Polygamy vs having multiple girlfriends

[Politesse]

Do you have any evidence that polygamous marriages are more likely to be abusive than monogamous marriages? I wouldn't actually expect that the isolation abusers seek to create around their victims would be as easy to construct in a routinely polygamous society, not that I doubt such things happen nevertheless.

Much of the polygamy is with the polygamist branch of the Mormons. It's mostly abusive.

I think you and I might have differing definitions of "evidence".

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Polygamy, in my country, was only outlawed as part of a larger part of a larger program of anti-Mormon persecution, and it routinely puts polygynous immigrant families in a bad situation that protects the women involved not at all. I would absolutely be in favor of full decriminalization.

Me too. I'm all for decriminalization of all polyamory. Why should't I be allowed to have multiple husbands and wives? And moreover, why should marriage come with any benefits from the state whatsoever? I don't think marriage should have any state involvement and should be purely a spiritual or contractual thing. If you want to bind yourself and others in civil unions, have at it. I don't care if you are doing it with any particular gender or number of people. I used to bring up this view back when gay marriage was still a hot topic. The state shouldn't be discriminating against polygamists, gay people, or single people who don't want to marry at all. No special rights or tax breaks etc from marriage does that.

 

[Treedbear]

Polygamy, in my country, was only outlawed as part of a larger part of a larger program of anti-Mormon persecution, and it routinely puts polygynous immigrant families in a bad situation that protects the women involved not at all. I would absolutely be in favor of full decriminalization.

Me too. I'm all for decriminalization of all polyamory. Why should't I be allowed to have multiple husbands and wives? And moreover, why should marriage come with any benefits from the state whatsoever? I don't think marriage should have any state involvement and should be purely a spiritual or contractual thing. If you want to bind yourself and others in civil unions, have at it. I don't care if you are doing it with any particular gender or number of people. I used to bring up this view back when gay marriage was still a hot topic. The state shouldn't be discriminating against polygamists, gay people, or single people who don't want to marry at all. No special rights or tax breaks etc from marriage does that.

So the state should take full responsibility for children? Parental custody of children is granted by the state. Civil unions are all about the state granting rights and responsibilities. It would be meaningless otherwise.

 

[J842P]

Polygamy, in my country, was only outlawed as part of a larger part of a larger program of anti-Mormon persecution, and it routinely puts polygynous immigrant families in a bad situation that protects the women involved not at all. I would absolutely be in favor of full decriminalization.

Me too. I'm all for decriminalization of all polyamory. Why should't I be allowed to have multiple husbands and wives? And moreover, why should marriage come with any benefits from the state whatsoever? I don't think marriage should have any state involvement and should be purely a spiritual or contractual thing. If you want to bind yourself and others in civil unions, have at it. I don't care if you are doing it with any particular gender or number of people. I used to bring up this view back when gay marriage was still a hot topic. The state shouldn't be discriminating against polygamists, gay people, or single people who don't want to marry at all. No special rights or tax breaks etc from marriage does that.

So the state should take full responsibility for children? Parental custody of children is granted by the state. Civil unions are all about the state granting rights and responsibilities. It would be meaningless otherwise.

What does that have to do with marriage? The state can do all that just fine (and currently does all the time) without taking marriage into account.

 

[Treedbear]

So the state should take full responsibility for children? Parental custody of children is granted by the state. Civil unions are all about the state granting rights and responsibilities. It would be meaningless otherwise.

What does that have to do with marriage? The state can do all that just fine (and currently does all the time) without taking marriage into account.

The state gives parents the rights and responsibilites of custody of their children. It enforces them and can take them away. And they're are often contingent on marriage.

 

[ronburgundy]

Do you have any evidence that polygamous marriages are more likely to be abusive than monogamous marriages? I wouldn't actually expect that the isolation abusers seek to create around their victims would be as easy to construct in a routinely polygamous society, not that I doubt such things happen nevertheless.

Much of the polygamy is with the polygamist branch of the Mormons. It's mostly abusive.

But that is likely more due to the domestic abuse that Mormonism inherently fosters than the polygamy itself. The way women are ideologically subjugated and expected to be subservient and loyal within Mormonism means there is no social support and much social resistance for women seeking help out of abusive relationships.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/opinion-young-rob-porter-mormon_n_5a844a06e4b0cf06752087ae

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Do you have any evidence that polygamous marriages are more likely to be abusive than monogamous marriages? I wouldn't actually expect that the isolation abusers seek to create around their victims would be as easy to construct in a routinely polygamous society, not that I doubt such things happen nevertheless.

Much of the polygamy is with the polygamist branch of the Mormons. It's mostly abusive.

But that is likely more due to the domestic abuse that Mormonism inherently fosters than the polygamy itself. The way women are ideologically subjugated and expected to be subservient and loyal within Mormonism means there is no social support and much social resistance for women seeking help out of abusive relationships.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/opinion-young-rob-porter-mormon_n_5a844a06e4b0cf06752087ae

I do agree it's due to the Mormonism and not the polygamy. That doesn't change the fact that most polygamy in the US is due to the Mormons. Putting an age requirement on it would go a long way towards stopping the abusive relationships without seriously impairing the truly consenting relationships.

 

[ronburgundy]

But that is likely more due to the domestic abuse that Mormonism inherently fosters than the polygamy itself. The way women are ideologically subjugated and expected to be subservient and loyal within Mormonism means there is no social support and much social resistance for women seeking help out of abusive relationships.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/opinion-young-rob-porter-mormon_n_5a844a06e4b0cf06752087ae

I do agree it's due to the Mormonism and not the polygamy. That doesn't change the fact that most polygamy in the US is due to the Mormons.

No, but it does mean that any arguments based in reducing marital abuse should be directed against Mormonism and similar religious ideology rather than the practice of polygamy.

Putting an age requirement on it would go a long way towards stopping the abusive relationships without seriously impairing the truly consenting relationships.

At minimum, the age of consent should be the same for males and females. Mormon's looking to abuse young women have created laws in Utah that make the age of consent 18 for males but 16 for females. And it seems like that min age for marriage should be at least as old as the age of full adult rights where parents no longer have any legal power over the person (so, 18 in most states).

There would still be plenty of abuse in marriages, and especially those within cultures of religiously enforced female submission, but at least kids couldn't be funneled into these arrangement by their abusive asshole parents until after the parents no longer had any legal control over them.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

The state gives parents the rights and responsibilites of custody of their children. It enforces them and can take them away. And they're are often contingent on marriage.

They shouldn't be.

Marriage should be a spiritual or personal thing. A civil union should be a legal agreement between two or more parties (which could include custody of offspring). And those who are not married should also have access to or custody of children where it is in the best interest of the child.

 

[Treedbear]

The state gives parents the rights and responsibilites of custody of their children. It enforces them and can take them away. And they're are often contingent on marriage.

They shouldn't be.

Marriage should be a spiritual or personal thing. A civil union should be a legal agreement between two or more parties (which could include custody of offspring). And those who are not married should also have access to or custody of children where it is in the best interest of the child.

Totally agree on the definition. That point should have been made back when gay marriage became legal. Civil union is by the state and marriage is by the church or whatever but not a legal term. Religions think they have a monopoly on the term, so give it to them. But people still think civil union means marriage. But who determines the best interest of the child? I think the government needs to have that responsibility.

 

[fromderinside]

But who determines the best interest of the child? I think the government needs to have that responsibility.

Although church teaches morality and responsibility, they also teach such were laid down by an imaginary faerie. So I agree that the government which sets rules for limits on behavior determined by consent of the governed within a society does have that responsibility.

 

[TSwizzle]

The state shouldn't be discriminating against polygamists, gay people, or single people who don't want to marry at all.

"The state" doesn't discriminate per se. The state (or rather society) recognizes/acknowledges marriage as beings a specific thing/function. If you marry your dog or cat in some weird sect, you have no right to expect society/state to recognize this arrangement as a marriage.

 

[J842P]

The state shouldn't be discriminating against polygamists, gay people, or single people who don't want to marry at all.

"The state" doesn't discriminate per se. The state (or rather society) recognizes/acknowledges marriage as beings a specific thing/function. If you marry your dog or cat in some weird sect, you have no right to expect society/state to recognize this arrangement as a marriage.

This is sort of a weird semantic quibble, though. Using this sort of logic, the state did not discriminate against Black people during slavery, society merely didn't consider Black people as persons.

 

[TSwizzle]

The state shouldn't be discriminating against polygamists, gay people, or single people who don't want to marry at all.

"The state" doesn't discriminate per se. The state (or rather society) recognizes/acknowledges marriage as beings a specific thing/function. If you marry your dog or cat in some weird sect, you have no right to expect society/state to recognize this arrangement as a marriage.

This is sort of a weird semantic quibble, though. Using this sort of logic, the state did not discriminate against Black people during slavery, society merely didn't consider Black people as persons.

Yes but clearly they were persons. Marriage is a social construct.

 

[J842P]

This is sort of a weird semantic quibble, though. Using this sort of logic, the state did not discriminate against Black people during slavery, society merely didn't consider Black people as persons.

Yes but clearly they were persons. Marriage is a social construct.

"Personhood" is a social construct as well. A "person" is merely a human (or other entity in some cultures) that is given moral consideration.

 

[TSwizzle]

This is sort of a weird semantic quibble, though. Using this sort of logic, the state did not discriminate against Black people during slavery, society merely didn't consider Black people as persons.

Yes but clearly they were persons. Marriage is a social construct.

"Personhood" is a social construct as well. A "person" is merely a human (or other entity in some cultures) that is given moral consideration.

A person/human/object exists. Marriage does not, it is a social construct.

 

[Treedbear]

"Personhood" is a social construct as well. A "person" is merely a human (or other entity in some cultures) that is given moral consideration.

A person/human/object exists. Marriage does not, it is a social construct.

A person/human/object exists with regard to how it interacts with or is related to other persons/humans/objects. Which is exactly what marriage defines.

 

[Bronzeage]

Marriage is a special form of legally sanctioned corporation, in which the principal shareholders are expected to have sex with one another.

People have been forming pair bonds since we learned to stand up straight and maybe before. Most religions have always recognized some kind of pair bond and whatever political powers that existed weren't all that concerned with it.

Marriage was formalized into law when society felt it was important to strictly define who owned what property and who was entitled to your property after you die. There are some other complicated issues, but that's the core of it.

 

[fromderinside]

Guess we need to modify human rights in all constitutions to read "All persons are created equal" so this property shiet goes away.