Time to Allow Polyamorous Marraiges

[Alt+F4]

While natalism is functionally important for a healthy economy, government-enforced monogamy is nothing short of reproductive communism!

While I like the term "reproductive communism", monogamy is not required for marriage.

 

[Alt+F4]

The Mormon polygamists in Bountiful use the Canadian Constitution as a shield. That is where the enforcement problem comes in. Also, there is a basic sensitivity to the problems of law enforcement vs. isolated religious communities. No one wants a Waco situation.

Or the mess at the YFZ Ranch in Texas last year.

Question though. In Canada is sexual relations with a minor protected as a method of religious expression?

 

[Cleon]

While natalism is functionally important for a healthy economy, government-enforced monogamy is nothing short of reproductive communism!

Nominated. That sentence is hilarious.

 

[D'rok]

Or the mess at the YFZ Ranch in Texas last year.

Question though. In Canada is sexual relations with a minor protected as a method of religious expression?

Of course not. But giving constitutional protection to polygamy on the grounds of religious freedom would make it more difficult to protect minors in those communities.

 

[Typicallucas]

There is not necessarily a casual connection between crime and polygamy per se, but as it is practiced in Bountiful, there is. Thus the laws against it.

The Mormon polygamists in Bountiful use the Canadian Constitution as a shield. That is where the enforcement problem comes in. Also, there is a basic sensitivity to the problems of law enforcement vs. isolated religious communities. No one wants a Waco situation.

Can you see that if the relationship between child abuse and polygamy is coincidental and circumstantial then enforcing anti-polygamy would only have a beneficial effect on the small group of minors abused in this cult? (but likely won't even help them... )

The connection between crime & polygamy in Bountiful is specifically: Man has sex with 13 year old girl, she is now his wife. The crime and the marriage happen at the same time. Making the marriage invalid or illegal won't stop this kind of child molestation.

Can you agree that instead of upholding unnecessary restrictions on your population the Canadian government should take a direct approach to protecting it's children? Specifically tracking down predators including religious whack-jobs, arresting them at gun-point, and giving them the polyamorous shaft in prison?

Am I right?

 

[Alex Libman]

Nominated. That sentence is hilarious.

I don't really care for any nominations, but I hope you just meant the second half of that sentence. Natalism is... complicated...

Communism redistributes wealth from the competent to the incompetent (at least in theory, it just destroys wealth in practice). Government-enforced monogamy does the very same thing: keeps the most attractive / desirable individuals from having multiple spouses, as they naturally would, to appease everyone else.

 

[Bill Thompson]

Slippery slope!

Where DO we draw the line?
If we allow gay marrages (which, I think, is fair and I support) why not plural marrages.

There is more logical an argument for plural and multiple marrages than gay marrages because, (we refuse to admit in our modern societies) multiple marrages were here first and they are more natural than the legal system in the USA.

 

[Wolfman]

You missed my point entirely. Show me that the "norm" of plural marriage in Canada isn't Bountiful. Show me that I'm making a caricature of the issue. I'm basing my argument on the facts on the ground. You are basing your argument on an abstract principle. I don't disagree with the principle, but there is no reasonable comparison between the facts on the ground of same-sex relationships (which encompass a spectrum of behaviours, as you pointed out) and the facts on the ground of plural marriage (which, AFAIK, is Bountiful).

Yes, let us ignore entirely the entirety of world history, and the experiences of people in other countries. Let us focus only on one isolated instance, and use that instance to draw all our conclusions. It worked for discriminating against blacks, against gays, against women...no reason it shouldn't work here.

As cited in the OP, there are people who willingly enter into polygamous relationships that are equal, and do not in any way involve things such as forced marriages, sexual abuse, religious fundamentalism, or any of those other things.

Historically, polygamy has been practiced in numerous cultures. In most cases, those were patriarchal cultures in which the women were subordinated to the men, and abuse did take place...but the true is same of pretty much every monogamous culture, as well, until legal measures were put in place to ensure equal rights for both parties in a marriage.

And there's the most important item -- monogamy, in and of itself, is in no way a 'protection' against any of the abuses we see in Bountiful. Not only can those abuses happen in monogamous relationships, but for the majority of history, they were the norm!

Hell, if I use your argument, then 500 years ago I could reasonably have argued that sexual abuse, religious fundamentalism, forced marriages, and many other such behaviors were the norm in monogamous relationships...and that therefore, monogamous marriage was wrong, and should be made illegal.

It wasn't the form of relationship, or the form of marriage, that determined those things. It was a combination of the societal norms (what was considered allowable, and what was not) and legal protections. It wasn't that long ago that Canadian law considered that rape within a marriage was not a crime...that it was a man's 'right' to demand sex from his wife. Those were universally monogamous marriages. The issue of marital rape had nothing to do with monogamy; as is evidenced by the fact that, when laws were created to criminalize it, women were able to seek legal recourse and protection if such abuse took place.

In other words, where is the evidence that the undesirable behaviour isn't the norm? Who, besides the Blackmore clan, are we actually discriminating against by retaining the Criminal Crode prohibitions on polygamy?

Again, sadly lacking in anything approaching logical analyis.

1) Despite the criminal code prohibitions, those abuses are still taking place; primarily because it is seen as a religious issue, and sadly Canadian gov't officials seem unwilling to tackle the issue of religious freedom even when it involves such abuse.

2) It isn't the polygamy itself that is the problem. "Polygamy" is not defined as "forced marriages with underage girls under the guise of fundamentalist religion". As I said before, these things would be just as wrong, and just as illegal, if they were committed within monogamous marriages.

3) Granting consenting adults the right to marry each other in a polygamous relationship would have no bearing whatsoever on the legality of forcing underaged girls into marriage, or of using a fundamentalist dogmatism to enforce obedience.

4) I won't claim that there are huge numbers of people who want this kind of relationship; but they are out there. Criminalizing it has no benefit that I can see at all. I do have friends in Ontario who have a three-way 'polygamous' relationship (two men, and one woman, in fact). Two of them are legally married; the third one lives with them as an equal partner, but has no legal protections. When his 'wife' was hospitalized several years ago, he was not allowed in to visit her because he wasn't a family member. Despite the fact that they share money, resources, and property, if they were to separate later, he'd have no legal claim to any of that property.

Legalizing polygamous marriages would not mean legalizing what happens at Bountiful -- forcing girls into marriage would still be illegal. As would sexual abuse. These are entirely separate issues.

If you can show me that evidence, I'll change my mind. In your attack on me, you may have missed my earlier post where I said I am still undecided on how to deal with the real issue of harm in Bountiful.

Then try actually taking a more global view, and not deriving your entire 'database' from one isolated case.

Would legalizing polygamy mean legalizing forced marriages to underage girls? No.

Would legalizing polygamy mean legalizing forcing adult women into marriages against their will? No.

Would legalizing polygamy mean legalizing sexual abuse within a marital relationship? No.

In other words, all those aspects of what happens at Bountiful that we find most repulsive would still be entirely illegal. And the gov't would still have the legal means to prosecute them for such abuses...if they had the balls and could get over this Canadian obsession with political-correctness-gone-crazy.

So go ahead...please tell me one single abuse that takes place at Bountiful that would become legal or defensible if polygamy were made legal, applying all the same legal requirements and constraints that we currently apply to monogamous marriages.

 

[Wolfman]

Let me try another direction on this.

If one is to argue that polygamy should not be legal, one must demonstrate that there are abuses within polygamy which A) are a direct result of polygamy, and B) would not happen in monogamous marriages under the same legal structure.

In regards to the first item, the abuses at Bountiful aren't "because of polygamy". They are because of a fundamentalist religion that exercises strict control over all its members. They could just as easily be monogamous, and still have all the same abuses.

In regards to the second item, there are absolutely no abuses that happen within polygamous marriages that do not or cannot happen within monogamous marriages. Girls forced into marriage. Sexual abuse. Religious domination. You name it...it happens on both sides of the fence. This is the reason we have laws to prevent such things. The fact that the B.C. gov't has been woefully inadequate in enforcing those laws in the Bountiful community has nothing to do with polygamy; it has to do with a wishy-washy gov't that doesn't have the balls to take a firm stand in a controversial issue. The laws are already in place to take action on sexual abuse, non-consensual marriages, and other such things.

I don't think that this is a huge, vital national issue -- the number of people who want polygamous relationships is, undoubtedly, quite small. However, it is simply stupid to criminalize such behavior. To tell three mature, consenting adults that if they seek to form a legal three-way union, not only will they be denied that right, but they can be prosecuted and imprisoned for trying to do so. And it is ridiculous, when three (or more) people do agree to such a relationship, to deny them the same legal rights and protections that are routinely extended to anyone who has a 'normal' monogamous marriage.

In essence, you are arguing that a woman who marries a single man, forming a monogamous marriage, has equal rights within that relationship -- equal rights in regards to property, legal protection, legal status, etc. But if a third woman (or man) enters that relationship, of their own free will, not only do they deserve no legal protection, but they should be prosecuted for seeking to do so.

How flippin' ridiculous.

 

[D'rok]

Never mind. I feel no need to defend myself against your distortions. Particularly outright lies like this:

In essence, you are arguing that a woman who marries a single man, forming a monogamous marriage, has equal rights within that relationship -- equal rights in regards to property, legal protection, legal status, etc. But if a third woman (or man) enters that relationship, of their own free will, not only do they deserve no legal protection, but they should be prosecuted for seeking to do so.

You are clearly not willing to engage with me based on what I actually say. I bid you good day.

Cheers.

D.

 

[Wolfman]

Never mind. I feel no need to defend myself against your distortions. You are clearly not willing to engage with me based on what I actually say. I bid you good day.

Cheers.

D.

"Distortions"?

I'll give you a simple chance to defend yourself. Simply demonstrate how A) there are abuses that are a direct result of polygamy, and B) that are unique to polygamy, and do not occur in monogamous relationships (under the same legal structure regarding rights and protections).

Or demonstrate how legalizing polygamy would mean that forcing girls at Bountiful into marriage, or committing acts of sexual abuse and exploitation, would suddenly become 'legal' or 'justifiable'.

Or argue why an adult who seeks to, of their own free will, enter into a polygamous relationship in which all parties are equal, should A) be deprived of any legal protections within that relationship, and/or B) have such an action criminalized, and face the prospect of prison for doing so.

My friend, it is you who is distorting things, trying to present the situation in Bountiful as some sort of 'norm' for polygamy; and trying to argue that somehow legalizing polygamy would also legalize or justify forcing underage girls into marriage, or sexual abuse. You make this case by focusing exclusively on the community at Bountiful, and ignoring entirely situations such as that described in the OP.

ETA: This is a skeptical forum. Generally speaking, taking one isolated instance, and using that as the sole basis for one's claims, is the very antithesis of skeptical or critical thinking. It is one of the most common methods of 'distorting' truth, or of making biased arguments...choose a case that supports your opinion, and ignore all others. You've not only failed to demonstrate that the abuses at Bountiful are an inevitable result of polygamy, but also failed entirely to address the several cases of consensual polygamy that have been raised by myself and others here -- including the OP. Hardly an attempt at 'honest' discussion or debate.

 

[Dorian Gray]

They are going to grasp on to gay marriage since, in the United States at least, the courts have struck down the right to polygamy for over a hundred years.

I wonder how they are going to frame their argument that the right of two consenting same sex adults to marry is comparable to marrying a bunch of 12-year old girls and keeping them as uneducated sexual slaves?

Mormon polygamy won't stand up to the secular test of the 14th Amendment either since what they practice is polygny.

Odd that someone who is so pedantic on definitions has somehow gotten the definition of polygamy completely wrong.

 

[Alex Libman]

The final frontier will be people trying to set a record for the largest marriage. I guess marriage contracts would define the procedures for taking in a new spouse (ex. do the existing spouses all have to consent, or do they agree ahead of time to abide by the will of the majority). Huge marriages could become like corporations, with mergers, splits, and so on.

I'm sure most people will keep it within reason though, and weirdos can always be ostracized.

 

[BTMO]

The final frontier will be people trying to set a record for the largest marriage. I guess marriage contracts would define the procedures for taking in a new spouse (ex. do the existing spouses all have to consent, or do they agree ahead of time to abide by the will of the majority). Huge marriages could become like corporations, with mergers, splits, and so on.

I'm sure most people will keep it within reason though, and weirdos can always be ostracized.

I recommend the Robert Heinlein book "Friday". This sort of thing is explored in some detail.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Marriage should just be a contract between sovereign self-owning individuals, and the government has no right to get involved in any possible way. The quantities and genders of the individuals involved is outright irrelevant.

I say it shouldn't be.

As it is, marriage is more than a contract, it is a status. I can cite precedent.

 

[Alex Libman]

I recommend the Robert Heinlein book "Friday". This sort of thing is explored in some detail.

Yeah. I'm a Heinlein fan myself.

[...] more than a contract, it is a status [...]

A "status" that is voluntary, that involves more than one adult, and that is legally binding is called a "contract".

[...] I can cite precedent.

You mean some sort of a government-imposed cohabitation law? Humbug!

I am a rational individual. Your religious mumbo jumbo holds no weight with me!

 

[Skeptic]

(Shrug)

Polygamy, in practice, means older men getting a younger trophy wife without the bother and expense of having to divorce the older one, keeping the latter as a sort of unpaid super-maid, to cook and clean and take care of the children.

Sure, in theory, the older wife may refuse to it. In pratice, it is not hard to convince the getting-on-in-years housewife that this is her best option, and preferable to divorce, which would be worse for the husband but also worse for her. ("If you don't agree to let me marry my secretary, I will make you tons of trouble in family court!").

Sure, in theory, polyandry -- two men and one woman -- would also be legal. But most men, especially younger men, are not willing to "share" a woman, let alone an older woman, with another man, while far more young women are willing to "catch" an older, richer guy, even if it means sharing it with his (first) wife.

Sure, men have had younger mistresses before. But the ability to legalize the mistress -- to put her legally on par with the wife -- gives both much more motivation to get one, and much more power to the mistress and the husband to discard the older wife to the dishes and laundry where she belongs at her advanced age of 42, than ever before.

Ah, polygamy. "Want to ditch your older wife and get that hot chick without consequences? No alimony! No divorce court! Oh, and as a bonus -- want to still have the ol' ball-and-chain do the dishes for you? Well, it's not just for the rich any more!".

But what do I care. No skin off my nose! And there's this younger hot girl I've been eyeing for a while, anyway. Time to give my wife the "oh, what's wrong with loving MORE than one person at a time?" schtick. The law, once polygamy is legalized, would be on my side. Heck, if she won't be satisfied with the super-maid position, let her fight me in divorce court. I'm sure she'll see the wisdom of consenting.

 

[Typicallucas]

(Shrug)

Well since you put it that way Skeptic. I am totally convinced.

That you are not exercising any skeptical thinking in this conversation.

Is your unimpressive collection of sentences supposed to convince us that polygamous marriage should be illegal?

 

[slingblade]

But what do I care. No skin off my nose! And there's this younger hot girl I've been eyeing for a while, anyway. Time to give my wife the "oh, what's wrong with loving MORE than one person at a time?" schtick. The law, once polygamy is legalized, would be on my side. Heck, if she won't be satisfied with the super-maid position, let her fight me in divorce court. I'm sure she'll see the wisdom of consenting.

So, for the sake of argument, you pretend to be contemplating a plural marriage that you know your current and only spouse wouldn't accept, and pretend to callous indifference of her feelings, and this emotional display is supposed to be an argument against allowing mutually consenting adults to form the kind of family structure they want?

You care to rethink that position, even a little?



I had rather an epiphany when Libman mentioned "corporate families." You know, one of those "ah-ha!" moments? Maybe it's an American or Capitalist POV, but I have no problem imagining such a structure. A really, really simplified look at economic progression shows us moving from two-adult families in which work was what you did at home to stay alive, to Dad going off to work, to the kids going, mom going when society allowed her to work, then back to just Dad....then Mom again, and then kids down to maybe 14.

Today, two-income families are the norm and usually a necessity. Since nothing remains static, this dynamic will change. I can see people consolidating families to combine incomes, living accommodations, transportation, child care--heck, that alone makes it sound a little more reasonable: having three or four working parents and one parent who stays home full time to do the child care.

Who says everyone has to have sex? Who says a large marriage has to be about sex at all, but about finances and support and a microcosmic social system instead? Shoot, I'd marry another family or two right now, combine households, and do all the housewifey child care-y stuff for everyone, you bet!

Why can't there be households where some members are polyamorous, and others share the chores, finances, parenting, and so-forth? Why couldn't two gay gentlemen marry a hetero couple, donate sperm to their wife, and all share the children as co-parents? Or, of course, any other imaginable combination of sexual orientations, who get together to accomplish mutual goals?

Why can't marriage evolve?

 

[Typicallucas]

Because little housewives might get their feelings hurt

Isn't that how we make all our laws? So that people will be protected from getting their feelings hurt?