posted on October 28, 2002 04:43:17 PM new
Can anyone please give me a rational or logical reason why two or more women of lawful age who want to be married to the same man are not allowed to do so by secular law?
I am not referring to religious grounds. We all know about that. Nor am I referring to the illegal practices of cult splinter Latter Day Saints (Mormons). After all, polygamy was around long before the Mormon church was created and there are some parts of the world where this is still an accepted practice, so Mormon splinter-groups DO NOT make all that there is when coming to examples of reasons.
What I'd like to know, to be convinced that our local laws have any business whatsoever being able to tell us that we can't form these types of marriages, is what kind of proof is there that this is harmful? Can you prove that this is harmful to humans or the environment? Is there some proof that this breaks down the foundation that our society is based upon? Are there any studies that say that its bad for our health to have more than one loving and willing mate?
No?
No rational reason at all?
ed.opps! misspelt "Latter"
[ edited by Borillar on Oct 28, 2002 04:45 PM ]
posted on October 28, 2002 05:43:28 PM new
That's a good question Borillar and maybe similar to the sodomy law. Though out of date for our times maybe, I think it's a good law for children. I've only seen this with religious people (multiple wives) and the main goal seems to be how many children these men can father. I wonder if this type of lifestyle would even interest non-religious people.
posted on October 28, 2002 05:56:26 PM new
You know, I'm willing to change my mind about multiple legal partners in marriage if it is based upon scientific, rational, or factual reasons. If it is just a religious law, then they should be struck down! The government has no reason to promote religious dogma if it does not have a proven, direct benefit to our society. If anyone out there has any idea why we should not strike down these laws - besides religious objections, I'm all ears.
Of course, we're referring to WILLING, LEGAL ADULTS in this discussion. I think that everyone understands that.
It just seems to me that religions use the legal system to discriminate, interfere and to regulate a part of social behavior that ought to be none of their business. Why can't we use the Seperation of Church and State to change the legal system and body of laws regulating Who and Who can not get married?
You know, it used to be against the law in many states for a White person, mainly a White Woman to marry anyone outside of her own race of Whites. Religious reasons were sited back then in those arguements supporting those laws as well. Those laws wer thrown out. Isn't it about time that we did the same with these other outdated laws?
I ask that, because I'd like to know what possible non-religious objections might be brought to the debate in a court of public oopinion or law.
posted on October 28, 2002 06:31:22 PM new
I think the government wants to keep the polygamy law because of tax dollars they'd lose, but the reason why it became a law in the first place was a religious belief.
posted on October 28, 2002 06:49:20 PM new
>Could it be because there aren't enough women in the U.S. for every man to have two wives?
The ratio that I've seen posted shows that through age groups that there are more men than women until around age 40.
Still, with a lot of men who do not want to get married and those who do not want a female partner, I'm not sure how most people would react to that reason. Maybe others on here could give their input to that comment.
posted on October 28, 2002 07:02:30 PM new
Could be 'cause most of us guys can't handle one, much less two wives. Not as good as I once was, but as good once, as I ever was.
posted on October 29, 2002 04:46:44 AM new
My guess is the reason the government would oppose having two wives is that we the taxpayers are paying to raise too many deadbeats' children as it is. If a guy -or gal - can't afford to pay child support for one family, how is he/she going to pay for children of two. Not that that doesn't happen now when someone remarries, but I suppose by making polygamy illegal, it doesn't encourage huge families.
posted on October 29, 2002 05:03:35 AM new
It would create a whole new body of law about inheritance and support. But what does the law do now with someone from Africa or Asia that has more than one wife? do they refuse him entry although he is of fine moral standing in his own community? I suspect what the law does is ignore them as much as possible to avoid needing to address the issue.
Most people would say - "It's wrong." in their own personal moral sense which is due to how they were raised. However why should they have any say in how another person pursues happiness?
I do have to point out that in the Bible the experience of those that were allowed more that one wife was that it was often a source of conflict.
Saying that it was allowed in Israel to increase population is silly. If there is a population of fertile females a certain number of them will become pregnant no matter what the mores or laws. You can not deny people sex or reproduction without a harsh repressive state like we see in China. it can be done but the cost is huge. The regulation of law is all about who pays for the rearing of them and who has inheritance.
posted on October 29, 2002 08:25:14 AM new
I too can't understand why any sane man would want more than one wife. After 25 years with the same women, I've decided I still don't understand her.
Can you imagine having a 2nd or even 3rd wife to try and understand.
posted on October 29, 2002 09:58:39 AM new
If you're looking for a malum in se argument for polygamy, I don't think there is one. But there are thousands of laws on the books for which there is no malum in se reason.
Most polygamy laws are based on multiple mariages by an already married person.
I am uncertain how the law operates when a person has more than one person he or she co-habitates with.
It seems that polygamy/polyandry can only be prosecuted if the defendant has somehow invoked civil law in the relationships, such as when getting a loan or titling property for which they have listed multiple or different husbands and wives on the documents, and in some jurisdictions, just holding yourself out to the public as husband and wife is considered a civil marriage.
But I have never seen a prosecution for "polyamory" arrangements where multiple adults have varied relationships within the "family".
Some jurisdictions have laws against polyamory relationships in housing laws. I know of cases where male and female renters have been lawfully evicted for for not being married.
The guy in Utah basically convicted himself by claiming he was married to all these woman at the same time, and the woman basically making the same claim. He could not have been prosecuted for polygamy had he just said he was a "player" and had many girlfriends and children.
How is polygamy different than having children with a mistress while being married to someone else like Jesse Jackson or Johnny Cockran or Mick Jagger ? The only difference I can see is the claim of civil marriage is absent with the mistress.
So it would appear that the only way to be prosecuted for polygamy is to invoke civil marriage to multiple spouses in some way shape or form.
posted on October 29, 2002 11:06:37 AM new
Tex1 - LOL
What I'd like to know, to be convinced that our local laws have any business whatsoever being able to tell us that we can't form these types of marriages, is what kind of proof is there that this is harmful? How would there be any proof [in the US] to show what effect these types of marriages would have on our society? Since they're not allowed how can they be studied to PROVE they either are or aren't harmful?
The traditional marriage is disappearing anyway. Last I read the 'typical American family' only represents about 23 - 24% of our population.
posted on October 29, 2002 11:29:54 AM new
Come on Linda, you should know by now that Borillar's favorite word is proof.
It's sad that traditional marriages are becoming a thing of the past. Used to be you'd buy a good car and it would last you forever. Now if you don't trade in every 2 or 3 years, you're nuts. Seems like things don't hold much value anymore... including people.
posted on October 29, 2002 12:13:42 PM new
KD - On B and proof
We all know I'm from the old [conservative] school....and many things have changed that I don't agree with. But I sincerely believe that some of the problems we as a country face now are the result of 'family' not having the importance it once did.
I know during our sons teenage years there seemed to be an epidemic of teenages having children out of wedlock. Who's paid for thatm beside the children? Our society. It's my belief that 'family' is the most protective environment for children. [not being raised by one parent - unless there's no other choice.]
But...times they are a changin' and I try to bend. It's just with this arthritis it's getting harder and harder [said jokingly]
posted on October 29, 2002 12:46:42 PM new
Yes, but how does that relate to multiple sex partners in a pluralistic marriage? Certainly, it is sheer lunacy to create children when the financial means to support them are not there - whether one wife or ten.
What I would like to see is the religious imperative removed from the laws regulating marriages, and that the laws reflect civil matters and property rights. A form of bigamy will always be on the books, as you do not want the case of the stranger who moves into town an after a few years marries a local gal and has kids, only to suddenly discover that he has another wife and kids that he abandoned years ago making financial and-or property claims.
It most likely would then make marriage laws a) Full Disclosure, that is, a criminal penalty for hiding other valid marriages from a potential new marriage partner; b) new laws would be relegated to mere property laws.
As far as society breaking down in the wake of Feminist Revolution, the family has indeed taken a hit. However, in this day and age, where the husband works and the wife works and the children are brought up in daycare, I think that a pluralistic marriage would be beneficial. First, there would be loving parents around the children that would give them a good value system. Second, A husband and a Wife could go to work, pursue careers, while a Father or Mother could also stay home and raise the kids. Flexibility.
Say, it's getting to the point now where traditional marriages can be seen as a detriment to society through disintegrating families that only have one of each sex partner!
Lastly, I have said it for many, many years: any male who goes about saying that women cannot be understood is being childish. Women are very easy to understand, if only you put yourself (figuratively) in their shoes. That sometimes marriage partners are tight-lipped about their thoughts and feelings and wants and needs can be had whether male or female. But to denounce an entire sex as unknowable tells me that you just haven't tried hard enough. That's my two cents on that subject.
posted on October 29, 2002 12:58:31 PM newCertainly, it is sheer lunacy to create children when the financial means to support them are not there - whether one wife or ten.
Well...that 'lunacy' goes on all the time. With or without marriage and when the children need supporting...the taxpayers are held responsible. Why lawfully increase the risk?
What I would like to see is the religious imperative removed from the laws regulating marriages, and that the laws reflect civil matters and property rights.
So work towards changing the present laws. Get enough people to agree with what you'd like to see, and it might happen. Kind of like the marijuana issue is now...so many close to agreeing it should be legal. Like I said, it appears to me that most of our country doesn't value 'marriage' in any form now.
I believe your 'dream' of a man with more than one women is common among men. But if would most likely turn out to be their worst nightmare.
posted on October 29, 2002 01:37:15 PM new
THE THIRD WAVE by Alvin Toffler
THE PRO-NUCLEAR (Family) CAMPAIGN
If we really want to restore the nuclear family to its
former dominance, there are things we could do. Here are .
few:
1) Freeze all technology in its Second Wave (Industrial era) stage to
maintain a factory-based, mass-production society. Begin by
smashing the computer. The computer is a greater threat to
the Second Wave family than all the abortion laws and gay
rights movements and pornography in the world, for the nu-
clear fanilly needs the mass-production system to retain its
dominance, and the computer is moving us beyond mass pro-
duction.
2) Subsidize manufacture and block the rise of the service sector in the economy. White-collar, professional, and
technical workers are less traditional, less famlily-oriented.
more intellectually and psychologicatJy mobile than blue-collar workes. Divorce rates have risen along with the rise in
service occupations.
3) "Solve" the energy crisis by applying nuclear and other
highly centralized energy processes. The nuclear famlily fits
better in a centralized than a decentralized society, and energy systems heavily affect the degree of social and political
centralization.
4) Ban the Increasingly de-massifled media, beginning with
cable television and cassette, but not overlooking local and
regional magazines. Nuclear families work best where there is
a national consensus on information and values, not in a society based on high diversity. While some critics naively attack
the media for allegedly undermining the family, it was the
mass media that idealized the nuclear fanilly form in the first
place.
5) Forcibly drive women back into the kitchen. Reduce
the wages of women to the absolute minimum. Strengthen,
rather than relax, all union seniority provisions to assure that
women are further disadvantaged in the labor force. The nuclear family has no nucleus when there are no adults left at
home. (One could, of course, achieve the same effect by reversing matters, permitting women to work while compelling
men to stay home and rear the children.) .
6) Simultaneously slash the wages of young workers to ,
make them more dependent, for a longer time, on their
family-and thus less psychologically independent. The nuclear family is further denuclearized when the young leave
parental control to go to work.
7) Ban contraception and research into reproductive biology.These make for the independence of women and for extramarital sex, a notorious loosener of nuclear ties.
8) Cut the standard of living of the entire society to pre-1955 levels, since afluence makes it possible for single
people, divorced people, working women, and other unattached individuals to "make it" economically on their Own.
The nuclear family needs a touch of poverty (not too much,
not too little) to sustain it.
9) Finally, re-massify our rapidly de-massifying society, by
resisting all changes in politics, the arts, education, business,
or other fields-that lead toward diversity, freedom of movement and ideas, or individuality. The nuclear family remains
dominant only in a mass society.
In short, this is what a pro--family policy would have to be
if we insist on defining an ideal family as nuclear. If we truly wish to
restore the Second Wave family, we had better be prepared
to restore Second Wave civilization as a whole-to freeze -
only technology but history itself.
For what we are witnessing is not the death of the family,
as such, but the final fracture of the Second Wave family
system in which all families were supposed to emulate the idealized nuclear model, and the emergence in its place of
diversity of family forms. Just as we are de-massifying our
media and our production, we are de-massifying the family
system in the transition to a Third Wave civilization.
NON-NUCLEAR (Family) LIFE-STYLES ~
The coming of the Third Wave (Information Tech era), of course, does not meam
the end of the nuclear family any more than the coming of
the Second Wave meant the end of the extended family. It
means, rather, that the nuclear family can no longer serve as
the ideal model for society.
The little-appreciated fact is that, at least in the United
States where the Third Wave is most advanced, most people
already live outside the classical nuclear family form.
If we define the nuclear family as a working husband, a
housekeeping wife, and two children, and ask how many
Americans actually still live in this type of family, the answer
is astonishing: 7 percent of the total United States population -- 93% of the population do not fit this ideal Second Wave model any longer.
[ edited by Reamond on Oct 29, 2002 01:38 PM ]
[ edited by Reamond on Oct 29, 2002 01:45 PM ]
posted on October 29, 2002 01:54:17 PM new
LOL That's just a little extreme I think.
Seems like in these discussions it always has to be [ends up being] far to one side or all the way to the other. Seldom a place in between.
Like The nuclear family has no nucleus when there are no adults left at home. There is flexibility ever where. Different choices for each and every family to make. Just because mom and dad both may need to work, doesn't mean the children are left alone, or that we need to have taxes set up to care for these children. Grandma, an aunt or a neighbor could be home with the children. We've known three couples who made a personal choice for their family that Dad will stay home as mom had the better earning potential. It's a choice. It's not so 'black and white'.
posted on October 29, 2002 02:06:56 PM new
But never-the-less, if there is not a parental member who remains at home and doesn't work, it is not the idealized nuclear family of the 1950s.
While it may be hard to believe now, in the 1960s, 1970s and into the 1980s, it was frowned upon for a woman to work outside the home. There actually had to be a political movement to give woman social permission to move outside the nuclear family role.
Also remember, the piece I posted from Toffler is somewhat sarcastic. He doesn't advocate a return to the nuclear family, but for those that do advocate for the nuclear ideal, he outlines the steps society must take.
We are less the products of our ideals than we are the products of the necessities that confront us.
[ edited by Reamond on Oct 29, 2002 02:13 PM ]
posted on October 29, 2002 02:35:29 PM new
Okay...but what I'm saying is who says he gets to make the ONLY rules for what would/does make a nuclear family? The ways he proposes things NOBODY would want to return to the 'nuclear family'. I just see more gray areas than he is offering. Like this must happen and that must happen in order for...not true in my mind.
posted on October 29, 2002 05:00:45 PM new
I think I see what you are saying REAMOND. That the nature of the "Family" evolves and that we are at a natural part of this evolution. What defined the family before has altered and changed so much that it is not inconceivable that the Family must evolve too.
Would allowing pluralistic marriages strengthen or weaken the notion of Family?
>I believe your 'dream' of a man with more than one women is common among men. But if would most likely turn out to be their worst nightmare. -Linda-
Actually, I have lived the "Three's Company" lifestyle before and I enjoyed it. As a young man in my twenties, I was very much the believer in Robert Heinlein's theories behind changing the Marriage to suit the limitless possibilities for happiness inside of a marriage. I lived as the "male" with a lesbian couple for some time. It worked out, except one gal was too promiscuous with other gals and our troika fell apart. If the one gal could have kept her pants on in public, I sometimes feel that we might still all be together with a large, extended family. It would have worked out nice too, in that one gal wasn't, you know, very feminine (although she was pretty) and would have preferred to work than to raise kids. The other gal was a nurse and would have likely have been terrific as a full-time mother for all our kids. >SIGH!< Oh, well.
posted on October 29, 2002 08:21:49 PM new
Property Rights, Medical Benefits, Life Insurance, Income Tax -- all sorts of civil things related to marraige that has nothing at all to do with the religious aspects.
posted on October 30, 2002 08:47:16 AM new
Moving from the nuclear family to the diverse family structures we presently have is not the only change in the last century.
What if I proposed that extended families lived in close proximity to each other and work together at their jobs ? Sharing roles in raising children and family support ? Parents, grand parents and grand kids and possibly great grand kids all living in the same household ? Children that did move "away" moved next door to another farm but still worked and closely associated with the extended family. This type of family unit survived in significant numbers at least until the 1930s, but disappeared quickly as the family shifted from farm to factory.
The agrarian family unit was the "extended family". Three or more generations lived and worked together. The industrial era did away with the extended family and ushered in the nuclear family. Work changed from a family group working together on various agricultural tasks to the specialized and compartmentalized tasking of the factory and mass production.
The "de-massification" of work that Toffler speaks of will have an effect on the family unit as did agriculture and industrialization have effected the family.
[ edited by Borillar on Oct 28, 2002 04:45 PM ]