It’s Time to Legalize Polygamy

[Wilikon]

Most dispiriting, and least convincing, are those arguments that simply reconstitute the slippery slope arguments that have been used for so long against same sex marriage. “If we allow group marriage,” the thinking seems to go, “why wouldn’t marriage with animals or children come next?” The difference is, of course, consent. In recent years, a progressive and enlightened movement has worked to insist that consent is the measure of all things in sexual and romantic practice: as long as all involved in any particular sexual or romantic relationship are consenting adults, everything is permissible; if any individual does not give free and informed consent, no sexual or romantic engagement can be condoned.

This bedrock principle of mutually-informed consent explains exactly why we must permit polygamy and must oppose bestiality and child marriage. Animals are incapable of voicing consent; children are incapable of understanding what it means to consent. In contrast, consenting adults who all knowingly and willfully decide to enter into a joint marriage contract, free of coercion, should be permitted to do so, according to basic principles of personal liberty. The preeminence of the principle of consent is a just and pragmatic way to approach adult relationships in a world of multivariate and complex human desires.

Progressives have always flattered themselves that time is on their side, that their preferences are in keeping with the arc of history. In the fight for marriage equality, this claim has made again and again. Many have challenged our politicians and our people to ask themselves whether they can imagine a future in which opposition to marriage equality is seen as a principled stance. I think it’s time to turn the question back on them: given what you know about the advancement of human rights, are you sure your opposition to group marriage won’t sound as anachronistic as opposition to gay marriage sounds to you now? And since we have insisted that there is no legitimate way to oppose gay marriage and respect gay love, how can you oppose group marriage and respect group love?

I suspect that many progressives would recognize, would pushed in this way, that the case against polygamy is incredibly flimsy, almost entirely lacking in rational basis and animated by purely irrational fears and prejudice. What we’re left with is an unsatisfying patchwork of unconvincing arguments and bad ideas, ones embraced for short-term convenience at long-term cost. We must insist that rights cannot be dismissed out of short-term interests of logistics and political pragmatism. The course then, is clear: to look beyond political convenience and conservative intransigence, and begin to make the case for extending legal marriage rights to more loving and committed adults. It’s time.


http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/06/gay-marriage-decision-polygamy-119469.html?cmpid=sf#ixzz3eBgtvUuQ

[cryptodevil]

I believe the reasoning behind keeping polygamy illegal is less to do with cultural distaste and more to do with the fact that polygamous marriages are generally driven by dysfunctional responses to human relationship power balances.

We are not talking about a group marriage of equals, we are talking about multiple people marrying a single person. That is inherently an unbalanced relationship open to abuses and usually the result of those involved having psychological issues which compel them to seek out a relationship which cannot possibly be consistent with an equal balance of power.

[Wilikon]

I believe the reasoning behind keeping polygamy illegal is less to do with cultural distaste and more to do with the fact that polygamous marriages are generally driven by dysfunctional responses to human relationship power balances.

We are not talking about a group marriage of equals, we are talking about multiple people marrying a single person. That is inherently an unbalanced relationship open to abuses and usually the result of those involved having psychological issues which compel them to seek out a relationship which cannot possibly be consistent with an equal balance of power.

... Not according to the article, a cry for progressives unite! for the right of freedom of love for group of adults of any numbers.

Any.

Children rights in a polygamy situation? Back on the bus.

[cryptodevil]

So you're ignoring the valid reasoning I gave against polygamy and simply referring to the opinion of an article?

Was the original question you asked not one simply of why we shouldn't object to polygamy? Because I explained why we do object to polygamy and how that is based on the inherent nature of a many-marrying-one relationship structure being unbalanced and therefore dysfunctional. As in vulnerable people who do not decide with truly informed consent in this matter need protecting from themselves being at risk from abuses which arise from unbalanced relationships.

Why keep repeating reference to an article which ignores the objective facts of the situation in order to promote their own agenda?

[tyrexs]

Vote Up, There would be some joy in the misery of seeing more than one woman at a time. this is just my opinion, hope so Polygamy get Legalized

[Wilikon]

So you're ignoring the valid reasoning I gave against polygamy and simply referring to the opinion of an article?

Was the original question you asked not one simply of why we shouldn't object to polygamy? Because I explained why we do object to polygamy and how that is based on the inherent nature of a many-marrying-one relationship structure being unbalanced and therefore dysfunctional. As in vulnerable people who do not decide with truly informed consent in this matter need protecting from themselves being at risk from abuses which arise from unbalanced relationships.

Why keep repeating reference to an article which ignores the objective facts of the situation in order to promote their own agenda?

Devil's advocate here. Posting an article does not mean I am supporting it. Sometime it does. Not this time. Check my post history.

I agree with your position.

[jaysabi]

I believe the reasoning behind keeping polygamy illegal is less to do with cultural distaste and more to do with the fact that polygamous marriages are generally driven by dysfunctional responses to human relationship power balances.

We are not talking about a group marriage of equals, we are talking about multiple people marrying a single person. That is inherently an unbalanced relationship open to abuses and usually the result of those involved having psychological issues which compel them to seek out a relationship which cannot possibly be consistent with an equal balance of power.

Even so, it should be up to the individuals in question to decide what works for them or not. Bans on behavior because they are associated with certain undesirable traits are why marijuana is banned; it's why they tried to ban alcohol. The generalization that polygamous marriages are driven by dysfunctional responses is another instance in which individuality is supplanted by a generic set of supposed values. Polygamy may not work for most, that's not a justification to ban it for all.

[bryant.coleman]

If gay marriage and sodomy can be allowed, I can't see a valid reason for why polygamy and polyandry should be banned for eternity. Polygamy is practiced by various societies and cultural groups, such as the Native Americans, Mormons and Muslims. A ban against it can't be justified, by saying that it goes against the teachings of Christianity.

[Wilikon]

If gay marriage and sodomy can be allowed, I can't see a valid reason for why polygamy and polyandry should be banned for eternity. Polygamy is practiced by various societies and cultural groups, such as the Native Americans, Mormons and Muslims. A ban against it can't be justified, by saying that it goes against the teachings of Christianity.

This is the exact mindset and reasoning that will hit the court in the up coming years in the US...


Then after that, who knows...

http://metro.co.uk/2010/03/09/man-marries-pillow-154906/

 

[cryptodevil]

If gay marriage and sodomy can be allowed, I can't see a valid reason for why polygamy and polyandry should be banned for eternity. Polygamy is practiced by various societies and cultural groups, such as the Native Americans, Mormons and Muslims. A ban against it can't be justified, by saying that it goes against the teachings of Christianity.

This is the exact mindset and reasoning that will hit the court in the up coming years in the US...

. . .and lose.

The, 'slippery slope' argument is utterly absurd and, just like the idea that opposition to gay marriage is actually a defense of 'traditional' marriage, it is based, not on reasonable argument but, rather, loss of traditional Christian Privilege to demand their right to discriminate against those they are conditioned to see as a threat to their traditional Christian Privilege of expected deference and respect for their 'god-given' bigotry.

[Wilikon]

If gay marriage and sodomy can be allowed, I can't see a valid reason for why polygamy and polyandry should be banned for eternity. Polygamy is practiced by various societies and cultural groups, such as the Native Americans, Mormons and Muslims. A ban against it can't be justified, by saying that it goes against the teachings of Christianity.

This is the exact mindset and reasoning that will hit the court in the up coming years in the US...

. . .and lose.

The, 'slippery slope' argument is utterly absurd and, just like the idea that opposition to gay marriage is actually a defense of 'traditional' marriage, it is based, not on reasonable argument but, rather, loss of traditional Christian Privilege to demand their right to discriminate against those they are conditioned to see as a threat to their traditional Christian Privilege of expected deference and respect for their 'god-given' bigotry.

rather, loss of traditional muslim privilege to demand their right to discriminate against those they are conditioned to see as a threat to their traditional muslim privilege of expected deference and respect for their 'god-given' bigotry.

[cryptodevil]

rather, loss of traditional muslim privilege to demand their right to discriminate against those they are conditioned to see as a threat to their traditional muslim privilege of expected deference and respect for their 'god-given' bigotry.

rather, loss of traditional theist privilege to demand their right to discriminate against those they are conditioned to see as a threat to their traditional theist privilege of expected deference and respect for their 'god-given' bigotry.

There, that should do it.

[Wilikon]

rather, loss of traditional muslim privilege to demand their right to discriminate against those they are conditioned to see as a threat to their traditional muslim privilege of expected deference and respect for their 'god-given' bigotry.

rather, loss of traditional theist privilege to demand their right to discriminate against those they are conditioned to see as a threat to their traditional theist privilege of expected deference and respect for their 'god-given' bigotry.

There, that should do it.

 

[maartenhaha]

why that desire to marriage eachother? does it makes you happier then you where with that person before marriage? or is it out of economic point of view? you know, taxes and stuff not about the golddiggers nor talking about those naturalisation marriages used and abused by lots of people. that would be another topic i think

[Wilikon]

why that desire to marriage eachother? does it makes you happier then you where with that person before marriage? or is it out of economic point of view? you know, taxes and stuff not about the golddiggers nor talking about those naturalisation marriages used and abused by lots of people. that would be another topic i think

For political reasons? For child adoption reasons? For inheritance reasons? To force mosques to have same sex marriages or be forced to loose all tax exemptions?

We shall see.


 

[maartenhaha]

ooohh i get it, for the love of paperwork !! ^^

[Wilikon]

ooohh i get it, for the love of paperwork !! ^^

A part of it, yes. A small part.

[cryptodevil]

To force mosques to have same sex marriages or be forced to loose all tax exemptions?

I don't believe the marriage-equality issue is about forcing religious organisations to conduct marriages which are counter to their inherent bigotry.

AFAIK marriage-equality deals solely with the issue of ensuring that all US States have to conduct and recognise marriages between two people, irrespective of their gender. It is a legal issue of ensuring gay couples can have the same rights in marriage as heterosexual couples.

The law does not concern forcing religious organisations to conduct gay marriages. Unless you know otherwise.

[dblink]

By nature males and females are born in approximately the same ratio. During paediatric age however, in childhood itself a female child has more immunity than a male child. A female child can fight the germs and diseases better than the male child. For this reason, there are more deaths among males as compared to the females during paediatric age. So looking at one of these scientific facts, no harm in polygamy legalization.

[cryptodevil]

So looking at one of these scientific facts, no harm in polygamy legalization.

How about this harm I already pointed out?

I believe the reasoning behind keeping polygamy illegal is less to do with cultural distaste and more to do with the fact that polygamous marriages are generally driven by dysfunctional responses to human relationship power balances.

We are not talking about a group marriage of equals, we are talking about multiple people marrying a single person. That is inherently an unbalanced relationship open to abuses and usually the result of those involved having psychological issues which compel them to seek out a relationship which cannot possibly be consistent with an equal balance of power.

You see, coming up with vague notions of elements of polygamy which might not be harmful is not exactly useful in the presence of a reasoned fact of how polygamy is harmful.