Polygamy - Legal or Illegal?

[Microcosm]

Polygamy is the marriage of multiple parties. Like 6 people getting married and living in the same house.

I've been recently convinced that Polygamy is really right in being banned. It screws people and relationships up and causes great deals of confusion.

What do you think?

[Elysium]

I think it's really up to the individuals and the law has no right interfering in a personal lifestyle choice or policing relationships. If the individuals involved end up hurting themselves in the end, that's their prerogative. There's no reason it needs to be a legal issue. People run that risk with any type of relationship. Criminalizing polygamy is not "protecting" people from themselves; it's limiting their freedom based on preconceived notions and ideologies about what's morally acceptable and what's considered taboo. Every time you pass a judgment on something that may be taboo, you need to remember that first and foremost, it seems that way because you've been conditioned to think so (in general, that doesn't necessarily mean that you're wrong - just because I've been conditioned to think that murder is wrong, doesn't make it any less wrong; it's just something to keep in mind. Retrospectively, nothing is intrinsically right or wrong, again, things are only categorized as such based on existing ideologies and influences).

I am not sure about the actual institution of marriage, since I don't know enough about it from a legal standpoint. But certainly the practice of polygamy in and of itself shouldn't be a legal concern.

[Abyssal Echo]

I think it's really up to the individuals and the law has no right interfering in a personal lifestyle choice or policing relationships. If the individuals involved end up hurting themselves in the end, that's their prerogative. There's no reason it needs to be a legal issue. People run that risk with any type of relationship. Criminalizing polygamy is not "protecting" people from themselves; it's limiting their freedom based on preconceived notions and ideologies about what's morally acceptable and what's considered taboo. Every time you pass a judgment on something that may be taboo, you need to remember that first and foremost, it seems that way because you've been conditioned to think so (in general, that doesn't necessarily mean that you're wrong - just because I've been conditioned to think that murder is wrong, doesn't make it any less wrong; it's just something to keep in mind. Retrospectively, nothing is intrinsically right or wrong, again, things are only categorized as such based on existing ideologies and influences).

I am not sure about the actual institution of marriage, since I don't know enough about it from a legal standpoint. But certainly the practice of polygamy in and of itself shouldn't be a legal concern.

In societies eyes it's taboo not to mention it's illegal.
However I have to agree with Elysium.
There are many people/families in Utah that seem to get along just fine with that kind of relationship.

[Uniquemind]

It should be legal but making it legal is concerning and the tax code would have to be re-worked along with laws regarding inheritance rights, spousal rights, etc...


For simplicity's sake legally we keep the one man and one woman marriage system.


I also think that if it were legal, the entire married group needs to consent to taking on another "spouse", and NOT just one person in the group saying "I want that woman or man to add to my family as a spouse".

It would be complicated.

I am also not sure people would use the law allowing for this responsibly.

[ClaraWho]

I think it's really up to the individuals and the law has no right interfering in a personal lifestyle choice or policing relationships. If the individuals involved end up hurting themselves in the end, that's their prerogative. There's no reason it needs to be a legal issue. People run that risk with any type of relationship. Criminalizing polygamy is not "protecting" people from themselves; it's limiting their freedom based on preconceived notions and ideologies about what's morally acceptable and what's considered taboo. Every time you pass a judgment on something that may be taboo, you need to remember that first and foremost, it seems that way because you've been conditioned to think so (in general, that doesn't necessarily mean that you're wrong - just because I've been conditioned to think that murder is wrong, doesn't make it any less wrong; it's just something to keep in mind. Retrospectively, nothing is intrinsically right or wrong, again, things are only categorized as such based on existing ideologies and influences).

I am not sure about the actual institution of marriage, since I don't know enough about it from a legal standpoint. But certainly the practice of polygamy in and of itself shouldn't be a legal concern.

I agree with it being a freedom, and not in itself necessarily harmful. Obviously fathered children by multiple partners things could get messy, but it's their prerogative.

As for the nonsense (no offence moderator hah...) about how our morality is based on 'conditioning', I would point you to all the evidence to the contrary.

Psychology has shown how babies pre-one year old have an inherent, intrinsic sense of what is right and what is wrong. We are hard wired to be predisposed against murder, against abuse/harm of others in-group. Hence empathy, and that we actually experience shared emotional reactions to pain (wincing when seeing someone else is hurt or experiencing shared emotional pain.

So nothing to do with conditioning in this specific case, although obviously that plays a role in creating illogical beliefs such as men having a right to 9 wives...

The OP is stating a substantiated opinion, based on the potential harm (arguably) more likely to occur in this form of relationship. A form of relationship common in lesser evolved mammals. The conclusion that it should be illegal is therefore not a 'conditioned' mindless response, but a positing of a logical conclusion to the source material.


---

The biggest issue is that cultures that do practice polygamy tend to oppress women. They become the collectors items, the sexual tokens with limited rights or welfare. If gender equality could be insured, then arguably the State has no right to make such practice illegal. We cannot protect everyone against everything stupid they wish to do to themselves...

~ Clara

[Microcosm]

I agree with it being a freedom, and not in itself necessarily harmful. Obviously fathered children by multiple partners things could get messy, but it's their prerogative.

As for the nonsense (no offence moderator hah...) about how our morality is based on 'conditioning', I would point you to all the evidence to the contrary.

Psychology has shown how babies pre-one year old have an inherent, intrinsic sense of what is right and what is wrong. We are hard wired to be predisposed against murder, against abuse/harm of others in-group. Hence empathy, and that we actually experience shared emotional reactions to pain (wincing when seeing someone else is hurt or experiencing shared emotional pain.

So nothing to do with conditioning in this specific case, although obviously that plays a role in creating illogical beliefs such as men having a right to 9 wives...

The OP is stating a substantiated opinion, based on the potential harm (arguably) more likely to occur in this form of relationship. A form of relationship common in lesser evolved mammals. The conclusion that it should be illegal is therefore not a 'conditioned' mindless response, but a positing of a logical conclusion to the source material.


---

The biggest issue is that cultures that do practice polygamy tend to oppress women. They become the collectors items, the sexual tokens with limited rights or welfare. If gender equality could be insured, then arguably the State has no right to make such practice illegal. We cannot protect everyone against everything stupid they wish to do to themselves...

~ Clara

This is very well said, Clara. I entirely agree with this and it expresses my point very well. Polygamy is not only traditionally incorrect. If this were the case, then that would not be enough to deny it as one of our freedoms. The thing that makes it deniable as a freedom is that it causes problems legally, mentally, and even physically in some cases.

It is not the same case as same-sex marriage, in my opinion. It is a completely different concept with completely different consequences. I think the reason anyone would want to simply say that polygamy is one of our freedoms is because they tend to draw parallels between it and issues such as gay marriage. These parallels, however, are not really able to be drawn when you think about it.

[Elysium]

I agree with it being a freedom, and not in itself necessarily harmful. Obviously fathered children by multiple partners things could get messy, but it's their prerogative.

As for the nonsense (no offence moderator hah...) about how our morality is based on 'conditioning', I would point you to all the evidence to the contrary.

Psychology has shown how babies pre-one year old have an inherent, intrinsic sense of what is right and what is wrong. We are hard wired to be predisposed against murder, against abuse/harm of others in-group. Hence empathy, and that we actually experience shared emotional reactions to pain (wincing when seeing someone else is hurt or experiencing shared emotional pain.

So nothing to do with conditioning in this specific case, although obviously that plays a role in creating illogical beliefs such as men having a right to 9 wives...

The OP is stating a substantiated opinion, based on the potential harm (arguably) more likely to occur in this form of relationship. A form of relationship common in lesser evolved mammals. The conclusion that it should be illegal is therefore not a 'conditioned' mindless response, but a positing of a logical conclusion to the source material.


---

The biggest issue is that cultures that do practice polygamy tend to oppress women. They become the collectors items, the sexual tokens with limited rights or welfare. If gender equality could be insured, then arguably the State has no right to make such practice illegal. We cannot protect everyone against everything stupid they wish to do to themselves...

~ Clara
No offense taken. You're absolutely right. It would appear to be the natural human condition to empathize. In that sense, I amend my previous statement and clarify that for the most part, things we consider taboo are a result of conditioning. That includes polygamy itself, not any potential emotional repercussions.

You could probably also argue that polygamy is a naturally occurring tendency, though I don't know enough about it to do so. It's an ongoing debate, I'm sure.

I do also agree on the point about oppressing women. That's a good point. I think as long as all of the individuals involved are happy and comfortable with their situation, I see no reason to prevent them from doing what they'd like with their relationship(s).

[Horatio Nelson]

I agree with it being a freedom, and not in itself necessarily harmful. Obviously fathered children by multiple partners things could get messy, but it's their prerogative.

As for the nonsense (no offence moderator hah...) about how our morality is based on 'conditioning', I would point you to all the evidence to the contrary.

Psychology has shown how babies pre-one year old have an inherent, intrinsic sense of what is right and what is wrong. We are hard wired to be predisposed against murder, against abuse/harm of others in-group. Hence empathy, and that we actually experience shared emotional reactions to pain (wincing when seeing someone else is hurt or experiencing shared emotional pain.

So nothing to do with conditioning in this specific case, although obviously that plays a role in creating illogical beliefs such as men having a right to 9 wives...

The OP is stating a substantiated opinion, based on the potential harm (arguably) more likely to occur in this form of relationship. A form of relationship common in lesser evolved mammals. The conclusion that it should be illegal is therefore not a 'conditioned' mindless response, but a positing of a logical conclusion to the source material.


---

The biggest issue is that cultures that do practice polygamy tend to oppress women. They become the collectors items, the sexual tokens with limited rights or welfare. If gender equality could be insured, then arguably the State has no right to make such practice illegal. We cannot protect everyone against everything stupid they wish to do to themselves...

~ Clara

I agree completely. I wasn't going to post in this thread as I was unable to correctly formulate an opinion. But you have said it perfectly. Polygamy is oppressive in my opinion. Not only to women, but also to children. Favoritism and general emotional neglect can easily run rampant in a situation like that.

[Karkat]

I feel fairly neutral on this. I feel like there are a lot of big decisions out there that could be far more harmful than having two wives/husbandos instead of one. I feel like we, as legal adults are allowed to do things such as choose to bring another life into the world, and how that life is shaped for the first umpteen years, we have the choice to enter into a vocational field that puts the lives of others at our mercy

Enough feelings can be hurt by a monogamous relationship. People just need to learn to manage the way they treat each other better.

[Pazzi]

There are many social problems that occur within polygamist societies.
This can be seen in the study by the University of British Columbia
Unfortunately, I cannot post the link here directly, but if you simply look up the University of British Columbia and their research on the topic, it is easily found.
If a governments role is to ensure maximum benefit of its country and tackle the social issues that are associated with polygamy, then the logical solution would be for polygamy to be illegal.

Also, whilst a government may not be able to ban more than two people being in a relationship (without marriage), marriage is legally recognized union meaning it is recognised by the State. The government, therefore, does have say in the legality of it.

[ClaraWho]

There are many social problems that occur within polygamist societies.
This can be seen in the study by the University of British Columbia
Unfortunately, I cannot post the link here directly, but if you simply look up the University of British Columbia and their research on the topic, it is easily found.
If a governments role is to ensure maximum benefit of its country and tackle the social issues that are associated with polygamy, then the logical solution would be for polygamy to be illegal.

Also, whilst a government may not be able to ban more than two people being in a relationship (without marriage), marriage is legally recognized union meaning it is recognised by the State. The government, therefore, does have say in the legality of it.

Nobody is suggesting governments don't have a say, rather SHOULD they have a say?

How far is too far in stepping in to protect people from their own choices or mistakes?

And whilst It may be viewed from an outsider perspective as problematic/foolish, if say no children are involved and all are consenting adults, do we really have a right to intervene?

---

An example of this is fatty unhealthy food. We've all seen the mass obesity increase (pardon the pun). The government COULD ban unhealthy food tomorrow. That doesn't mean they SHOULD.

~ Clara

[Hudor]

This is very well said, Clara. I entirely agree with this and it expresses my point very well. Polygamy is not only traditionally incorrect. If this were the case, then that would not be enough to deny it as one of our freedoms. The thing that makes it deniable as a freedom is that it causes problems legally, mentally, and even physically in some cases.

It is not the same case as same-sex marriage, in my opinion. It is a completely different concept with completely different consequences. I think the reason anyone would want to simply say that polygamy is one of our freedoms is because they tend to draw parallels between it and issues such as gay marriage. These parallels, however, are not really able to be drawn when you think about it.

Just wondering. Would a gay couple married to a lesbian couple with one male partner married to one female partner each will be considered polygamy?

[sweettayla]

Illegal here.

[Typhlosion]

I've been recently convinced that Polygamy is really right in being banned. It screws people and relationships up and causes great deals of confusion. Like any other liberties we could have, that have their pros and cons? Assuming two+ consenting adults, can they not evaluate the case of "screwing people and their relationships up and causing great deals of confusion" by themselves, or do they need a governmental saying to prevent them from all the trouble? This is unlike drugs, of course, that create a strong chemical dependence on the user and generally brings no fun to the people related to the user and the government itself.

Or are you thinking of and how polygamy could addressed on a legal level? That would put in a knot in our heads.

[Babs]

If a dude wants 10 wives, I don't care. What goes on between consenting adults is not my business.

[Microcosm]

Like any other liberties we could have, that have their pros and cons? Assuming two+ consenting adults, can they not evaluate the case of "screwing people and their relationships up and causing great deals of confusion" by themselves, or do they need a governmental saying to prevent them from all the trouble? This is unlike drugs, of course, that create a strong chemical dependence on the user and generally brings no fun to the people related to the user and the government itself.

Or are you thinking of and how polygamy could addressed on a legal level? That would put in a knot in our heads.

It seems to be a threat to the order and honor of marriage. Not only that, but one of the main issues is divorces and break ups within the relationship. Trying to properly distribute all those assets is legally challenging.

Polygamist relationships, while unhealthy in my opinion, are something which I nor any democratic, liberty-based government shall have any real say in. However, once you try to marry, the issue becomes a larger ordeal.

[NeuroTiger]

The islamic polygamy is pretty much a 'clean polygamy' if properly applied according to its principles. A maximum of 4 spouses(4 females for a male maximum). The male should have enough resources to cater for his wives and should ensure that he is looking after each one of them equally(no discrimination).
There are some other criteria which you might read from books (preferably not from the internet).

For such a polygamy I'm FOR provided the person is responsible enough. Otherwise for irresponsible immature individuals, it's a HUGE NOOOO!

[Typhlosion]

It seems to be a threat to the order and honor of marriage. What, between a man and a wife? Which principles would you base your honor of marriage from beyond the ingrained ideas of Christian marriage? I can see how mind-boggling it can be from a legal viewpoint, but that does not necessarily have to be related from a moral viewpoint. Why would polygamy, then, be unethical and/or immoral?

---

Unrelated, I remembered that Vlerchan posted this once here: http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?t=213407

yes, humans are pair-bonding, barring certain mental illnesses. that's why the man/woman arrangement arose independently in cultures separated by time and/or distance.
Lots of polygamous cultures have existed.

In 1998 the University of Wisconsin surveyed more than a thousand societies. Of these just 186 were monogamous. Some 453 had occasional polygyny and in 588 more it was quite common. Just four featured polyandry. Some anthropologists believe that polygamy has been the norm through human history. In 2003, New Scientist magazine suggested that, until 10,000 years ago, most children had been sired by comparatively few men. Variations in DNA, it said, showed that the distribution of X chromosomes suggested that a few men seem to have had greater input into the gene pool than the rest. By contrast most women seemed to get to pass on their genes. Humans, like their primate forefathers, it said, were at least "mildly polygynous".

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/the-big-question-whats-the-history-of-polygamy-and-how-serious-a-problem-is-it-in-africa-1858858.html

In general, it was just the men who were polygamous because it worked to producing the most children.

However, In some cultures, woman did engage in it - an example being the Tibetans in Nepals.

[ClaraWho]

The islamic polygamy is pretty much a 'clean polygamy' if properly applied according to its principles. A maximum of 4 spouses(4 females for a male maximum). The male should have enough resources to cater for his wives and should ensure that he is looking after each one of them equally(no discrimination).
There are some other criteria which you might read from books (preferably not from the internet).

For such a polygamy I'm FOR provided the person is responsible enough. Otherwise for irresponsible immature individuals, it's a HUGE NOOOO!

Did you really just try to defend Islamic polygamy as acceptable? Or indeed Islamic principles in regards to chattel, oops, I mean women?

Also which form of Islam are you describing, as some allow a man (notice permission granting and power goes to the male) to take (there words not mine) 9 wives [as did Mohammed, one of whom was only 9 when he consummated the marriage].

I see at the end of your post that you refer to a sole person being responsible enough, presumably in reference to the male and his ability to 'provide equally'. Let's not refer to the wives as individual people, or indeed as anything other than objects.

Slavery of black ethnic persons may have been brought to an end, yet as great an evil has been perpetrated for even longer with the slavery and oppression of women (worst in Islamic countries).

Obviously you haven't been following the thread, so I must direct your attention to my previous posts. We've already briefly addressed this issue, and the heteronormative gender bias that is intrinsic in making this an amoral stance.

----

A better poll may have been, Polygamy - Healthy or Unhealthy relationship status?

I believe the vast majority would agree it is unhealthy, and I'd happily outline my thesis as to why, from a psychological perspective (:

----

~ Sleepy Clara

[Ridonks_CB]

The islamic polygamy is pretty much a 'clean polygamy' if properly applied according to its principles. A maximum of 4 spouses(4 females for a male maximum). The male should have enough resources to cater for his wives and should ensure that he is looking after each one of them equally(no discrimination).
There are some other criteria which you might read from books (preferably not from the internet).

For such a polygamy I'm FOR provided the person is responsible enough. Otherwise for irresponsible immature individuals, it's a HUGE NOOOO!

I was actually going to bring this up, but you beat me to it :P
In my religion, polygamy was made to be okay (for the man, the women can only have one husband) because:
-It was told that women would outnumber men in the future (that can be seen in todays population) and so men - ONLY IF they are able financially and emotionally care for all their wives - should marry more than one as to reduce the amount of single women
-To be able to take in and take care of the widowed/the struggling women
It is NOT okay when it is for pleasure, nor is it okay to opress and rule over your wives. I am for polygamy if done correctly - and my opinion goes the same to regular one-one marriage. There can still be many harmful aspects to a regular relationship and personally I don't think the number of spouses is what causes it.

Did you really just try to defend Islamic polygamy as acceptable? Or indeed Islamic principles in regards to chattel, oops, I mean women?

Also which form of Islam are you describing, as some allow a man (notice permission granting and power goes to the male) to take (there words not mine) 9 wives [as did Mohammed, one of whom was only 9 when he consummated the marriage].

I see at the end of your post that you refer to a sole person being responsible enough, presumably in reference to the male and his ability to 'provide equally'. Let's not refer to the wives as individual people, or indeed as anything other than objects.

Slavery of black ethnic persons may have been brought to an end, yet as great an evil has been perpetrated for even longer with the slavery and oppression of women (worst in Islamic countries).

Obviously you haven't been following the thread, so I must direct your attention to my previous posts. We've already briefly addressed this issue, and the heteronormative gender bias that is intrinsic in making this an amoral stance.

----

A better poll may have been, Polygamy - Healthy or Unhealthy relationship status?

I believe the vast majority would agree it is unhealthy, and I'd happily outline my thesis as to why, from a psychological perspective (:

----

~ Sleepy Clara

There are reasons to the wives the Prophet (PBUH) had which I won't discuss on this thread because it goes off topic, but yes, Islamic polygamy is acceptable. It is actually unlawful to marry more than one woman if you are not able to provide to her all that you can as with the first, so that is why - even though it is alright - it is still not very common to see a man with more than one or two wives.
Women in Islam are not oppressed; just because it is seen in a Muslim community does not mean it is correct. The Quran puts women on a very high status of honour and those who belittle them or treat them any less human are sinful.
During the time polygamy was made lawful daughters were being buried alive merely for being female and many women were losing husbands - so it was made okay to take in more than one to be able to benefit them.

Posts merged. Next time, please use the "Edit" or "Multi" button. ~Elysium

[Vlerchan]

How far is too far in stepping in to protect people from their own choices or mistakes?
I believe you're missing her points. I'll quote the study she's referring to.

In suppressing intrasexual competition and reducing the size of the pool of unmarried men, normative monogamy reduces crime rates, including rape, murder, assault, robbery and fraud, as well as decreasing personal abuses. By assuaging the competition for younger brides, normative monogamy decreases (i) the spousal age gap, (ii) fertility, and (iii) gender inequality. By shifting male efforts from seeking wives to paternal investment, normative monogamy increases savings, child investment and economic productivity. By increasing the relatedness within households, normative monogamy reduces intra-household conflict, leading to lower rates of child neglect, abuse, accidental death and homicide. These predictions are tested using converging lines of evidence from across the human sciences.

Henrich, J., Boyd, R., Richerson, P. J. (2012). The Puzzle of Monogamous Marraige. Philosphical Translations of the Royal Society, 367, pp. 657. (http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/royptb/367/1589/657.full.pdf)

It's not individual problems that are the issue. It's social problems that affect those outside the couple. Of course, the article implies that previous social enviorments were of a quite patriarchal orientation but the West is no post-feminist utopia, despite what feminisms detractors might claim. If polygamous marraige is going to be opposed, then it should be opposed because the normalisation of the sexual relations that underpin it aids the creation of what is an abhorrent social environment.

However, the major issue here is that if you're in a society that is seriously considering legalising polygamous marraige, because the demand (i.e., enough lobbyists, votes) exists, then you have already lost because this social arrangement is going to exist regardless. Of course, undermining the basis for polygamous relations before this is difficult and this is where the actual problem for polygamies detractors lies. For me there is a number of means of achieving this.
The re-sacralisation of sex. The creation of an social environment where sex isn't 'just' sex but rather the extension of an intimate and meaningful bond between two people. This can be achieved within a general Feminist framework.
The condemnation of polygamous relations in particular through the lens of utilitarianism. The creation of a social environment where polygamous relations is understood to be in general undesirable at an individual level. This can be achieved within a general Feminist framework but a firm statement on the issue might be difficult to transmit since actions within the overarching liberal framework hold scope for 'choice'.
The condemtnation of polygamous relations in particular through the lens of culturalism. The creation of a social environment where polygamous relations are associated with The Other and deemed un-Irish, un-American, or otherwise. This can be achieved within a general Feminist framework but the de-nationalisation of our communities makes it quite difficult to implement.
The condemnation of polygamous relations in particular through the lens of Christian - or religious otherwise - Social Thought. This can't be achieved within a general Feminist framework.
I favour number one though it would also be quite difficult to bring about in-face of the recent sexual revolution.

[NeuroTiger]

I was actually going to bring this up, but you beat me to it :P
In my religion, polygamy was made to be okay (for the man, the women can only have one husband) because:
-It was told that women would outnumber men in the future (that can be seen in todays population) and so men - ONLY IF they are able financially and emotionally care for all their wives - should marry more than one as to reduce the amount of single women
-To be able to take in and take care of the widowed/the struggling women
It is NOT okay when it is for pleasure, nor is it okay to opress and rule over your wives. I am for polygamy if done correctly - and my opinion goes the same to regular one-one marriage. There can still be many harmful aspects to a regular relationship and personally I don't think the number of spouses is what causes it.

I totally agree with what you said.
That's why I emphasized on responsibility and maturity. Without these two factors, no relationship will be able to last very long.
And in our society, I should admit that it is really difficult to practice polygamy since today's relationships are mostly virtual (like us, friends on VT).

[ClaraWho]

*la sigh* 3 against 1, and 2 religious fundamentalists ha!

I am going to attach a proviso warning here; If you are unable to separate your religious founded ideology and dogma from rational reasoned discussion, I shall seize to reply to you. That would be the equivalent of me talking to a brick wall, and a complete waste of my time.

I was actually going to bring this up, but you beat me to it :P
In my religion, polygamy was made to be okay (for the man, the women can only have one husband) because:
-It was told that women would outnumber men in the future (that can be seen in todays population) and so men - ONLY IF they are able financially and emotionally care for all their wives - should marry more than one as to reduce the amount of single women
-To be able to take in and take care of the widowed/the struggling women
It is NOT okay when it is for pleasure, nor is it okay to opress and rule over your wives. I am for polygamy if done correctly - and my opinion goes the same to regular one-one marriage. There can still be many harmful aspects to a regular relationship and personally I don't think the number of spouses is what causes it.

I think you'll find I beat all of you to it, but nobody seems to have read my previous posts -.- :rolleyes: .

'In my religion it was made to be okay' - if you believe your God gave devine permission then you should appreciate that argument has no place in a debate. It is the equivalent of stating, "I'm right and nothing you say will ever be, unless you are agreeing with me'. I don't have time for that.

I will however quickly debunk and debase your insulting sexist claims.

- Women have (since they stop dying so much in child birth) always outnumbered men. There is no great mystery to this, or Devine reasoning. Most of the major wars, incidentally caused/incited by religious doctrine, wipe out vast numbers of men. This is because men are seen as the soldiers, the protectors, and women the stay at home care givers. Consequently there has generally been more men then women born.

- STOP REFERRING TO WOMEN AS CHATTLE. Single women DO NOT NEED TO BE MARRIED to be 'taken care of financially and emotionally'. To claim they do is extremely sexist and unequal, I assure you we women are just as capable as men. We can also function unmarried too. And drive cars. And get jobs. And be lesbians. And have sex with multiple partners should we wish.

- There is a sickening onus that comes accross with the way you refer in such a male dominating way to women. I struggle to see how the inequality eludes you.



There are reasons to the wives the Prophet (PBUH) had which I won't discuss on this thread because it goes off topic, but yes, Islamic polygamy is acceptable. It is actually unlawful to marry more than one woman if you are not able to provide to her all that you can as with the first, so that is why - even though it is alright - it is still not very common to see a man with more than one or two wives.
Women in Islam are not oppressed; just because it is seen in a Muslim community does not mean it is correct. The Quran puts women on a very high status of honour and those who belittle them or treat them any less human are sinful.
During the time polygamy was made lawful daughters were being buried alive merely for being female and many women were losing husbands - so it was made okay to take in more than one to be able to benefit them.

I'm sure there are reasons. Just as I'm sure any fully grown man who has sex with a 9 year old will claim for themself. All your points are founded in Islam, I hardly think that discussion is off topic. Please however read my opening remarks (at least) addressed to the above.

'Islamic polygamy is acceptable' - that is your unsubstantiated opinion.

'Unlawful' in the Islamic countries were it is practiced? The same backward countries that state a woman can only claim rape if a man (sometimes up to 4 others) witness it and will testify on her behalf?

It is irrefutable that women in Islam do not have the same level of rights as their male counterparts. Counter, they have far more restrictions. Ergo, women are oppressed.

I'll give an example;
When a man cheats on a women, it is frowned upon as he should have made her his wife (ignoring any wishes of current wives out of the equation).
When a women cheats on a man, she is to be stoned to death.

It is not a status of honour to impose ridiculous restrictions on every unharmful aspect of another groups life. 'Honour' is not 'love'. 'Honour' leads to the horrific killing of more family members than any other dispute. Yet it is a completely fabricated nonsensical pride based horror that blights the lives of over a billion human beings.

Lastly you state (without evidence) how daughters were all being killed. That as may be, but instead of creating a society were women are dependant on unwanted marriage, why not just stop people murdering them? :what::confused:

I believe you're missing her points. I'll quote the study she's referring to.

In suppressing intrasexual competition and reducing the size of the pool of unmarried men, normative monogamy reduces crime rates, including rape, murder, assault, robbery and fraud, as well as decreasing personal abuses. By assuaging the competition for younger brides, normative monogamy decreases (i) the spousal age gap, (ii) fertility, and (iii) gender inequality. By shifting male efforts from seeking wives to paternal investment, normative monogamy increases savings, child investment and economic productivity. By increasing the relatedness within households, normative monogamy reduces intra-household conflict, leading to lower rates of child neglect, abuse, accidental death and homicide. These predictions are tested using converging lines of evidence from across the human sciences.

Henrich, J., Boyd, R., Richerson, P. J. (2012). The Puzzle of Monogamous Marraige. Philosphical Translations of the Royal Society, 367, pp. 657. (http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/royptb/367/1589/657.full.pdf)

It's not individual problems that are the issue. It's social problems that affect those outside the couple. Of course, the article implies that previous social enviorments were of a quite patriarchal orientation but the West is no post-feminist utopia, despite what feminisms detractors might claim. If polygamous marraige is going to be opposed, then it should be opposed because the normalisation of the sexual relations that underpin it aids the creation of what is an abhorrent social environment.

However, the major issue here is that if you're in a society that is seriously considering legalising polygamous marraige, because the demand (i.e., enough lobbyists, votes) exists, then you have already lost because this social arrangement is going to exist regardless. Of course, undermining the basis for polygamous relations before this is difficult and this is where the actual problem for polygamies detractors lies. For me there is a number of means of achieving this.
The re-sacralisation of sex. The creation of an social environment where sex isn't 'just' sex but rather the extension of an intimate and meaningful bond between two people. This can be achieved within a general Feminist framework.
The condemnation of polygamous relations in particular through the lens of utilitarianism. The creation of a social environment where polygamous relations is understood to be in general undesirable at an individual level. This can be achieved within a general Feminist framework but a firm statement on the issue might be difficult to transmit since actions within the overarching liberal framework hold scope for 'choice'.
The condemtnation of polygamous relations in particular through the lens of culturalism. The creation of a social environment where polygamous relations are associated with The Other and deemed un-Irish, un-American, or otherwise. This can be achieved within a general Feminist framework but the de-nationalisation of our communities makes it quite difficult to implement.
The condemnation of polygamous relations in particular through the lens of Christian - or religious otherwise - Social Thought. This can't be achieved within a general Feminist framework.
I favour number one though it would also be quite difficult to bring about in-face of the recent sexual revolution.

The thought that granting polygamy suddenly will be the cure to world suffering or any of the problems you listed is shockingly naïve. Men and women would still cheat, relationships would still fall apart, dissolution of belongings and contact with children would be horribly complicated. (Not addressed to you Vlerchan but a general point).

I don't really understand which side you are trying to take here Vlerchan. :confused:

In terms of making sex 'sacred' again, I disagree. Sure having sex with strangers is risky to one's health, and from a common sense perspective should not be done. That it leads to unwanted pregnancies and all the associated problems goes hand-in-hand to McDonalds on a Saturday night. But I'm not for outright making it illegal.

Yes, I feel it is harming the individuals involved. I despair at the consequences of it, and I see the psychological damage it leaves behind. But then it comes back to how does one achieve discouraging this, without the use of force?

It may be worth adding 'relationship' elements to sexual education classes in schools, and decreasing the display of one-night-stands on TV. However men (and women with greater male hormone balances) are physically wired to want sex with multiple sexually receptive women.

A lot of your suggestions are made to sound grandiose in their overarching remits, but are lacking substance which is frustrating. You need to be more specific than suggesting overall, catch-all terminology when explaining yourself. Give me something to sink my teeth in to!

The last thing we need is to add an 'another' element to the broiling turmoil. It's very important we don't go backwards in an attempt to move forwards.


The most important conclusion to arise from this discussion is just how needed greater impowerment of women is needed (I should point out at this point I'm not one of the obsessive feminists :whoops: ).

To the previous posters; If women were allowed 4 husbands to financially and emotionally 'keep', to 'take them in' for their 'benefit' (1 women to 4 men) would you be opposed?

~ Clara

[Vlerchan]

The thought that granting polygamy suddenly will be the cure to world suffering or any of the problems you listed is shockingly naïve. Men and women would still cheat, relationships would still fall apart, dissolution of belongings and contact with children would be horribly complicated. (Not addressed to you Vlerchan but a general point).
As clarification I don't believe in a single part of the above.

I don't really understand which side you are trying to take here Vlerchan.
I oppose polygamous marraige with the view of the marginalisation of its practitioners.

In terms of making sex 'sacred' again, I disagree. Sure having sex with strangers is risky to one's health, and from a common sense perspective should not be done. That it leads to unwanted pregnancies and all the associated problems goes hand-in-hand to McDonalds on a Saturday night. But I'm not for outright making it illegal.
I don't want to introduce the law to the sphere of sexual relations.

I just want to create a social environment - through discourse - where having sex is imbued with certain social connotations that would make people place moderate-to-strong considerations surrounding who to have sex with.

But then it comes back to how does one achieve discouraging this, without the use of force?
I outlined four mechanism in brief. It all surrounds cultural shifts.

The debate surrounds finding a suitable vehicle to drive this cultural shift.

However men (and women with greater male hormone balances) are physically wired to want sex with multiple sexually receptive women.
So the solution surrounds creating a social environment where men and certain woman are incetivised to suppress these urges. I don't know enough about the human psych to make a worthwhile judgement on to how strong an incentive needs exist - but I'm quite sure it's possible.

A lot of your suggestions are made to sound grandiose in their overarching remits, but are lacking substance which is frustrating. You need to be more specific than suggesting overall, catch-all terminology when explaining yourself. Give me something to sink my teeth in to!
The suggestions above were intended to be succinct since it was points for others to work off. I figure it's better to find agreement on the general before we work towards the specific. I don't have real particular insights because relationship issues aren't something I lend a lot of thought to. It's also the case that all lot of policies can be more or less workable in different socio-political and cultural environments - so it's quite useless to suggest them in a un-contextualised format like this.

The favoured - first - solution surrounds conditioning people with idealised notions of the inherent value of sex and monogamous relations. This would be done through both education and the media as well as encouraged within familial group. It would be combined with light social coercion: where people who broke the 'rules' of this social environment would be 'shamed' into compliance - and a campaign to de-legitimise the current order through appeals to the issues that surround free sexual relations.

I also realise the difficulties in amassing the resources to commit to this in face of the current social environment that still prevails after the sexual revolution. There would first need to be an academic effort to de-legitimise the role of the sexual revolution - and the liberal tolerance and hedomism that underlie it. Once that has been established the campaign-proper can begin.
The second solution surrounds appeals to the issue surrounding free sexual relations inside the general overarching structure of liberal tolerance. Like I mentioned before I don't believe this will work to well considering the human psyche is behaving in this manner. There needs to be something stronger.
The third suggestion surrounds connecting ideals of the inherent value of sex and monogamous relations to the idea national - or regional - identification. This can be done through the same means I suggested could aid the re-sacralisation of sex.

This sort of attitude is somewhat seen in your posting. But I'll extend it to be more extreme for effect. 'Look how the muslims treat their woman: we're not like the muslims because we're civilised westerners - and civilised westerners are tolerant: not like muslims'. It's irrelevant whether or not this can be substantiated: the fact is that we connect values like tolerance to the West - and proceed in our identification with the West - is enough. If you disagree, you're just like the muslims and not someone who belongs in Western societies.
The fourth suggestion is to revive Christian Social Thought. Which is more or less a dead-end - and I don't consider it desirable at all - so I won't bother expanding.
I haven't outlined any specific policies there since it's the intention of mine to decide on the general before we focus on the specific. Is there a point in outlining specific policies in favour of a goal I'm not even sure other people believe in.

The last thing we need is to add an 'another' element to the broiling turmoil. It's very important we don't go backwards in an attempt to move forwards.
I don't believe there is a 'backwards' and 'forwards'.

There's just solutions. Some solutions suit interests of mine and some don't. I figure it irrelevant whether progressives or conservatives have an issue with these solutions.

he most important conclusion to arise from this discussion is just how needed greqter impowerment of women is needed.
Well, of course.

To the previous posters; If women were allowed 4 husbands to financially and emotionally 'keep', to 'take them in' for their 'benefit' (1 women to 4 men) would you be opposed?
Yes. It's the power-dynamics in this relationship that's the issue rather than it being polygamous though.

[ClaraWho]

As clarification I don't believe in a single part of the above.


I oppose polygamous marraige with the view of the marginalisation of its practitioners.


I don't want to introduce the law to the sphere of sexual relations.

I just want to create a social environment - through discourse - where having sex is imbued with certain social connotations that would make people place moderate-to-strong considerations surrounding who to have sex with.


I outlined four mechanism in brief. It all surrounds cultural shifts.

The debate surrounds finding a suitable vehicle to drive this cultural shift.


So the solution surrounds creating a social environment where men and certain woman are incetivised to suppress these urges. I don't know enough about the human psych to make a worthwhile judgement on to how strong an incentive needs exist - but I'm quite sure it's possible.


The suggestions above were intended to be succinct since it was points for others to work off. I figure it's better to find agreement on the general before we work towards the specific. I don't have real particular insights because relationship issues aren't something I lend a lot of thought to. It's also the case that all lot of policies can be more or less workable in different socio-political and cultural environments - so it's quite useless to suggest them in a un-contextualised format like this.

The favoured - first - solution surrounds conditioning people with idealised notions of the inherent value of sex and monogamous relations. This would be done through both education and the media as well as encouraged within familial group. It would be combined with light social coercion: where people who broke the 'rules' of this social environment would be 'shamed' into compliance - and a campaign to de-legitimise the current order through appeals to the issues that surround free sexual relations.

I also realise the difficulties in amassing the resources to commit to this in face of the current social environment that still prevails after the sexual revolution. There would first need to be an academic effort to de-legitimise the role of the sexual revolution - and the liberal tolerance and hedomism that underlie it. Once that has been established the campaign-proper can begin.
The second solution surrounds appeals to the issue surrounding free sexual relations inside the general overarching structure of liberal tolerance. Like I mentioned before I don't believe this will work to well considering the human psyche is behaving in this manner. There needs to be something stronger.
The third suggestion surrounds connecting ideals of the inherent value of sex and monogamous relations to the idea national - or regional - identification. This can be done through the same means I suggested could aid the re-sacralisation of sex.

This sort of attitude is somewhat seen in your posting. But I'll extend it to be more extreme for effect. 'Look how the muslims treat their woman: we're not like the muslims because we're civilised westerners - and civilised westerners are tolerant: not like muslims'. It's irrelevant whether or not this can be substantiated: the fact is that we connect values like tolerance to the West - and proceed in our identification with the West - is enough. If you disagree, you're just like the muslims and not someone who belongs in Western societies.
The fourth suggestion is to revive Christian Social Thought. Which is more or less a dead-end - and I don't consider it desirable at all - so I won't bother expanding.
I haven't outlined any specific policies there since it's the intention of mine to decide on the general before we focus on the specific. Is there a point in outlining specific policies in favour of a goal I'm not even sure other people believe in.


I don't believe there is a 'backwards' and 'forwards'.

There's just solutions. Some solutions suit interests of mine and some don't. I figure it irrelevant whether progressives or conservatives have an issue with these solutions.


Well, of course.


Yes. It's the power-dynamics in this relationship that's the issue rather than it being polygamous though.

But why should people be marginalised for having multiple sexual partners (if we leave aside marriage). That is merely another form of discrimination. True, we can all see the potential harmful consequences which may OR MAY NOT arise. But as long as it is consential and all involved are adults, what right do we have to outwardly discriminate?

By its very nature, if you make it culturally taboo then you also (presuming you are a decent person) have to protect those who partake against such discrimination, otherwise you lose 'freedom and equality'. Or you have to make it illegal. Further, a culture imbodied against such practices runs the risk of imposing legislation by popular demand (hey, most people aren't that smart...).

Arguably a lot of cultures already exist in line with your statement. Hence words such as 'slut', albeit far more sexist a viewpoint against women. In the West it is seen as more manly to have sex with more women, a conquest, but in other countries it is not.

A quick side note - male rats presented in sequence with sexually receptive females will copulate until they die from exhaustion. Sex (linked to the Dopamine reward system) is an intrinsic, and for some the largest, motivational drive. Mild social connotations be damned.

On your first point on the list, I think you'll find the USA has been (based on Christian principles) teaching a mindset of celibacy for centuries without much success. Basically what you outlined has been tried and tested in the education and cultural foundations.

All of these are just reitteration of your previous far too loosely woven points, but as you admit yourself they lack any real implications or clear routes to instigation. Talk for the sake of talk. I haven't replied to all of them, as they are rather repetitive in their basic premise and language.

You state you first wish to address the general, yet surely the general is whether it is actually something we should have interventions against in the first place. A question you have repeatedly ducked since the beginning of this discussion, and the actual premise of the argument.

'This sort of attitude is somewhat seen in your posting. But I'll extend it to be more extreme for effect. 'Look how the muslims treat their woman: we're not like the muslims because we're civilised westerners - and civilised westerners are tolerant: not like muslims'. It's irrelevant whether or not this can be substantiated: the fact is that we connect values like tolerance to the West - and proceed in our identification with the West - is enough. If you disagree, you're just like the muslims and not someone who belongs in Western societies.'

You really do make the most ludicrous conclusive leaps and twisted synopsis. Don't dare put words into my mouth or claim to know my attitude. This whole paragraph is ridiculous. I cannot comprehend what you are actually referring to, but I'll try to decipher what I can. You really ought to work on expressing yourself more clearly (no offence) to avoid misunderstandings.

I am a human being. As such I am part of the collective of other geographically located human beings. My values are based on what is morally and intellectually the most free yet positive life experience for all. My morality is both intrinsic and formed through empathy of others.
Tolerance is not in itself a positive thing. Tolerance by definition means accepting something you fundamentally disagree with. If one holds valid reasons (SUBSTANTIATED REASONING) for something, why should they tolerate it (albeit peaceful legislative intolerance, never violence). Evidence is crucial. That's why sciences and pholosophy, hey even this debate, exist. We test our theories to find the best solutions for all. That is why one must substantiate their opinion, otherwise it is baseless in reality and narrow minded.

East/West devides have nothing to do with the current discussion. Any historian will tell you the East is at the stage the West was many centuries ago, we have since progressed.

----

Sorry, by backwards and forwards I was going on the commonly held understanding of these terms.

Backwards - Mistakes from the past we have seen the error of, being returned to.
Forwards - Attempts at finding a way of living that offers all equal opportunity and rights.

Both of these quite clearly exist and are evidenced.

----

From a psychological stand point polygamy will never be as fulfilling as a pairing, but to return to the main topic proper - Isn't that their perrogative? And if so, who are we to try to change the world against them?

~ Clara

[Vlerchan]

But why should people be marginalised for having multiple sexual partners (if we leave aside marriage). That is merely another form of discrimination.
I don't see an inherent wrong in discrimination.

True, we can all see the potential harmful consequences which may OR MAY NOT arise. But as long as it is consential and all involved are adults, what right do we have to outwardly discriminate?
It's the case that harmful consequences tend to arise.

Please also read the study I presented in the post at the top of this page. It was determined that monogamous marraige tended to
reduced social issues like crime (inc. rape, murder, assault, robbery and fraud).
reduced gender inequalities
increased savings, child investment and economic productivity.
It also reduced intra-household issues (inc. violence) but I guess since these people made the decision - as individuals - then that doesn't matter too much.

The fact of the matter is that there's scope for the government to intervene here even if we have an ethical issue with meddling with the lives of individuals.

By its very nature, if you make it culturally taboo then you also (presuming you are a decent person) have to protect those who partake against such discrimination, otherwise you lose 'freedom and equality'.
I'm not sure that I understand this like. Can you please reword it? Thanks in advance.

Further, a culture imbodied against such practices runs the risk of imposing legislation by popular demand (hey, most people aren't that smart...).
It's more or less impossible to impose legislation against what people decide to do in their own bedrooms like this. I'm also sure it would be unconstitutional within most Western democracies. But - just to be sure - what legislation are you considered. 'I want some meat' too.

Arguably a lot of cultures already exist in line with your statement. Hence words such as 'slut', albeit far more sexist a viewpoint against women. In the West it is seen as more manly to have sex with more women, a conquest, but in other countries it is not.
I agree and don't support this.

I might also point out that I would prefer a world of Free Love to one where woman didn't achieve social equalisation.

Mild social connotations be damned.
I'm not sure if rats are quite comparable in their complexities of humans.

Regardless - considering this - do you have suggestions that might defeat polygamous relations, since you also agree they're bad.

On your first point on the list, I think you'll find the USA has been (based on Christian principles) teaching a mindset of celibacy for centuries without much success. Basically what you outlined has been tried and tested in the education and cultural foundations.
It seems the case to me that the extent to which sexual relations were liberalised didn't exist through the US's history either.

All of these are just reitteration of your previous far too loosely woven points, but as you admit yourself they lack any real implications or clear routes to instigation.
It's a general idea. I'm probing for general agreement.

You state you first wish to address the general, yet surely the general is whether it is actually something we should have interventions against in the first place. A question you have repeatedly ducked since the beginning of this discussion, and the actual premise of the argument.
I addressed this in my first post.

I believe you're missing her points. I'll quote the study she's referring to[:]

In suppressing intrasexual competition and reducing the size of the pool of unmarried men, normative monogamy reduces crime rates, including rape, murder, assault, robbery and fraud, as well as decreasing personal abuses. By assuaging the competition for younger brides, normative monogamy decreases (i) the spousal age gap, (ii) fertility, and (iii) gender inequality. By shifting male efforts from seeking wives to paternal investment, normative monogamy increases savings, child investment and economic productivity. By increasing the relatedness within households, normative monogamy reduces intra-household conflict, leading to lower rates of child neglect, abuse, accidental death and homicide. These predictions are tested using converging lines of evidence from across the human sciences.

Henrich, J., Boyd, R., Richerson, P. J. (2012). The Puzzle of Monogamous Marraige. Philosphical Translations of the Royal Society, 367, pp. 657.

It's not individual problems that are the issue. It's social problems that affect those outside the couple. Of course, the article implies that previous social enviorments were of a quite patriarchal orientation but the West is no post-feminist utopia, despite what feminisms detractors might claim. If polygamous marraige is going to be opposed, then it should be opposed because the normalisation of the sexual relations that underpin it aids the creation of what is an abhorrent social environment.

I even bolded the most relevant parts of the study when I first approached this. So no I did not 'repeatedly duck' it. You just happened to have read past the actual point.

You really do make the most ludicrous conclusive leaps and twisted synopsis. Don't dare put words into my mouth or claim to know my attitude. This whole paragraph is ridiculous. I cannot comprehend what you are actually referring to, but I'll try to decipher what I can. You really ought to work on expressing yourself more clearly (no offence) to avoid misunderstandings.
I wasn't putting words in your mouth. I claimed that that was an 'extreme' twist on the arguments posed. It's called ethnocentrism - we look at the 'unfree' people of the non-West and wish that these people could be just like us, on the basis of cultural projection (i.e., the use of our culturally-derived standard to shame another culture). But I apologise for the offence caused, I was just attempting to relate a theme back to something common.

East/West devides have nothing to do with the current discussion. Any historian will tell you the East is at the stage the West was many centuries ago, we have since progressed.
The East-West divide had to do with people identifying with the West and it's values, which differ markedly than those predominant in the East. I had proposed using propaganda techniques to tie certain cultural values to Western identification, and since what the West is, is something that can only be determined with reference to The Other (the East), I brought The East in.

Sorry, by backwards and forwards I was going on the commonly held understanding of these terms.

Backwards - Mistakes from the past we have seen the error of being returned to.
Forwards - Attempts at finding a way of living that offers all equal opportunity and rights.

Both of these quite clearly exist and are evidenced.
Ok. I'm not going to debate the idea of progression and regression in this thread, since it's barely related.

[Ridonks_CB]

*la sigh* 3 against 1, and 2 religious fundamentalists ha!


I've never given very long answers because I multi-task and move around a lot, and as much as I'd like to give a more in depth answer to this, Ill save time by not doing so.
I understand that many people don't like the idea of being told something by a "divine supernatural being" without concrete answers, and I respect that, but I have differing views. You can certainly, though I doubt you would, watch debates or explanations made by religious scholars as to why we have our set beliefs (that don't change throughout time), but I'm still learning myself and I don't see myself fit to debate it. As for the parts I can refute, it would bring us off topic and I'm sure no one cares to read through religious lessons. I appreciate your reply though - thank you.

[Babs]

On the subject of bringing religion into this debate, I think it's pointless and a waste of time to type out an argument based on your own religious convictions, partly because I think most would agree with a separation between church and state. But mainly because your religious beliefs don't matter to other people, and I mean that in the most respectful way possible. People may respect your beliefs, but it's unreasonable to expect people to live by your convictions. Obviously, the exceptions would be if someone was doing something to hurt somebody else, but that is something most agree is wrong regardless of religion.
That said, whether you have convictions against polygamy - religious or not - or just a distaste for it, that should not effect anybody's life but your own. Polygamous marriages aren't actively hurting anybody, so there really is no reason for them to be banned.

[Vlerchan]

Polygamous marriages aren't actively hurting anybody, so there really is no reason for them to be banned.
In the paper I quoted it stated that societies which allowed for polygamous marriage - and polygamous relations - tended to be characterised by an increased level of a number of social problems [I mentioned them in a previous post]. So whilst the act of marriage itself is harmless the social dynamics that underlie the behaviour involved contribute towards a harmful social environment - which has a negative impact on people both inside and outside the couple.

There does seem to be scope for these sort of relations outside of patriarchal societies I'll add - but we don't live in one of these societies.

[ClaraWho]

I don't see an inherent wrong in discrimination.


It's the case that harmful consequences tend to arise.

Please also read the study I presented in the post at the top of this page. It was determined that monogamous marraige tended to
reduced social issues like crime (inc. rape, murder, assault, robbery and fraud).
reduced gender inequalities
increased savings, child investment and economic productivity.
It also reduced intra-household issues (inc. violence) but I guess since these people made the decision - as individuals - then that doesn't matter too much.

The fact of the matter is that there's scope for the government to intervene here even if we have an ethical issue with meddling with the lives of individuals.


I'm not sure that I understand this like. Can you please reword it? Thanks in advance.


It's more or less impossible to impose legislation against what people decide to do in their own bedrooms like this. I'm also sure it would be unconstitutional within most Western democracies. But - just to be sure - what legislation are you considered. 'I want some meat' too.


I agree and don't support this.

I might also point out that I would prefer a world of Free Love to one where woman didn't achieve social equalisation.


I'm not sure if rats are quite comparable in their complexities of humans.

Regardless - considering this - do you have suggestions that might defeat polygamous relations, since you also agree they're bad.


It seems the case to me that the extent to which sexual relations were liberalised didn't exist through the US's history either.


It's a general idea. I'm probing for general agreement.


I addressed this in my first post.

I believe you're missing her points. I'll quote the study she's referring to[:]

In suppressing intrasexual competition and reducing the size of the pool of unmarried men, normative monogamy reduces crime rates, including rape, murder, assault, robbery and fraud, as well as decreasing personal abuses. By assuaging the competition for younger brides, normative monogamy decreases (i) the spousal age gap, (ii) fertility, and (iii) gender inequality. By shifting male efforts from seeking wives to paternal investment, normative monogamy increases savings, child investment and economic productivity. By increasing the relatedness within households, normative monogamy reduces intra-household conflict, leading to lower rates of child neglect, abuse, accidental death and homicide. These predictions are tested using converging lines of evidence from across the human sciences.

Henrich, J., Boyd, R., Richerson, P. J. (2012). The Puzzle of Monogamous Marraige. Philosphical Translations of the Royal Society, 367, pp. 657.

It's not individual problems that are the issue. It's social problems that affect those outside the couple. Of course, the article implies that previous social enviorments were of a quite patriarchal orientation but the West is no post-feminist utopia, despite what feminisms detractors might claim. If polygamous marraige is going to be opposed, then it should be opposed because the normalisation of the sexual relations that underpin it aids the creation of what is an abhorrent social environment.

I even bolded the most relevant parts of the study when I first approached this. So no I did not 'repeatedly duck' it. You just happened to have read past the actual point.


I wasn't putting words in your mouth. I claimed that that was an 'extreme' twist on the arguments posed. It's called ethnocentrism - we look at the 'unfree' people of the non-West and wish that these people could be just like us, on the basis of cultural projection (i.e., the use of our culturally-derived standard to shame another culture). But I apologise for the offence caused, I was just attempting to relate a theme back to something common.


The East-West divide had to do with people identifying with the West and it's values, which differ markedly than those predominant in the East. I had proposed using propaganda techniques to tie certain cultural values to Western identification, and since what the West is, is something that can only be determined with reference to The Other (the East), I brought The East in.


Ok. I'm not going to debate the idea of progression and regression in this thread, since it's barely related.

1) The quote you keep obsessively repeating is a statistical analysis of the evolution of the culture of polygamy vs monogamy. It is a historical study that doesn't claim to have any evidence or theory on today's more suitable relationship type. Things are very different than they were 3000 years ago.

2). Don't be obnoxious and twist my words. As I stated UNHARMFUL - so no. Obviously domestic violence is wrong and it was wrong of you to try to suggest I said otherwise.

3) There isn't scope for the government to intervene unless we as a democracy vote them in to do so. We thankfully don't live in a totalitarian dictatorship.

4) If you make something taboo, the public will take an opinionated stance on it. Maybe not initially. But bodies will form supporting either for or against the issue, and at some point in the future the situation could arise that they demand legislation to support that view. Like the ending of the illegality of gay marriage by popular vote in Ireland.

5) More or less impossible to legislate against what people do in their own bedrooms? Really? Take my last example. And I'm not 'for' any legislation, obviously, as I'm against the motion of illegality? Obviously :what:

6) Rats (or other mammals) are used in Psychological/Medical experiments due to their similarity of bioneurological circuitry. Yes humans are more complex, but we have people playing video games till they die in Japan. And sex is one of the strongest intrinsic motivational drives we have, due to (as mentioned) the endocrine reward system.

7) I agree that Polygamus relationships have the potential to be more harmful than monogamous relationships. But that's only on the basis that the monogamous relationship be a perfect one. People are so complicated and if someone can find more happiness with several partners as opposed to one in their available environment, then who the hell are we to deny them that happiness?

8) lack of liberalisation in America runs counter to your point, not for. As even without it, the proposed 'cure' failed.

9) So they are empty suggestions. Great.

10) By ducked I mean not addressing it other than presenting an irrelevant outdated (it's meant to be historical) article. And the question wasn't 'do you believe it is wrong' it's 'should it be illegal?'

11). Ethnocentrism is irrelevant here, as it lacks evidence. We evidentially know better. For example, we know better education provides a better quality of life. We know that underage marriage is wrong and harmful to children. This isn't about projecting our ideology in contrast, it's mistakes we made and have learnt from.

12) As stated they aren't ' The Other' they're different geographically located humans in a less evolved cultural environment, that we were not long ago in. If anything it's an illustration of how far we have come.

13) It's nearly always related to everything.

~ Fed up Clara

I've never given very long answers because I multi-task and move around a lot, and as much as I'd like to give a more in depth answer to this, Ill save time by not doing so.
I understand that many people don't like the idea of being told something by a "divine supernatural being" without concrete answers, and I respect that, but I have differing views. You can certainly, though I doubt you would, watch debates or explanations made by religious scholars as to why we have our set beliefs (that don't change throughout time), but I'm still learning myself and I don't see myself fit to debate it. As for the parts I can refute, it would bring us off topic and I'm sure no one cares to read through religious lessons. I appreciate your reply though - thank you.

I multi-task too hence this has taken to long to get around to. That and I came back to 13 lengthy post quotes! YIKES! :eek:

Please don't make assumptions about my character or what I am likely or not to do. I frequently debate religious people as part of my schools debating society, as research I have read the bible & quran, and I watch 2 hour debates between religious scholars vs aethists frequently as prep.

May I suggest you don't involve yourself in debate you feel unfit to continue should your beliefs be questioned? It does rather just clutter up the thread with irrelevant conjecture. Most of us already know where religions stand on these issues, and please read the quoted post from Aristocrats below in support of this.

~ Clara (2 more to go :( )




On the subject of bringing religion into this debate, I think it's pointless and a waste of time to type out an argument based on your own religious convictions, partly because I think most would agree with a separation between church and state. But mainly because your religious beliefs don't matter to other people, and I mean that in the most respectful way possible. People may respect your beliefs, but it's unreasonable to expect people to live by your convictions. Obviously, the exceptions would be if someone was doing something to hurt somebody else, but that is something most agree is wrong regardless of religion.
That said, whether you have convictions against polygamy - religious or not - or just a distaste for it, that should not effect anybody's life but your own. Polygamous marriages aren't actively hurting anybody, so there really is no reason for them to be banned.

I agree with the everything you said, barring the last line. I concur with the sentiment in which it was made though. Thank you for such a well written reply, it saved me having to compose one haha.

~ Appreciative Clara


In the paper I quoted it stated that societies which allowed for polygamous marriage - and polygamous relations - tended to be characterised by an increased level of a number of social problems [I mentioned them in a previous post]. So whilst the act of marriage itself is harmless the social dynamics that underlie the behaviour involved contribute towards a harmful social environment - which has a negative impact on people both inside and outside the couple.

There does seem to be scope for these sort of relations outside of patriarchal societies I'll add - but we don't live in one of these societies.

1) There are too many unaccounted for confounding variables (mainly religion) which make the social dynamics undeterminable by polygamy alone.

2) Perhaps you should conduct a poll to see how many people would even consider a Polygamus relationship (both including/excluding religious answers). I'm guessing most in the West wouldn't want one, legal or not.

3) You have as mentioned misconstrued the intended focus of the paper, it is historical not present times related.

~ tired Clara

[Lovelife090994]

Polyamory and polygamy uf consensual should always be legal.