wittyname, I'm well aware that you and anyone else can conceive of situations where no apparent abuse exists within some arrangements that can roughly be described as "polygamy." The fact that you can imagine non-abusive polygamy isn't going to stack up against the arguments that tie polygamy together with abuse, to say nothing of the staggering level of evidence of this abuse.

The fact that we can conceive of non-abusive "poly" situations is not going to hold up against the counter argument. I hate to be so brunt in a human rights discussion, but people who practice what I call "polyamory" are just not going to get their way in this. They aren't going to get a legal stamp of approval for "polygamy." It's simply not going to happen.

Your approach is old news.

For many reasons - the biggest one being that I think it is an inherently unequal relationship between men and women. Also, in practice, polygamy is often associated with underage marriage and religious coercion.
However, I disagree with the argument that polygamy is bad for society simply due to the numbers - because too many women marrying one man leaves other men without the opportunity to marry. This argument says that polygamy would still be harmful to society even if all participants in the polygamous relationship fully consented, all were of age to provide consent, and there was no coercion or any type of religion involved. In the hypothetical situation that there was absolutely no coercion, I don't think there is anything wrong with polygamy, because I think that the woman's right to marry whoever she chooses (even if he is already married) and the man's right to marry whoever he chooses (even if he is still married to someone else), are more important than the need for society to try to keep available numbers of single men and women equal. In the hypothetical situation, the first wife would have to agree to her husband taking a second wife, without any coercion - I can't see that ever happening in reality. My point is simply that the argument against polygamy because it upsets the (approximately) 50/50 ratio of men to women is a bad argument. Let me clarify once again that I am still opposed to polygamy for all the other reasons, just not this one.

What you're suggesting is that the right of everyone to the spouse of their choosing also contains the right of each person to take as many spouses as conditions permit, even if that makes it impossible for some of the others to have even one spouse. That isn't going to be acceptable because we can only guarantee that some people will even have that capability.

When we consider what we're going to give status as government-protected human right, we have to consider whether what would happen if everyone tried to engage in it. Clearly, the logic of polygamy would fall apart if anyone tried to use that as a hypothetical case. But monogamy (government-sanctioned, or "legal") does not create this problem.

We can't recognize polygamy as a legal right because its very nature interferes with the capabilities of others to even have one partner. Lets face it, if you're a young person looking for a partner in the heterosexual demographic, your chances are severely limited when there are others who, through the act of polygamy, have made it impossible because there simply are no prospective partners who haven't been spoken for already.

Yes, I think the right of consenting individuals to have a polygamous marriage outweighs the right of the man who might have had a chance with one of the polygamous wives. The reason is because (if there was no coercion, if all polygamous partners truly consented) the woman preferred to marry the polygamous man. The man left without a spouse did have an opportunity, but his potential partner chose otherwise.

Actually it's a socially sound argument. After you get a certain number of unattached young bachelors with no realistic expectation of finding mates, you find crime and violence beginning to go up. China is finding this out without polygamy because of selective abortions. It's true in areas where polygamy is widely practiced to. Young men are stabilized by just the expectation that they can find a life partner to settle down with. (No clue why it's so but there are studies that are pretty clear on the correlation.)

This is the second thread you've started to go after me (and third total including rebeckas), the first witch-hunt style thread isn't anywhere near full yet. I stopped commenting so you started ANOTHER one? There's plenty of room in your second post to keep batting at me like I was your toy mouse. What is wrong with you? I get it. You object to the opinions I expressed, and the way I expressed them. Thing is, I stopped commenting long ago, you have beat me into submission, so stop it already. I'd understand if I was continuing to raise points and express my opinion, or if I was badgering you, but that's not the case. I'm done, I've been done for a while.

Leave me alone already, and I never say that on this board. I am never a victim, I take my lumps, but most people who have engaged in discussions with me on this board, aside from you, rebecka and cheryl, have never had a problem with me. I have never been in this position here before, and I really don't appreciate it. You are attacking me like I was a troll, when I have been here for years and never trolled. All I did to you was express opinions you objected to. Get the hell over it already and get a life. You have become a bully for no reason, how ethical is that? You are so interested in not harming others, why all these additional threads to attack me? Enough already bully.

If you continue to keep calling me out, I will not be responding. I have no obligation to do so, so if it makes you feel big and clever to continue, go on, but do you really respect yourself? That's rhetorical, I won't be returning to read your reply.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 12/15/2011 01:24AM by wittyname.

I agree that you have a right to your opinion without these posters making it personal. I suspect that there are some, maybe not many, polygamous marriages which are happy. It wouldn't be my choice, but I support the idea that what consenting adults want to do is really none of my business. Some posters simply cannot stand disagreement.

Thank you bona dea. I really appreciate the support. You've expressed the opinions I've been trying to express, albeit more succinctly. Somehow troy and rebecka managed to conflate my opinions that "what consenting adults want to do is none of my business" and not all forms of polygamy are as portrayed in troy's initial post, with being an advocate for legalizing polygamy. I've expressed many times that I'm not advocating such a thing, but I don't think polygamy should be criminalized either (not the same as legal recognition). Rather the abuses should be criminalized.

But yeah, at the end of the day, you are absolutely right, some people can't stand disagreement. Well, that's it for me where this topic is concerned. Troy and Rebecca can continue on without me.

Thanks again for the support.

No problem. I have had dealings with a poster who is always right, everyone else is wrong and who gets personally offended if everyone doesn't agree. It gets old.

Has someone here been offended? Unless someone has reported being offended, then you're not in any position to say that anyone has.

I also agree with you...not saying I condone it, but who am I to tell other people how to live their lives? Sorry you're feeling attacked wittyname:(

Carry on.

That can't possibly apply to me, bona dea. I love disagreement. Among imperfect creatures, that's how things proceed in the quest for truth.

I don't recall having a discussion with you in the past which pretty well eliminates you .

Then who are you suggesting has been offended?

What I presented at the beginning of the discussion was a logically-valid argument and now we've degrade into a battle of who's been offended by whom. And since I don't know of anyone reporting being offended, it looks like this is your contribution to the discussion.

Of course you have a right to your opinions. No problem.

I won't speak for Troy but the issue with me is polygamy not you.

Polygamy is an evil that is hurtful to society. I don't see a reason to back it up or support it with new laws because the human mind can imagine exceptional incidents where it might not have damaged victims. That's true of almost any crime.

You said that you've done reading and concluded that there are consenual adults choosing polygamy. There are consensual adults making all kinds of bad choices in society so that doesn't mean we must legalize activities because of unspecified possible situations.

I have also done considerable reading on this subject. That doesn't mean my reading out trumps anyone else's. On RfM it's having a rationale that counts.

If yours works for you, that's fine with me.

Many have said I'm damaged goodes because of having personal connections to polygamy. I don't agree. I left that life decades ago and have put it to rest. Saying that I can't speak on the subject because of having lived it is like saying exmos shouldn't speak out on mormonism because they must be bitter and angry.

Exmos know what they're talking about and so do I.

Hang in there. I'm not attacking you. I'm speaking my mind, two different things.

Drug users "consent" to buy drugs. Should we make selling them legal?

And certainly not when it's hurtful and expensive to the society.

i think one of the things Witty brought up is if there is an ad that people are responding to there is no coercion in that regard...
and again that was a nice post...

They happen here periodically, just like Steve Benson's Santa posts and various other themes.

Feel free to ignore them.

"I just said that there are more definitions of polygamy than what you present."
_____________________
And in law, we have to address them separately when the behaviors are altogether different and present different risks, if any. If we have to come up with different terms to separate the practice of a formal kind of polygamy, like what we see most of the time in religious polygamy, from what we usually call "polyamory," which is more akin to having an open relationship without the intent to formalize it as a legal marriage. I refuse to categorize them together, since I see it as an ethical matter <i>prior</i> to how the law is going to be able to cope with it, which is a later consideration.

"I also disagreed with your claim that it's somehow unfair to men when men have multiple wives. So are these men the victims of abuse that you are protecting, and I am complaining about that?"
_____________________
When we're considering human rights, we have to address the matter of capabilities. In a just society, if a person has the capability to have a partner (loosely-termed) then society should not allow practices that systematically deny that capability to some but not to others. That's when it ceases to be a right. In the heterosexual demographic, just like any other, we should allow everyone to have this capability so they can choose or reject it on their own. In a society where the heterosexual demographic is <i>roughly</i> 50/50, like our own young adult generation, we can't allow practices that deny these capabilities to some while allowing others to engage in them in excess.

Polygamy takes more than the basic social contract can provide. What the social contract provides is the human rights package, and that includes this capabilities perspective. In a just society, people who have the capability to have a partner should not be systematically denied the means to exercise that capability. Another way of looking at this is to think that in a society like ours, an otherwise healthy person should be allowed the capability to live to an old age. If someone else denies them that capability by murdering them that is what defines the abuse of their human rights.

Simply put, if conditions permit everyone to have the capability to engage in a protected right, like marriage, we shouldn't allow other practices that interfere with this capability. Polygamy does this inherently and thus it fails the standard for consideration as a protected human right.


"Back up your claims, Troy."
_______________________
I've done just that. If you know of a claim I haven't backed up (using quotes from me, of course), kindly point it out.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/15/2011 12:55AM by Troy.

In response to this point:

"What the social contract provides is the human rights package, and that includes this capabilities perspective. In a just society, people who have the capability to have a partner should not be systematically denied the means to exercise that capability. Another way of looking at this is to think that in a society like ours, an otherwise healthy person should be allowed the capability to live to an old age. If someone else denies them that capability by murdering them that is what defines the abuse of their human rights."

I don't think marriage, in and of itself, is a protected right in the same way as health. There is another factor - the consent of the marriage partner - which far from being the same as the consent of a doctor to treat a patient.
Some people who want to get married are not going to have an opportunity to marry - because some individuals do not have anything to offer a prospective spouse. A violent, abusive drug addict has the right to seek for a spouse, but does not have the right to a marriage partner just because she is not allowed to marry the person she really wants to marry. That's an unlikely situation, but my point is that there is a difference between the right to the pursuit of happiness and the right to happiness. There is a difference between an individual's right to seek a spouse and the idea that society has an obligation to provide the best opportunity for everyone to find a spouse.
"In a society where the heterosexual demographic is <i>roughly</i> 50/50, like our own young adult generation, we can't allow practices that deny these capabilities to some while allowing others to engage in them in excess." This seems perfectly clear, and I don't think I am misunderstanding anything. I don't think society has the right to interfere with individual choices in this way. So what if some individuals exercise their right to marry excessively and leave others without that capability? Everyone has a right to eat; should we regulate how much food people are allowed to have, so that some people do not eat excessively and deprive others? Of course it would be better if food were distributed more equally, but I don't think that it is right for society to interfere with individual rights like that.
Once again, the disclaimer for anyone who hasn't read my other posts - I don't agree with polygamy, for several reasons, but I also don't agree with this particular argument against polygamy.

"I don't think marriage, in and of itself, is a protected right in the same way as health."
______________________
Marriage is a protected right.

"There is another factor - the consent of the marriage partner - which far from being the same as the consent of a doctor to treat a patient."
______________________
You're making a pointless comparison here.

"Some people who want to get married are not going to have an opportunity to marry - because some individuals do not have anything to offer a prospective spouse."
_____________________
Again, this is irrelevant. I already know that some people will not be able to marry for reasons beyond anyone's control. But this is not true of people who want to have a partner but can't because polygamy has eliminated all of the prospective spouses and partners. To these people, they have no choice in the matter.

"A violent, abusive drug addict has the right to seek for a spouse, but does not have the right to a marriage partner just because she is not allowed to marry the person she really wants to marry."
_____________________
You're going off into irrelevancies again here. Nobody needs polygamy. And a married person is ordinarily considered off limits so it's pointless to speak of them as anyone else's choice of mate. And I already know that people want to practice polygamy. People want to steal too, but we don't recognize it as their protected liberty.

"That's an unlikely situation, but my point is that there is a difference between the right to the pursuit of happiness and the right to happiness. There is a difference between an individual's right to seek a spouse and the idea that society has an obligation to provide the best opportunity for everyone to find a spouse."
_____________________
And how this makes any difference to what I've claimed, I just don't know.

"In a society where the heterosexual demographic is <i>roughly</i> 50/50, like our own young adult generation, we can't allow practices that deny these capabilities to some while allowing others to engage in them in excess." This seems perfectly clear, and I don't think I am misunderstanding anything. I don't think society has the right to interfere with individual choices in this way. So what if some individuals exercise their right to marry excessively and leave others without that capability?"
____________________
They don't have that right. They'll be exercising liberties that do not have the status of protected human rights. There is no right to practice polygamy. If it hinders the capabilities of others, it is not a protected liberty.

"Everyone has a right to eat; should we regulate how much food people are allowed to have, so that some people do not eat excessively and deprive others?"
___________________
This is an extremely poor comparison. Everyone must eat to live. Polygamy is not necessary for life. I don't see the point in making this comparison.

"Of course it would be better if food were distributed more equally, but I don't think that it is right for society to interfere with individual rights like that."
___________________
Are you kidding? Government exists to protect our rights. But if you're making the comparison between the need for food and the need for legal polygamy, you're deep in a fallacy.

"Once again, the disclaimer for anyone who hasn't read my other posts - I don't agree with polygamy, for several reasons, but I also don't agree with this particular argument against polygamy."
__________________
Fine. Let me know when you have an objection that holds water.

Basically you think that everything I said was irrelevant. I'm trying to explain it as many different ways as I can, and each time you're missing the point. So here goes, one more time.
You said that "In a society where the heterosexual demographic is <i>roughly</i> 50/50, like our own young adult generation, we can't allow practices that deny these capabilities to some while allowing others to engage in them in excess." This is the key point I disagree with. You could make the same argument, for example, that allowing bisexuals to marry a same-sex partner would be denying a potential partner to someone else by changing the ratios. Those bisexual women would be potential marriage partners for the single men who now have less opportunity to find a spouse. Essentially, I think the right of the participants in the relationship to marry whomever they choose is more important than society's need to keep the ratios balanced. I don't think polygamy is wrong because of anything to do with the ratios of men and women. I think polygamy is wrong mainly because it creates an unequal relationship between the man and women involved.

it's about the fabric of society. Let's say that most or many marriages were based on the imbalanced system of polygamy. That would mean that the balance would be tipped against women and favoring dominate male aggressivenessness.

Polygamist societies don't work well in large diverse complicated modern societies. It means those who don't practice polygamy must pay for the benefits of those who do and of those who are damaged by it. Unless the polygamists are left high and dry without the secuity and benefits that others enjoy like healthcare, education, legal services, welfare, and employment benefits.

If the general public doesn't want to suffer these extra costs for polygamists and think the practice is often abusive and destructive, the public does not have to back special laws backing it any more than they have to support laws to protect and pay for dangerous drugs or driving habits.

I think we all agree with your points, Cheryl, about the many ways polygamy is harmful to society in practice. The one point of disagreement is the one we are discussing, about individual rights to spouse availability - whether the harm done to single men who have a greater chance of being left without a spouse is sufficient to justify banning polygamy on that basis alone, aside from any other reasons. My argument is that the rights of participants in a polygamous relationship to marry who they choose would override the rights of the single men to have a sufficient dating pool available, if there weren't so many other reasons to oppose polygamy.

of how the society would be negatively unbalanced.

We could say that one driver rushing down MT. Saint Helens does not endanger society or drivers on the freeway. Still, all of us would be frightened for our lives if speeding laws and special protections had to be passed for general use because of the volcano victim.

I believe that the U.S.Constitution (amendments 1,9,10) has been interpreted ('expanded' if you will) to mean that there exists a 'right of association'. this has also been called 'the right to assemble'. people have RIGHTS to form associations, be they political parties, fraternities, churches, and misc. clubs. That's pretty well accepted.
I don't believe a specific mention of marriage is included.

So, a step Back from the 'right to marry' is the right to associate.

Rights not enumerated in the U.S.C. are reserved 'to the states respectively, or to the people.'

a 2L student could make a case that the right to associate means a right to marry; which isn't subject to restriction, because it's reserved (to the people).

and, btw, I'm sure the next 30 days will see an affirmation of J. Walkers ruling by the Ninth circuit...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/15/2011 02:13AM by guynoirprivateeye.

Troy, I think you are both right and wrong. Yes, it probably is possible for three adults to have a loving relationship with each other that is both equal and consenting. However, for such a relationship to work, the three would have to agree on a definition of what it meant to be in a relationship that no church in the world is going to accept.

That said, if an adult chooses of their own free will, though admittedly in polygamous marriages is rarely the case, to live in such an arrangement, who are we to say no?

Many might say yes. If so, does it mean society needs to pass laws to accomodate these exceptions?

Do people have a right to have sexual associations with several people?

In this day and age, there would be no way to stop them and not many care what others do or want to pursue every incident. That's very different than passing many new regulations to legally support and honor these associations. There's no need to do this just as there's no need to pass new complicated laws with all kinds of new sliding scales to support speeding on freeways.

Imagining how polygamy might be good and healthy is the same as imagining how any crime might sometimes not hurt anyone. That doesn't mean we need to legitimize arson, forgery, and various kinds of fraud for everyone. The law doesn't need to provide all support and guidelines for the criminals to help them pursue these crimes just because we can imagine times when the victims and others are unscathed. Breaking laws can be rationalized in some cases but we don't eliminate them because of an an unproven or imaginary exception here or there.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/15/2011 07:37AM by Cheryl.

I think polygamy is disgusting.
However, if that is what some people want to do. More power to ya.

What should be illegal is involving children in any way. No kids in the vicinity.

They are the ones who pay, while daddy and mommies play.