angel Androgynous]

I don't think that's enough. Even now, with polyamory being illegal, there are religious polygynous 'marriages' being conducted with these human rights violations. Older men hoarding young wives to have sex and babies with. If polyamory is legalized it'll be much more difficult to find the abusers guilty, as part of what they are doing is legal. Most of the time the girls are brainwashed and scared, they might not dare to object to anything their husband says, or try to get help. Something more than the regulations in place now needs to be created for this kind of situation.

Actually, I think it would be easier, since these religious polygynous marriages are happening underground, it would take more work to track them down. If polygamy is legalized, it would be easier for the government to keep an eye on this kinds of things.


You're missing my point-I'm not denying what the book says, but that it's speaking to the majority of those willing to be in a polyamorous relationship. Again, religious polygyny would be a problem (even though it's pretty rare) because a polyamorous community would already be small.
And the smaller the population with that problem, the easier it will be to take care of.


I'm feeling very repetitive...the support network is based on numbers, and numbers don't make much of a difference in an abusive relationship. If anything, having to worry about others besides yourself holds you back.
That's why, in that case, they can work together to solve that issue.

[Quick_Sylver]

I'm not pro marriage, but I'll chat.

Polygamy, the love of many people.
...and?

Not only is it more likely for people to fall in love with other people while in love with one specific person, ESPECIALLY while teenagers, but as has been said before, its natural. Honestly, this is just like saying "Ohey, you HAVE to be monogamous to get married!" Which goes against freedom of expression :rolleyes:. Not many people will go all the way to married unless they're genuinely sure their new counterpart will fit in with their current counterpart. If there's a previous family, they usually meet. The courtships go on for much longer than you'd expect, very few 3months courting, then "will you marry me?".

Plus, what business is it of the monogamous community what the polygamist community does, other than TECHNICALLY its illegal, yet technically practiced in almost everywhere I can think of, merely by having feelings for another person while in another relationship.

[Iris]

Actually, I think it would be easier, since these religious polygynous marriages are happening underground, it would take more work to track them down. If polygamy is legalized, it would be easier for the government to keep an eye on this kinds of things.

It would still be pretty much underground. Just the disapproval from the rest of society would ensure that the actions of these groups are kept veiled. The issue that I'm speaking of is that part of what these men would be doing would become technically legal, together with polyamory. Yes, abusing human rights is illegal, but often these brainwashed, abused girls know no better and will go along in the marriage as unknowing victims, making the abuser much harder to convict, as he'd technically be doing something legal.

And the smaller the population with that problem, the easier it will be to take care of.

That's besides the point. I'm speaking of the ratio of religious polygynous to that of regular poyamorous. My point is that religious polygyny is a big problem, because even though it's so uncommon compared to monogamous marriages, in a measure of polyamorous marriages, religious polygynous ones would be far more common and would have a greater impact.

That's why, in that case, they can work together to solve that issue.

-sigh- Ok, I'll repeat: there is a complex relationship between abuser and victim(s). An abuser will ensure that his/her victims feel helpless and weak, and will manipulate them to guarantee they will be unable to get help. Numbers ultimately won't make much of a difference.

You're reply works for everyday issues, not difficult ones like abuse.