Should polygamy be legalized? (1 Viewer)

[InDefenseofSanity]

I mean, what business is it for the government to intrude into peoples lives?!

What is wrong with one woman loving 50 men, or one man loving 50 women?

Why should they be discriminated again?! I mean, polygamists didn't just wake up one day and decide they wanted to fall in love with more then one person, so it must be genetic and beyong their control.

Why should they have their civil rights violated...being a polygamist is no different from being born negroid, jewish or homosexual.

Why shouldn't society just be tolerant? I mean, polygamists are tax paying contributors to society!

Why do homosexuals get to make these arguments but homosexuals don't want any other type of deviant sexual behaviorists to use the same ones? What makes the sexual deviancy of homosexuality better or more privileged to use these rationales than any other sexual deviancy?

 

[YamiB.]

Your main flaw is that polygamists are born that way. It does not really qualify as a sexuality, they're just in a relationship with more than one person.

If all the people are of age and consenting then it should be allowed.

 

[Schweddy]

I have no issues with polygamy.

I do have issues with this being in the wrong forum though.
Moving to US Politics.

 

[Batman]

If you have trouble dealing with one, why try dealing with even more?

I don't get why people would want that lifestyle, but, to each his own.

 

[MiamiFlorida]

I mean, what business is it for the government to intrude into peoples lives?!

What is wrong with one woman loving 50 men, or one man loving 50 women?

Why should they be discriminated again?! I mean, polygamists didn't just wake up one day and decide they wanted to fall in love with more then one person, so it must be genetic and beyong their control.

Why should they have their civil rights violated...being a polygamist is no different from being born negroid, jewish or homosexual.

Why shouldn't society just be tolerant? I mean, polygamists are tax paying contributors to society!

Why do homosexuals get to make these arguments but homosexuals don't want any other type of deviant sexual behaviorists to use the same ones? What makes the sexual deviancy of homosexuality better or more privileged to use these rationales than any other sexual deviancy?

I don't believe homosexuality....or polygamy are "deviant sexual bahaviors".

 

[Snoozin]

Well, historically polygamous relationships often developed out of social need. In Islam, the *proper* reason for having more than one wife was to take care of widows or orphans. In some other cultures, women had more than one husband because men went off on long trips to hunt, and a woman still needed a man around to procreate and help with the children. Is there still this need today in the US? Particularly since we are extraordinarily wealthy by global standards?

 

[128shot]

Well, historically polygamous relationships often developed out of social need. In Islam, the *proper* reason for having more than one wife was to take care of widows or orphans. In some other cultures, women had more than one husband because men went off on long trips to hunt, and a woman still needed a man around to procreate and help with the children. Is there still this need today in the US? Particularly since we are extraordinarily wealthy by global standards?

need? no, but who cares?


There isn't a single real problem with having more than one wife..

 

[Snoozin]

need? no, but who cares?


There isn't a single real problem with having more than one wife..

I suppose in a *perfect* polygamous marriage, there is no problem. But I find (and I actually know a few) that the women are treated pretty poorly.

 

[128shot]

Thats between the wives and husband, that doesn't mean polygamy is bad.

 

[Snoozin]

Thats between the wives and husband, that doesn't mean polygamy is bad.

In theory, I totally agree with you. But in practice, I don't see too many redeeming qualities. And honestly, I'm all for gay marriage, and there is no true *need* for that either. So the line, even with me, is a very fine one.

The only difference I see between the two is that a polygamous marriage, where it's most often a man with multiple wives, carries with it an implicit belief that women are not as valued as men. And as a woman, I am naturally going to have a bias against that.

 

[128shot]

I know some people who want to legalize polygamy for the sole fact they have multple girlfriends and sex partners, and yes, they all know this..


I see no abuse here.

 

[Snoozin]

I know some people who want to legalize polygamy for the sole fact they have multple girlfriends and sex partners, and yes, they all know this..


I see no abuse here.

Well, as far as I know, having sex is not a criminal act in any state, so there's no need to legalize the act of having multiple sex partners. Marriage is a legal institution that merges two people as one to provide for inheritance rights and to legitimize heirs. Period. So there's definitely a public policy argument for legalizing it in this regard, to provide for inheritence rights, etc.

But just because an institution, on its face, seems to be harmless, that's not always the case. Because I think you could make the same argument about prostitution. Take two consenting adults having sex as a financial transaction. In theory, what's the problem? Nothing. But in practice, it leads to violence and abuse of the women, extraordinarily high rates of substance abuse, and massive spread of STDs to unsuspecting *legitimate* partners of those who engaged in sex for hire.

And I don't know about you, but I have never met a man who has simultaneous sexual relationships with more than one woman who actually respects those women as his equals. In fact, I cannot think of an instance like this where there wasn't at least some verbal abuse involved, if not physical.

Don't get me wrong, I do not like the government imposing moral values on people just because it can. We should have more autonomy than that. But at some point, the good of the society as a whole must be taken into consideration when determining public policy like this.

 

[128shot]

I know of no abuse, and I know most of his girlfriends personally.


Not to say it doesn't happen, but as far as I see it there isn't any problem of abusive nature...

 

[danarhea]

I don't believe homosexuality....or polygamy are "deviant sexual bahaviors".

To you, they may be, but to others, they are not. In short, the Federal government has no business forcing US citizens to abide by laws regulating these practices. However, the states have every right to do so, and I hope each state would do so according to its own Constitution.

 

[paulmarkj]

Polygamous societies are usually based around one man having one or more wives, not vice versa.

This leads to an imbalance in the ratio of men/women available for marriage or other partnerships. (eg: community adult pop. 100,000, where 10,000 men have 50,000 wives; 40,000 men have no wives - and little chance of a wife.)

This shortage leads to many problems: girls are treated like objects for sale and are bartered by their families for other girls. (How would a family ensure their son had a bride? by bartering their daughter for another families daughter.)

Girls are also kidnapped for similar purposes and their is general unrest among the male population.

Does this only happen in third world countries? Well, I am no expert about what happens in the U.S. but I have seen an American made documentary about polygamy in the US, and it wasn't a pleasant sight.

Ironically, polygamy is often justified on the basis that there is a sex ratio imbalance, and polygamy rectifies this.

 

[Alex]

Well, as far as I know, having sex is not a criminal act in any state, so there's no need to legalize the act of having multiple sex partners. Marriage is a legal institution that merges two people as one to provide for inheritance rights and to legitimize heirs. Period. So there's definitely a public policy argument for legalizing it in this regard, to provide for inheritence rights, etc.

Marriage is defined as whatever the individual wants it defined as. If they want it to be with one person, so be it. If they want it with 100 persons, so be it. That choice is theirs, not yours, not the governments. Polygamy is fine.

But just because an institution, on its face, seems to be harmless, that's not always the case. Because I think you could make the same argument about prostitution. Take two consenting adults having sex as a financial transaction. In theory, what's the problem? Nothing. But in practice, it leads to violence and abuse of the women, extraordinarily high rates of substance abuse, and massive spread of STDs to unsuspecting *legitimate* partners of those who engaged in sex for hire.

With this reasoning, matches should be illegal. A great number of fires are caused by matches. Illegalize them and the problem is gone. There are countless situations that cause fires and there are countless ways to get diseases. If all participants in prostitution are willing adults, so be it. We all know the possible consequences of sex. Prostitution is fine.

And I don't know about you, but I have never met a man who has simultaneous sexual relationships with more than one woman who actually respects those women as his equals. In fact, I cannot think of an instance like this where there wasn't at least some verbal abuse involved, if not physical.

And I know men involved with multiple partners who do respect all of them. I also know women involved with multiple men who respect the men. With your reasoning, marriage should be illegal all together. I know many more 2-person marriages that are far more abusive than multiple partner relationships. 2-person marriages require the possiblity of one person lying to their partner when they have extra-marital affairs. Multiple partner relationships do not. Which do you think is more frustrating and therefore produces more abuse?

Don't get me wrong, I do not like the government imposing moral values on people just because it can. We should have more autonomy than that. But at some point, the good of the society as a whole must be taken into consideration when determining public policy like this.

Polygamy is fine. Same-sex marriage is fine. Prostitution is fine. You are basing your reasoning on nothing but your own morals. That can only lead to imposing things on people.

The good of society is to let people make their own personal decisions. They will be much happier people and therefore much better citizens.

 

[Snoozin]

With this reasoning, matches should be illegal. A great number of fires are caused by matches. Illegalize them and the problem is gone. .

Well, there are now certain circumstances under which possession of matches *is* illegal. The government's dictated that matches are illegal to have on air flights, supposedly for the common good. I didn't say ban the institution of marriage, I just said I don't think polygamy is in our society's best interest.

If all participants in prostitution are willing adults, so be it. We all know the possible consequences of sex. Prostitution is fine. .

In theory, I agree with you. But in practice, it harms the common good. I worked in Baltimore City Jail for 10 years.....the effects of prostitution impact much more than just the two people involved in the transaction. It costs the state money to treat STDs, to provide detox programs, to provide HIV/AIDS drugs or birth control. It destroys the children of people involved who then become a drain on state funds as they grow older. It creates an illegal flow of money that invites greed and more violent crime. It puts women in situations where they can be raped. It puts men in situations where they can be injured or killed, either because he refuses to pay or the prostitutes boyfriend finds them and gets mad. I could go on and on.

So it's not as simple as two consenting adults.

2-person marriages require the possiblity of one person lying to their partner when they have extra-marital affairs. Multiple partner relationships do not. Which do you think is more frustrating and therefore produces more abuse? .

I never said I was a big fan of traditional marriage. But the multiple partner relationships I know of personally, which are either Muslim or Mormon, are fraught with abuse.

You are basing your reasoning on nothing but your own morals. That can only lead to imposing things on people. .

Isn't that all the law really is? Outlining what is acceptable behavior and what isn't based on a moral/ethical code determined by the community? English common law, which we inherited, is based on the Christian ethic.

If you have no laws imposed on people, you have anarchy. And since we all benefit from our society, it's important we protect society as well. And honestly, I'm not saying I'll be raving mad if some statute is passed permitting polygamous marriage. I'm just not a big fan, and I think it's important that the community as a whole looks at the good and bad of such an institution and makes its own decision.

The good of society is to let people make their own personal decisions. They will be much happier people and therefore much better citizens.

So I can decide to drive 100 mph through a school zone so I won't be late to work and my boss won't fire me? What if I am personally willing to take the chance that I might hit and kill and child and the risk to me is worth it? Saving my job is worth it. Doesn't the good of society have a stake in this? If your child went to that school, wouldn't you want the law to impose some limitations on my behavior?

 

[Alex]

Well, there are now certain circumstances under which possession of matches *is* illegal. The government's dictated that matches are illegal to have on air flights, supposedly for the common good. I didn't say ban the institution of marriage, I just said I don't think polygamy is in our society's best interest.

If you do not believe that polygamy is in the best interest of society, then that is fine. The problem comes when that belief is imposed on others. Be satisfied and content with your own beliefs and allow others the same respect. No one is telling you that you have to be a polygamist so do not impose your beliefs on anyone. See the difference? You live, I live, the polygamists live, all is good.

In theory, I agree with you. But in practice, it harms the common good. I worked in Baltimore City Jail for 10 years.....the effects of prostitution impact much more than just the two people involved in the transaction. It costs the state money to treat STDs, to provide detox programs, to provide HIV/AIDS drugs or birth control. It destroys the children of people involved who then become a drain on state funds as they grow older. It creates an illegal flow of money that invites greed and more violent crime. It puts women in situations where they can be raped. It puts men in situations where they can be injured or killed, either because he refuses to pay or the prostitutes boyfriend finds them and gets mad. I could go on and on.

So it's not as simple as two consenting adults.

Anything can harm the common good. Excess salt in restaurant food can harm people. Should it be outlawed? People have the right to ask for no salt in their food just as people have the right to refuse prostitution. Legalize prostitution and tax it if it costs the state money. That would eliminate your worry of cost. Even more importantly, all the things you listed are caused by other means than prostitution. The act of prostitution is not exclusive to any of them. STDs can be caused by any 2-person sexual act. Most of my relatives were alcoholics and none of them were prostitutes (possibly Aunt Suzie but the prosecution fell apart -- just kidding). Birth control is taken by many more women who are not prostitutes then women who are. I could go on and on but you get the point. Prostitution is not exclusive to any of these things.

It is as simple as two consenting adults. If a prostitute passes on an incurable (or curable I suppose for that matter) disease to someone who passes it on to another person, then that is a completely separate issue. Their are countless things that can lead to disease.

I never said I was a big fan of traditional marriage. But the multiple partner relationships I know of personally, which are either Muslim or Mormon, are fraught with abuse.

I canot relate to this because I have never seen it go this way. All the multiple partner relationships I have seen have had their problems, as any relationship does, but never have I witnessed abuse in them.

Isn't that all the law really is? Outlining what is acceptable behavior and what isn't based on a moral/ethical code determined by the community? English common law, which we inherited, is based on the Christian ethic.

If you have no laws imposed on people, you have anarchy. And since we all benefit from our society, it's important we protect society as well. And honestly, I'm not saying I'll be raving mad if some statute is passed permitting polygamous marriage. I'm just not a big fan, and I think it's important that the community as a whole looks at the good and bad of such an institution and makes its own decision.

I can agree that laws are based on common-human desire as the Bible is also, but I do not believe that these laws should impose morality to the point where people are restricted when they are not causing direct-intentional and physical harm on others. If all laws are based on this, we are not a free nation. If all laws are based on morality, then we become a subjective nation. Can anything good come from this? I do not believe it can. It has not been so successful so far as it only causes frustration and that leads to division.

So I can decide to drive 100 mph through a school zone so I won't be late to work and my boss won't fire me? What if I am personally willing to take the chance that I might hit and kill and child and the risk to me is worth it? Saving my job is worth it. Doesn't the good of society have a stake in this? If your child went to that school, wouldn't you want the law to impose some limitations on my behavior?

Exactly. If you drive 100 mph that is one issue that does not harm anyone. If you harm a child because of driving recklessly, then you have created a completely separate issue. You harmed someone that did not consent to the harm (I realize that most people do not consent to harm, but hang with me for a moment) and that is punishable. That child did not know the consequence of crossing the street at that moment (or whatever your scenario was impying) or that you would be driving recklessly and if they did, they were not in control of the situation anyway. With prostitution or polygamy, the participants are aware of the consequences and are in control of protecting their own health (mental or biological). If it goes beyond that, it is a separate issue.

 

[Snoozin]

If you do not believe that polygamy is in the best interest of society, then that is fine. The problem comes when that belief is imposed on others. Be satisfied and content with your own beliefs and allow others the same respect. .

Where in the world did you get the idea that I want to impose my beliefs on others? There is no greater advocate of our current legal system than me. I'm just trying to point out that it's possible (and I personally think probable) that legalizing polygamous marriage could have a detrimental impact on society.

Anything can harm the common good. Excess salt in restaurant food can harm people. Should it be outlawed? .

I know. That's why we have legislatures that theoretically weigh the plusses and minuses of legislation before passing it. We don't live in a vacuum, we live in a society. We can't unduly harm the society from which we benefit. We are rational (most of the time) creatures who must be capable of finding the balance between individual and community rights.

It is as simple as two consenting adults. If a prostitute passes on an incurable (or curable I suppose for that matter) disease to someone who passes it on to another person, then that is a completely separate issue. Their are countless things that can lead to disease. .

True. But the HIV infection rate among prostitutes in Baltimore was close to 100% when I was working there. If you are a public policy maker, how would you approach this public health issue, trying to minimize the spread of HIV? Crack down on two consenting adults having sex, or the industry of prostitution?

I can agree that laws are based on common-human desire as the Bible is also, but I do not believe that these laws should impose morality to the point where people are restricted when they are not causing direct-intentional and physical harm on others. If all laws are based on this, we are not a free nation. If all laws are based on morality, then we become a subjective nation. Can anything good come from this? I do not believe it can. It has not been so successful so far as it only causes frustration and that leads to division.

Democracy is not easy, I'm with you on that. But I think it's the best system out there. And total freedom is anarchy, like I said before. Most people in the US believe in some legal constraints on our behavior; we vary in how much regulation we want.

Exactly. If you drive 100 mph that is one issue that does not harm anyone.

I'm more apt to harm someone driving this fast. Anywhere, which is one reason we have speed limits. Are we too heavy-handed on speed limits? Maybe. I don't really see the need for speed limits in a lot of rural areas...

With prostitution or polygamy, the participants are aware of the consequences and are in control of protecting their own health (mental or biological). If it goes beyond that, it is a separate issue.

I know I come from a reasonably healthy/functional background and it sounds like you do too. But most women who engage in prostitution have serious mental health issues made worse almost always by substance abuse problems. They do not have as much control over their lives and you and I might. My belief is that something simliar occurs in institutionalized polygamous marriages. You definitely can disagree with this, it's just my belief.

And on that premise, I would be hesitant to try to legalize it. If I were sitting in congressional hearings and heard testimony from psychologists, or individuals in polygamous marriages, or other subject-matter experts, and they said that polygamous marriages as a rule are no worse and no more harmful than traditional marriage, I'd probably vote for the polygamous marriage. But until someone proves to me that there is no overriding harm to society, it's not something I personally support.

And, by the way, if it matters, I'm all for gay marriage and have been advocating for it for years. I just happen to see it as a natural extension of the traditional marital unit.

 

[Billo_Really]

Every man should be allowed to have a "stable of bitches!"

 

[Snoozin]

Every man should be allowed to have a "stable of bitches!"

A Woman's Perfect Breakfast:

She's sitting at the table with her gourmet coffee.
Her son is on the cover of the Wheaties box.
Her daughter is on the cover of Business Week.
Her boyfriend is on the cover of Playgirl.
And her husband is on the back of the milk carton. :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

 

[SKILMATIC]

Every man should be allowed to have a "stable of bitches!"

I thought I would never see the day where I agree with Bill.

I have to love you on this one Bill.

I would like to at least have one for each arm, leg and ball I have, :lol: .