Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 31

Thread: Polygamy vs having multiple girlfriends

  1. Top | #21
    Sapere aude Politesse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Chochenyo Territory, US
    Posts
    2,330
    Rep Power
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post

    Do you have any evidence that polygamous marriages are more likely to be abusive than monogamous marriages? I wouldn't actually expect that the isolation abusers seek to create around their victims would be as easy to construct in a routinely polygamous society, not that I doubt such things happen nevertheless.
    Much of the polygamy is with the polygamist branch of the Mormons. It's mostly abusive.
    I think you and I might have differing definitions of "evidence".

  2. Top | #22
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    South Pole
    Posts
    9,164
    Archived
    3,444
    Total Posts
    12,608
    Rep Power
    69
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
    Polygamy, in my country, was only outlawed as part of a larger part of a larger program of anti-Mormon persecution, and it routinely puts polygynous immigrant families in a bad situation that protects the women involved not at all. I would absolutely be in favor of full decriminalization.
    Me too. I'm all for decriminalization of all polyamory. Why should't I be allowed to have multiple husbands and wives? And moreover, why should marriage come with any benefits from the state whatsoever? I don't think marriage should have any state involvement and should be purely a spiritual or contractual thing. If you want to bind yourself and others in civil unions, have at it. I don't care if you are doing it with any particular gender or number of people. I used to bring up this view back when gay marriage was still a hot topic. The state shouldn't be discriminating against polygamists, gay people, or single people who don't want to marry at all. No special rights or tax breaks etc from marriage does that.

  3. Top | #23
    Veteran Member Treedbear's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    out on a limb
    Posts
    1,394
    Rep Power
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by Jolly_Penguin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
    Polygamy, in my country, was only outlawed as part of a larger part of a larger program of anti-Mormon persecution, and it routinely puts polygynous immigrant families in a bad situation that protects the women involved not at all. I would absolutely be in favor of full decriminalization.
    Me too. I'm all for decriminalization of all polyamory. Why should't I be allowed to have multiple husbands and wives? And moreover, why should marriage come with any benefits from the state whatsoever? I don't think marriage should have any state involvement and should be purely a spiritual or contractual thing. If you want to bind yourself and others in civil unions, have at it. I don't care if you are doing it with any particular gender or number of people. I used to bring up this view back when gay marriage was still a hot topic. The state shouldn't be discriminating against polygamists, gay people, or single people who don't want to marry at all. No special rights or tax breaks etc from marriage does that.
    So the state should take full responsibility for children? Parental custody of children is granted by the state. Civil unions are all about the state granting rights and responsibilities. It would be meaningless otherwise.

  4. Top | #24
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    USA, California
    Posts
    2,841
    Archived
    5,710
    Total Posts
    8,551
    Rep Power
    53
    Quote Originally Posted by Treedbear View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jolly_Penguin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
    Polygamy, in my country, was only outlawed as part of a larger part of a larger program of anti-Mormon persecution, and it routinely puts polygynous immigrant families in a bad situation that protects the women involved not at all. I would absolutely be in favor of full decriminalization.
    Me too. I'm all for decriminalization of all polyamory. Why should't I be allowed to have multiple husbands and wives? And moreover, why should marriage come with any benefits from the state whatsoever? I don't think marriage should have any state involvement and should be purely a spiritual or contractual thing. If you want to bind yourself and others in civil unions, have at it. I don't care if you are doing it with any particular gender or number of people. I used to bring up this view back when gay marriage was still a hot topic. The state shouldn't be discriminating against polygamists, gay people, or single people who don't want to marry at all. No special rights or tax breaks etc from marriage does that.
    So the state should take full responsibility for children? Parental custody of children is granted by the state. Civil unions are all about the state granting rights and responsibilities. It would be meaningless otherwise.
    What does that have to do with marriage? The state can do all that just fine (and currently does all the time) without taking marriage into account.

  5. Top | #25
    Veteran Member Treedbear's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    out on a limb
    Posts
    1,394
    Rep Power
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by J842P View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Treedbear View Post

    So the state should take full responsibility for children? Parental custody of children is granted by the state. Civil unions are all about the state granting rights and responsibilities. It would be meaningless otherwise.
    What does that have to do with marriage? The state can do all that just fine (and currently does all the time) without taking marriage into account.
    The state gives parents the rights and responsibilites of custody of their children. It enforces them and can take them away. And they're are often contingent on marriage.

  6. Top | #26
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    4,846
    Rep Power
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post

    Do you have any evidence that polygamous marriages are more likely to be abusive than monogamous marriages? I wouldn't actually expect that the isolation abusers seek to create around their victims would be as easy to construct in a routinely polygamous society, not that I doubt such things happen nevertheless.
    Much of the polygamy is with the polygamist branch of the Mormons. It's mostly abusive.
    But that is likely more due to the domestic abuse that Mormonism inherently fosters than the polygamy itself. The way women are ideologically subjugated and expected to be subservient and loyal within Mormonism means there is no social support and much social resistance for women seeking help out of abusive relationships.
    https://www.huffpost.com/entry/opini...b0cf06752087ae

  7. Top | #27
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    24,404
    Archived
    96,752
    Total Posts
    121,156
    Rep Power
    95
    Quote Originally Posted by ronburgundy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post

    Do you have any evidence that polygamous marriages are more likely to be abusive than monogamous marriages? I wouldn't actually expect that the isolation abusers seek to create around their victims would be as easy to construct in a routinely polygamous society, not that I doubt such things happen nevertheless.
    Much of the polygamy is with the polygamist branch of the Mormons. It's mostly abusive.
    But that is likely more due to the domestic abuse that Mormonism inherently fosters than the polygamy itself. The way women are ideologically subjugated and expected to be subservient and loyal within Mormonism means there is no social support and much social resistance for women seeking help out of abusive relationships.
    https://www.huffpost.com/entry/opini...b0cf06752087ae
    I do agree it's due to the Mormonism and not the polygamy. That doesn't change the fact that most polygamy in the US is due to the Mormons. Putting an age requirement on it would go a long way towards stopping the abusive relationships without seriously impairing the truly consenting relationships.

  8. Top | #28
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    4,846
    Rep Power
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ronburgundy View Post

    But that is likely more due to the domestic abuse that Mormonism inherently fosters than the polygamy itself. The way women are ideologically subjugated and expected to be subservient and loyal within Mormonism means there is no social support and much social resistance for women seeking help out of abusive relationships.
    https://www.huffpost.com/entry/opini...b0cf06752087ae
    I do agree it's due to the Mormonism and not the polygamy. That doesn't change the fact that most polygamy in the US is due to the Mormons.
    No, but it does mean that any arguments based in reducing marital abuse should be directed against Mormonism and similar religious ideology rather than the practice of polygamy.

    Putting an age requirement on it would go a long way towards stopping the abusive relationships without seriously impairing the truly consenting relationships.
    At minimum, the age of consent should be the same for males and females. Mormon's looking to abuse young women have created laws in Utah that make the age of consent 18 for males but 16 for females. And it seems like that min age for marriage should be at least as old as the age of full adult rights where parents no longer have any legal power over the person (so, 18 in most states).

    There would still be plenty of abuse in marriages, and especially those within cultures of religiously enforced female submission, but at least kids couldn't be funneled into these arrangement by their abusive asshole parents until after the parents no longer had any legal control over them.

  9. Top | #29
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    South Pole
    Posts
    9,164
    Archived
    3,444
    Total Posts
    12,608
    Rep Power
    69
    Quote Originally Posted by Treedbear View Post
    The state gives parents the rights and responsibilites of custody of their children. It enforces them and can take them away. And they're are often contingent on marriage.
    They shouldn't be.

    Marriage should be a spiritual or personal thing. A civil union should be a legal agreement between two or more parties (which could include custody of offspring). And those who are not married should also have access to or custody of children where it is in the best interest of the child.

  10. Top | #30
    Veteran Member Treedbear's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    out on a limb
    Posts
    1,394
    Rep Power
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by Jolly_Penguin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Treedbear View Post
    The state gives parents the rights and responsibilites of custody of their children. It enforces them and can take them away. And they're are often contingent on marriage.
    They shouldn't be.

    Marriage should be a spiritual or personal thing. A civil union should be a legal agreement between two or more parties (which could include custody of offspring). And those who are not married should also have access to or custody of children where it is in the best interest of the child.
    Totally agree on the definition. That point should have been made back when gay marriage became legal. Civil union is by the state and marriage is by the church or whatever but not a legal term. Religions think they have a monopoly on the term, so give it to them. But people still think civil union means marriage. But who determines the best interest of the child? I think the government needs to have that responsibility.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •