SSM supporters: What do you think of polygamy?

[ericc]

I’d have to go with ‘something else’. I have friends who are into that lifestyle, so I’m familiar with how the ‘rules’ are supposed to work…but in all honesty, I’ve never seen a polygamous relationship work out–somebody always ends up feeling left out and getting hurt.

I dunno, maybe somewhere, out there, it’s worked and all parties were happy, I just haven’t seen or heard of it myself.

If you have Muslim friends, now is the time to ask for their comments. One wife is already a challenge. Jesus knows what he is talking about when he said 1 man 1 woman.

It can never be a fair relationship. I am sure the man wouldn’t want his wife to have more than 1 husband either. In the old days where women depends entirely on man for her livelihood , there may not be a choice for her. In today’s world, where women very often are equal or surpasses the man in earning capability, will there be an objection to a woman having multiple husbands? If there are sugar daddies, sugar mommies are possible too.

But why stop at SSM and polygamy? Why not incest as well. If all that is determining the morality of it is free consent and freedom of choice.

 

[Tarquin]

I’m for SSM but I’m against civil polygamy for the very simple reason that it creates a complex and nearly unworkable framework for the judicial system and the laws we have regarding marriage. And long term of enough engage in it it creates a gender imbalance.

That said, if a group of people are polyamorus, that’s fine I suppose provided everyone knows and consents. They can religiously or ceremonial marry for all I care.

Given the words of the Supreme Court, I do not see how polygamy and polyamory, as civil marriage systems, can be denied. However, it seems inconsistent to suggest civil polygamy as undesirable based on its effect on the judicial system and current marriage laws, yet at the same time support polyamory. Polyamory is, like polygamy, one person married to more than one. So both would be complex. One man and three women, or one woman and three men, or two men and two women, seem to me to be nearly equal in complexity. . I do not see why judge civil polygamy would be nearly unworkable for a judicial system, even when combined with current marriage laws. Current marriage laws have just changed, and can change again. And there are nations where marriage laws already do address the civic reality of polygamy, and the justice system does already deal with issues regarding those laws.

Whether or not it is a civil marriage one would presume they would effectively life as married anyways.

Anyways, if the consent issue was to given due diligence I think it would be a very small number of these marriages. Might be media bias, but I haven’t seen authorities raid too many polygamist compounds that didn’t have some really really bass stuff and coercion going on either.

What bearing does the number of participants in a certain kind of marriage have on whether people have a right to contract them or not? There are, for example, a very small number of same-sex marriages, yet they are permitted.

In response to your last statement, yes I would say that such a perception is due to media bias, to anti-polygamy literature, and to dishonesty on the part of law enforcement and “family services.” Such raids target all polygamists. No distinction is made (in the cases I am familiar with) between the law-abiding families and those where one or more members have allegedly committed one or more crimes. There is a presumption of guilt all around.

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

Given the words of the Supreme Court, I do not see how polygamy and polyamory, as civil marriage systems, can be denied. However, it seems inconsistent to suggest civil polygamy as undesirable based on its effect on the judicial system and current marriage laws, yet at the same time support polyamory. Polyamory is, like polygamy, one person married to more than one. So both would be complex. One man and three women, or one woman and three men, or two men and two women, seem to me to be nearly equal in complexity.

I also don’t see how one denies polygamy either, but beyond the judicial practicalities I’m not sure there is a good reason to oppose others doing as they wish.
Also, polyamory is not marriage, but romantic relationships so it is not the same. Polyamory is also not illegal at this time.

I do not see why judge civil polygamy would be nearly unworkable for a judicial system, even when combined with current marriage laws. Current marriage laws have just changed, and can change again. And there are nations where marriage laws already do address the civic reality of polygamy, and the justice system does already deal with issues regarding those laws. What bearing does the number of participants in a certain kind of marriage have on whether people have a right to contract them or not?

Provided there is consent I don’t really care that much. I just haven’t heard a viable proposal of how civil polygamy would work. Marriage procedures, divorce, inheritance, how to revise existing law (local, state, and fed), mitigating the gender imbalance, etc. Marriage in the US involves thousands of laws and policies written specifically for two people. The change for ssm is just simply stating husband or wife refers to spouse 1 or something. But polygamy requires a great deal of reworking. It’s not the issue of rights per se, but the practicality of reworking so many things that me against it. But if those things are solved then to each their own.

There are, for example, a very small number of same-sex marriages, yet they are permitted.

the changes required are trivial on the civil side of things. In the same way the gender specific pronouns have effectively been negated most places by previous rulings or other laws, so too can it be simply done regarding ssm.

 

[ericc]

Still a compromise. The US is going to have to compromise on the issue, protecting religious freedom by separating religious marriage from civil marriage.

Do they permit a Muslim to have 4 wives?

 

[Jerusha]

Do they permit a Muslim to have 4 wives?

One legal wife, three concubines. I don’t think Muslim women, influenced by American culture, would tolerate polygamy. Many of them are well-educated. And how on earth can a man practice polygamy and treat each wife equally? It is absolutely unworkable. No such regulation within FLDS.

 

[The_Wizard]

But why stop at SSM and polygamy? Why not incest as well. If all that is determining the morality of it is free consent and freedom of choice.

Ericc brings up a good point. I think the case for incestuous marriage is stronger than that of polygamy. The legal problems brought up by some, I think, would not be a factor in an incestuous marriage.

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

Ericc brings up a good point. I think the case for incestuous marriage is stronger than that of polygamy. The legal problems brought up by some, I think, would not be a factor in an incestuous marriage.

Without some sort of science to the contrary the issue of negative recessive traits in children is a barrier. If that barrier falls then I guess it’s a free for all.

There’s already at least one incest marriage already.
nypost.com/2014/10/29/new-york-state-blesses-incest-marriage-between-uncle-niece/

 

[Stephen168]

Without some sort of science to the contrary the issue of negative recessive traits in children is a barrier.

Assuming marriage has anything to do with children, which I believe SSM rejects the idea.

 

[The_Wizard]

Without some sort of science to the contrary the issue of negative recessive traits in children is a barrier. If that barrier falls then I guess it’s a free for all.

With the availability of genetic testing, ultrasound and legal abortions I think the barrier has fallen deeper than the Challenger Deep in the Mariana Trench.

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

Assuming marriage has anything to do with children, which I believe SSM rejects the idea.

Children can “spontaneously” happen in traditional marriage. In SSM they must be intentionally created. I think SSM rejects children as an automatic component of marriage.

Presumably, in an opposite sex incest marriage children can “spontaneously” occur, so the possibility of children are part of the equation.

Edit: I can’t believe I’m delving into the logistics of incest here of all places.

 

[ericc]

One legal wife, three concubines. I don’t think Muslim women, influenced by American culture, would tolerate polygamy. Many of them are well-educated. And how on earth can a man practice polygamy and treat each wife equally? It is absolutely unworkable. No such regulation within FLDS.

The wives may came from a “traditional” source i.e. Middle East and certain parts of the world. If the secular authorities must permit freedom of religion, then they couldn’t prohibit a Muslim to have 4 wives. Then as their population grows, the number of votes also grow. Slowly but surely the writing on the wall is getting visible. When they are a minority, they are ok for most part. When they become a majority, they expect you to kowtow to them. For example, during their fasting month, they expect the minority not to eat in front of them citing disrespectfullness. They copyright God. You can’t call your Christian God Allah lest it confuses them and so on. Cinemas are segregated between the sexes. If they have majority votes, does your country laws protect the minority Christians, atheists, SSAs? Is your country laws cast in concrete that nothing can change it? What if the majority of the Supreme Court judges are Muslim? Will the United States becomes Ununited?

 

[ericc]

Children can “spontaneously” happen in traditional marriage. In SSM they must be intentionally created. I think SSM rejects children as an automatic component of marriage.

Presumably, in an opposite sex incest marriage children can “spontaneously” occur, so the possibility of children are part of the equation.

Edit: I can’t believe I’m delving into the logistics of incest here of all places.

Lets start with incestuous SSM. 2 gay blood brothers expressing their love for each other. How is it different from a non-incestous gay relationship other than having common parents? How about a slight difference, gay half brothers.

So you have a graduation from non -related SSM to partial related to fully related SSM. The next permutation of course would be father/daughter, mother/son, brother/sister, uncle /niece, grandparent/grandchild. Actual incest with capability to produce children but with no intention to via contraceptives. That remove that pesky children problem with less than ideal traits.

Interesting to see how one can justify one over the other. I still can’t.

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

Lets start with incestuous SSM. 2 gay blood brothers expressing their love for each other. How is it different from a non-incestous gay relationship other than having common parents? How about a slight difference, gay half brothers.

So you have a graduation from non -related SSM to partial related to fully related SSM. The next permutation of course would be father/daughter, mother/son, brother/sister, uncle /niece, grandparent/grandchild. Actual incest with capability to produce children but with no intention to via contraceptives. That remove that pesky children problem with less than ideal traits.

Interesting to see how one can justify one over the other. I still can’t.

It is not the intent for children but that a capability to spontaneous create then exist. As others point out all over these boards contraception occasionally fails.

Also, the uncle/niece permutation has already happened.
nypost.com/2014/10/29/new-york-state-blesses-incest-marriage-between-uncle-niece/

The parent/child permutation has obvious coercion issues in much the same way that several states deem teacher/student relations as a sex crime regardless of age.

 

[Stephen168]

Children can “spontaneously” happen in traditional marriage. In SSM they must be intentionally created. I think SSM rejects children as an automatic component of marriage.

Presumably, in an opposite sex incest marriage children can “spontaneously” occur, so the possibility of children are part of the equation.

Children can only happen in opposite sex unions. Same-sex unions can only “create” children outside their union. This is why supporters of SSM reject children as having anything to do with marriage.

“Child bride” (pedophilia) unions can not create children. Why would a supporter of SSM reject these marriages when they reject children as a component of marriage?

Children can happen in opposite sex sibling unions. Why would a supporter of SSM reject incest marriages when they reject children as a component of marriage?

To the point of the thread:

Historically marriage is about children that is why polygamous marriages are part of the history of marriage.

Polygamous unions can create children. Why would a supporter of SSM reject polygamous marriages when they reject children as a component of marriage?

 

[bjess8411]

No baiting, this is an honest question. If you support “same sex marriage,” what are your thoughts on polygamy? Just another life style choice? Right, wrong, or something else? I’m sincerely curious.

I see this a little differently. I view same sex marriage/homosexuality in general as completely and utterly wrong given scriptural precedent in Old and New Testament, but I am not sure you can argue against it politically. Divorce is legal but lawyers carry it out apart from the church as well as the people who separate from either other. I just don’t want churches who believe homosexuality is wrong to be forced to marry homosexual couples or for our religious freedoms to be taken away. Churches are not businesses. They are private religious institutions so they should be able to follow their beliefs. All private organizations have some areas where they discriminate against people. Some don’t cater to special needs children. Others don’t cater to children. Some cater to Christians. Others to Hindus and so on. Private schools are another example. Businesses, like a bakery or hotel, on the other hand should serve to everyone if that is their general practice. If your hotel serves people who are acting on a one night stand but not a lesbian couple that is very wrong.

As far as polygamy, you see many men in the old testament had multiple wives including Abraham, Jacob, David the man after God’s own heart, and others. They were blessed by the Lord and God never denounced their polygamy. The only one who got in trouble was Solomon because God said for kings not to marry many women, especially not foreign women who could lead them astray. In various New Testament letters it says that elders and those in authority should not have multiple wives because they should hold to a higher standard of living. Elders are supposed to be the husbands of one wife but for the average man having several wives should be more accepted. I don’t think polygamy is wrong before God.

 

[Saint_Frank]

I see this a little differently. I view same sex marriage/homosexuality in general as completely and utterly wrong given scriptural precedent in Old and New Testament, but I could support polygamy. Many men in the old testament had multiple wives including Abraham, Jacob, David the man after God’s own heart, and others. They were blessed by the Lord and God never denounced their polygamy. Still, I believe elders and those in authority should not have multiple wives because they should hold to a higher standard of living. Elders are supposed to be the husbands of one wife but for the average man having several wives should be more accepted. I don’t think polygamy is wrong before God.

I see your point, but where did the early Christians support polygamy? Christ certainly didn’t appear to support it, going by His statements about marriage and divorce. God didn’t create multiple wives for Adam, either. God Himself even always had one Bride - Israel/the Church. I know you’re not Catholic, but monogamist symbolism abounds in Christianity - Christ and Mary as the New Adam and New Eve putting right what the original ones did wrong, God the Husband and His Holy Bride, etc. Polygamy seems to have been a cultural innovation that wasn’t part of God’s plan for the family. Also, it doesn’t seem right for a woman to have to share her husband with multiple women and I wonder about the impact on children born into such arrangements. Intimacy is very special and it’s not something that should be shared with a number of people because that defiles and lessens what should be a very special gift to one person.

I think the most sensible, tried and tested arrangement will always be one man and one woman in a stable marriage and that’s the best for children, too.

 

[PRmerger]

It is not the intent for children but that a capability to spontaneous create then exist. As others point out all over these boards contraception occasionally fails.

Also, the uncle/niece permutation has already happened.
nypost.com/2014/10/29/new-york-state-blesses-incest-marriage-between-uncle-niece/

The parent/child permutation has obvious coercion issues in much the same way that several states deem teacher/student relations as a sex crime regardless of age.

I’m still not clear about your position.

Are you of the position that an incestuous marriage between 2 brothers would be something you’d be perfectly fine with?

Why or why not?

 

[Personanongrata]

So it’s not wrong, just impractical? Should it be legal?

It is already legal… A man can have a wife and as many girlfriends living with him as he wants. And if the women are dumb enough to like it, that’s their choice. Polygamy is a “man thing”. I am still waiting to hear from women who have both a legal husband and several boyfriends who live with them.

 

[Saint_Frank]

It is already legal… A man can have a wife and as many girlfriends living with him as he wants. And if the women are dumb enough to like it, that’s their choice. Polygamy is a “man thing”. I am still waiting to hear from women who have both a legal husband and several boyfriends who live with them.

I’ve known “polyamorous” women who have multiple boyfriends. They didn’t all live together, though. Her live-in boyfriend had/has major jealousy issues when it came to her other boyfriend, as well (i.e. he’s normal and having to suppress his true feelings about it). Apparently the actress, Tilda Swinton, was/is involved in a setup like you mentioned:
dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-513967/Tilda-Swinton-Her-toyboy-elderly-lover-intriguing-m-nage-trois.html

You’re right, though. It is mostly a “man thing”, due to how males are wired, so you’ll find that it’s mostly men who desire such things. Women who want multiple husbands/boyfriends will always be an outlier compared to typical women or men.

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

I’m still not clear about your position.

Are you of the position that an incestuous marriage between 2 brothers would be something you’d be perfectly fine with?

Why or why not?

No, I’m not fine with it. Rather repulsed, but I’m short on valid reasons to impose my sensibilities if no children can naturally occur. An opposite sex incest marriage should be illegal due to the possibility to accidentally create children, but I realize this is an illogical position.

But equally illogical is the assumption that lack of marriage prevents anyone from having children. Therefore we are left with “I don’t like it but can I or should I stop it?”

Where is the line between “I disapprove” and “we shall not allow others to do what I disapprove of”?