Polygamy/Group Marriage

almostinsane · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **almostinsane** on Sat Aug 17, 2013 11:19 pm

So, my question is twofold:

1. Is it moral to engage in polygamy/group marriage and, if so, under what circumstances or understandings?

2. Does the government either at the federal or local level have the right to outlaw it?

Aniihya · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Aniihya** on Sun Aug 18, 2013 2:13 am

Polygamy was only outlawed because Christians said it was wrong. Even with polygamy illegal, polyamory still exists.

Bosch · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Bosch** on Sun Aug 18, 2013 4:37 am

It's context sensitive. If its acceptable to you and your partners then go for it.

The government should have no say so long as everybody involved are consenting adults and any children involved in the setup are adequately cared for.

Personally I don't think it's such a great idea, and I don't think the majority of people would be that open to the idea of sharing their spouse. It also carries a lot of negative connotations related to cults and the like. These kinds of sit-ups also seem to be common in groups that don't have a great record for respecting the rights of women.

cucumbersome · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **cucumbersome** on Sun Aug 18, 2013 5:58 am

Group marriage is one of those things that should obviously be allowed in theory, but because of the way people are, are better not allowed in practice. I think it needs to wait until we have gender equality so strong that almost no woman believes she is worth less than a man. People can consent to being abused, and if one desires to prevent abuse that means outlawing situations that are often abusive even though that is unfair to to a minority that does not abuse or get abused.

I feel the same way about prostitution: in principle there is nothing wrong with being paid for sex, but in practice there is so much human trafficking and abuse it’s a bad idea. Too bad for the minority of truly voluntary prostitutes... Again, it’s something that will need to wait until there is strong gender equality.

almostinsane · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **almostinsane** on Sun Aug 18, 2013 6:27 am

Hmm, perhaps you are right, cucumbersome. When I was posting this, it was out of idealism more than anything, but when you think of all the abuse that is possible...

The_13th_Doctor · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **The_13th_Doctor** on Sun Aug 18, 2013 8:48 am

almostinsane wrote:So, my question is twofold:

1. Is it moral to engage in polygamy/group marriage and, if so, under what circumstances or understandings?

2. Does the government either at the federal or local level have the right to outlaw it?

1. Morality is subjective. From a monogamous POV, yes it's immoral. From a swinger's point of view, it's not immoral, just impractical. To old school Mormons, it's practically a godly thing to do.

2. I'd say at the local level, yes, but not at the federal level. Allowing local governments to make such decisions ensures that individual communities will be made of like minded folks, reducing the number of hate crimes. Probably would increase the number of towns declaring war on other towns though.

Aniihya wrote:Polygamy was only outlawed because Christians said it was wrong. Even with polygamy illegal, polyamory still exists.

I would like to point out that King David had 30 wives and 70 concubines. His son, Solomon, was said to have ten times as many of both, and he is touted as the wisest man in the bible.

Further, polygamy is not illegal, it is just not legal... meaning that you cannot legally be married to more than one person at a time, but there are no laws saying you can't live as a married unit, just saying you can't earn legal status for it. Also, polyamory and polygamy are not the same animal... It is possible to be 'marriage monogamous' and polyamorous at the same time.

cucumbersome wrote:Group marriage is one of those things that should obviously be allowed in theory, but because of the way people are, are better not allowed in practice. I think it needs to wait until we have gender equality so strong that almost no woman believes she is worth less than a man. People can consent to being abused, and if one desires to prevent abuse that means outlawing situations that are often abusive even though that is unfair to to a minority that does not abuse or get abused.

I feel the same way about prostitution: in principle there is nothing wrong with being paid for sex, but in practice there is so much human trafficking and abuse it’s a bad idea. Too bad for the minority of truly voluntary prostitutes... Again, it’s something that will need to wait until there is strong gender equality.

I agree that the potential for abuse is there, but to say that it shouldn't happen because of the potential abuse is like saying nobody should watch a war movie because it might give you PTSD (or whatever it's called these days). What if a woman who is convinced of her inferiority to man sees a woman who is in a polygamous relationship, as the aggressor? Here's this powerful, professional woman with two husbands, both of which are stay at home types that take care of her kids and home... wouldn't that be a great example to that poor woman who is still put upon?

I see prostitution in the same way... to say that is is bad because of the evil things people do to perpetuate it, then you might as well say Kentucky Fried Chicken should also be illegal. People are people, no matter what's illegal or not. In fact, I would go so far as to say that if prostitution were legal, it would be safer, and you'd see a drop in the human trafficking angles.

Again, I'll give this disclaimer: Its my birthday and I've been drinking since I opened my eyes, so... that I say with a grain of salt. Speaking of salt, where's my tequila?

Script · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Script** on Sun Aug 18, 2013 11:46 am

Morally there's nothing wrong with polygamy, but where I see the problems is legally. All the marriage laws are written with respect to two individuals, so there would have to be a massive overhaul there if group marriages were allowed.

Also, divorces would become exponentially messier. I think prenuptial agreements would have to be compulsory (I think they should be already, but that's a different matter), but there's no way you could really make custody battles simpler. Would the majority always get precedence if only one person wanted to get divorced from the group? What if the group wanted to divide into two separate group marriages with smaller groups, how would that work legally with regard to joint ownership of things?

There are a huge amount of legal concerns that make legalising that sort of marriage as an institutional thing an incredibly daunting prospect.

Aniihya · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Aniihya** on Sun Aug 18, 2013 4:21 pm

Stating two jews being polygamous does to prove anything against my theory.

almostinsane · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **almostinsane** on Sun Aug 18, 2013 4:52 pm

From what I gather from a cursory search, the Romans and Greeks were officially monogamous.

Greek and Roman men were not allowed to be married to more than one wife at a time and not meant to cohabit with concubines during marriage, and not even rulers were exempt from these norms. That these facts have generally received little attention and occasioned no surprise among historians specializing in this period bespeaks a remarkable lack of cross-cultural awareness. Greco-Roman monogamy may well appear unexceptional from a modern Western perspective but was far from common at the time. My paper seeks to put this institution in context.

Scheidel, Walter

The_13th_Doctor · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **The_13th_Doctor** on Sun Aug 18, 2013 8:28 pm

Aniihya wrote:Stating two jews being polygamous does to prove anything against my theory.

I wasn't trying to disprove anything, just pointing out the irony of a religion that disdains polygamy while many of its central characters were polygamists, apparently with God's blessing. i get the same kick out of people who claim that a man having long hair is a sin, unless you happen to be Jesus or Samson.

almostinsane · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **almostinsane** on Sun Aug 18, 2013 10:33 pm

I believe there's something I read sometime ago that presents an interesting viewpoint with regards to biblical polygamy is that it was permitted, but not necessarily aproved of and eventually discouraged/banned in later books. The stories about it often do not paint good pictures of it if I recall correctly.

On-topic, I see that the marriage laws are written with monogamous unions in mind. Still, I'd like to hear people's thoughts on getting rid of them save for the age of consent and other laws protecting children and people being coerced or forced into marriages and replacing them with private contracts.

The_13th_Doctor · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **The_13th_Doctor** on Mon Aug 19, 2013 7:20 am

almostinsane wrote:I believe there's something I read sometime ago that presents an interesting viewpoint with regards to biblical polygamy is that it was permitted, but not necessarily aproved of and eventually discouraged/banned in later books. The stories about it often do not paint good pictures of it if I recall correctly.

On-topic, I see that the marriage laws are written with monogamous unions in mind. Still, I'd like to hear people's thoughts on getting rid of them save for the age of consent and other laws protecting children and people being coerced or forced into marriages and replacing them with private contracts.

I've read the bible backwards and forwards, and no, polygamy is never banned. Indeed the only way it is even discouraged is in the fact that it was 'foreign' women that convinced Solomon to allow temples to other gods in Israel. I suppose there's a few verses in Proverbs that could be used to build an argument against polygamy, but it's never directly mentioned as the source of problems.

As to laws? Honestly, I'd rather the whole concept of legal marriage just be tossed out the window. Marriage, what it means and who can do it should all be spiritual matters, to be taken up with yourself and your god(s), and the government should have no say in it all.

almostinsane · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **almostinsane** on Mon Aug 19, 2013 10:50 am

There are sites that make arguments from that basis, if you'd like the links.

As to laws? Honestly, I'd rather the whole concept of legal marriage just be tossed out the window. Marriage, what it means and who can do it should all be spiritual matters, to be taken up with yourself and your god(s), and the government should have no say in it all.

I agree to an extent, though I think private contracts between the participants have a place.

The_13th_Doctor · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **The_13th_Doctor** on Mon Aug 19, 2013 1:20 pm

almostinsane wrote:There are sites that make arguments from that basis, if you'd like the links.

The problem with most of these 'arguments' is that the people who make these arguments tend to take one verse here, two verses there, and piece them together in a way that supports their dogma. I could do the same thing and make a good argument for how Jesus and Lucifer were brothers in heaven, or I could make an argument that makes it okay to murder babies so long as they are from a certain genetic stock. Neither of those things is expressly said, so what little stock I put into the bible, I tend to put it in those concepts that are very clear, with no need to make an argument. The ten commandments is a good example... these things are clear, no need to reference other parts of the bible in order to understand them. Furthermore, the vast majority of Jesus' words are very clear, expressed in language that even the most common of folk of the day would 'get'.

IF the bible is indeed the word of God, and IF that God meant for everyone to read and understand, then that means it is written to the lowest common denominator of society... meaning that even the stupid should be able to read it and walk away with a clear idea of what it means.

Back OT, I agree that private contracts between parties should be upheld, but that is true regardless of whether that contract is a marriage, an adoption or an agreement to make pickles.

almostinsane · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **almostinsane** on Mon Aug 19, 2013 2:50 pm

Well, I think the above is a topic that would eclipse the topic here, so I'll just say I have my own opinions about the Bible, , much of it focused on Jesus' own sayings, but let's get back on topic.

There might be a need for governmental authority to enforce these contracts, but I am not certain to the extent of government authority. I believe local is best, however, but that calls to mind the fact the people might be from different areas or might move somewhere else.

The_13th_Doctor · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **The_13th_Doctor** on Mon Aug 19, 2013 3:31 pm

Indeed.. and in an effort to keep this conversation on its rails...

the-bible-t85008.html

almostinsane · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **almostinsane** on Mon Aug 19, 2013 3:52 pm

Thank you. I personally will take this to PM. Spiritually, I am still searching/praying and I never like to post anything I am uncertain about. Though, I will say I am Christian.

cucumbersome · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **cucumbersome** on Tue Aug 20, 2013 10:00 am

The_13th_Doctor wrote:I agree that the potential for abuse is there, but to say that it shouldn't happen because of the potential abuse is like saying nobody should watch a war movie because it might give you PTSD (or whatever it's called these days). What if a woman who is convinced of her inferiority to man sees a woman who is in a polygamous relationship, as the aggressor? Here's this powerful, professional woman with two husbands, both of which are stay at home types that take care of her kids and home... wouldn't that be a great example to that poor woman who is still put upon?

I see prostitution in the same way... to say that is is bad because of the evil things people do to perpetuate it, then you might as well say Kentucky Fried Chicken should also be illegal. People are people, no matter what's illegal or not.

Probability matters to determine the strength of the measures to take. The probability of a war movie giving you PTSD is (I assume) lower than the probability of cigarettes giving you cancer, which is why there is a warning on the latter but not on the former.

The woman with two husbands could be a role model, but as things are there will be many more opposite role models canceling out the benefit of allowing her to live her way in a legally recognized way.

The_13th_Doctor wrote:In fact, I would go so far as to say that if prostitution were legal, it would be safer, and you'd see a drop in the human trafficking angles.

That’s what we thought when we made it legal in the Netherlands. It didn’t work out so well. Of course circumstances changed to make human trafficking easier: the further the European Union is integrated and extended, the more exploitable poor women live within its borders, and the more difficult it gets to prevent women from outside the EU to be smuggled in. But I don’t think that change in circumstances is enough to explain how much worse things got.

The_13th_Doctor · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **The_13th_Doctor** on Tue Aug 20, 2013 11:20 am

cucumbersome wrote:Probability matters to determine the strength of the measures to take. The probability of a war movie giving you PTSD is (I assume) lower than the probability of cigarettes giving you cancer, which is why there is a warning on the latter but not on the former.

Yet, cigarettes are legal. What I mean to say is that the potential for abuse exists because these types of relationships have to remain secret. If it were more socially acceptable, the abuse would drop, because there would be more transparency. If it were legal, then the abused parties would have legal recourse, and that too would lower the

cucumbersome wrote:The woman with two husbands could be a role model, but as things are there will be many more opposite role models canceling out the benefit of allowing her to live her way in a legally recognized way.

I don't see the fact that there are negative role models as good reason not to become a good role model. Fifty years ago America's examples of gay men were mincing pedophiles or degenerate leathermen. It was only through the diligent courage of individual homosexuals that we even have the acceptance we have now. Admittedly, gay folks these days still don't have it easy, but social change never happens quickly.

cucumbersome wrote:That’s what we thought when we made it legal in the Netherlands. It didn’t work out so well. Of course circumstances changed to make human trafficking easier: the further the European Union is integrated and extended, the more exploitable poor women live within its borders, and the more difficult it gets to prevent women from outside the EU to be smuggled in. But I don’t think that change in circumstances is enough to explain how much worse things got.

Come to think of it, this is two different dynamics. I'd say that the human trafficking to prostitution rings would drop... but the vast majority of slavery is not about sex, it's about power. Sure, there may be some sexualization of those power trips, but in the end, it is a power trip, and not motivated by sex. So, you are right, legalization of prostitution would not stop human trafficking... but what it would do is give women who feel they have no other choice to have some sort of social representation.

In the end, these things all fall into a very broad category of things that the government should have no say in. Sexuality, whom (and how many) you marry, what you want to believe and teach your kids, all of these things should be regulated by local communities, if at all (I'm a bigger fan of the 'if at all' part, but human nature is to impose our wills upon others, and I recognize that nothing can stop that).

cucumbersome · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **cucumbersome** on Wed Aug 21, 2013 6:05 am

Finding ways to prevent abuse itself is always better than outlawing things that are often but not always abuse. But without those ways, and the necessity to do something because of the badness of the abuse... we’re stuck between a rock and a hard place. The last thing I’ll say about legal prostitution (which shouldn’t become the main topic) is that it seems to be easier to get protected against someone who is forcing you to commit a crime than it is to get protected against someone who is forcing you to do something that isn’t a crime. It’s not a matter of them feeling they have no other job opportunities.

I live in a small country which I believe is slightly too big for healthy democracy. What size would a “local community” be? Rules about sexuality being set by a community the size of a village seem rather creepy to me. Perhaps there also is a minimum community size to have a properly functioning democracy.

Polygamy/Group Marriage

a topic in Discussion & Debate, a part of the RPG forum.

Polygamy/Group Marriage

Re: Polygamy/Group Marriage

Re: Polygamy/Group Marriage

Re: Polygamy/Group Marriage

Re: Polygamy/Group Marriage

Re: Polygamy/Group Marriage

Re: Polygamy/Group Marriage

Re: Polygamy/Group Marriage

Re: Polygamy/Group Marriage

Re: Polygamy/Group Marriage

Re: Polygamy/Group Marriage

Re: Polygamy/Group Marriage

Re: Polygamy/Group Marriage

Re: Polygamy/Group Marriage

Re: Polygamy/Group Marriage

Re: Polygamy/Group Marriage

Re: Polygamy/Group Marriage

Re: Polygamy/Group Marriage

Re: Polygamy/Group Marriage

Re: Polygamy/Group Marriage

Post a reply

Make a Donation

Who is online