Can anyone name a single legitimate reason why polygamy is illegal?

Yes, it does. A man with several wives can easily found a family where all the offspring have a far closer degree of consanguinity than is found otherwise, particularly in later generations.[/QUOTE]

Mind, that does NOT mean polygamy should be illegal but only that that this should dealt with,

The Mormons do it very well by tracing and knowing their ancestry.

 

First, I will cop to-- after chiding you (not really) about not paying attention-- getting confused, myself. That's because there were two requests, mentioned in my post: one of yours, & one of mine.

DEFinning said: ↑
As per your request, I am addressing your other points. But I have a request, as well. Not infrequently, as here, you respond to my arguments, by arguing against statistics or studies, which I have never quoted, referenced, or used, in the developing of my opinion (as above). Could you please stop doing that, except if in the rare circumstance, that it may actually have any relevance, to my post?


For some reason, when I read your saying that you don't remember making the request, I assumed you'd mixed up the request I was making (since you didn't specify what the request was) to think that I was saying that you'd made that request. I should have known what you meant.

But you did make the request, at the bottom of post #760, for me to address the points in your post which I had told you that I'd written off, after the first paragraph:

I will address that, but could you explain this? It is your correcting of my impression, that you seemed to feel entitled to the right to marry as many partners at a time, as you wish. You say here that this is not your view that you are owed all the same benefits, with all your spouses, as a monogamist gets, with his or her lone spouse; you only don't think you should be prosecuted for "marrying," additional people. This seems to me to show there is a problem with your using terms in an unconventional way, without explaining how you're defining them.

There are legal marriages, and their are wedding ceremonies, which are not legally honored. You already can have a non legally recognized marriage ceremony, to as many people as you want (even to all, in the same ceremony, for all the State cares). But there is no distinction, which you are trying to make, between "legal" marriage, and all the benefits/rights that come along with legal marriage. So it is a very confusing thing, you are proposing. Presumedly, there are some rights that you think you should be able to get, pertaining to all your spouses, beyond the first-- why else would it matter, that the marriage was "legally" recognized? So you really need to be super specific, on this count, if that is your position; and you give no specifics at all, in this post:

So you say here, you only are after "religious and social" acceptance of your multiple partners, not legal status. But the government is not involved with these, though it has been my assumption all along, you've been directing your arguments towards the government and the law, which you've not corrected, but in fact have strengthened, by talking about laws, which are strictly the domain of government, and are the definition of "legal." Do you see why your position seems inexplicable, to me?

If you want religious and social acceptance, those can only come, from religious institutions, and from society, writ large. They have nothing whatsoever to do with the government, or law.

 

Where are you getting the idea that the children are not going out into the greater world to have children with non-blood relatives?

 

You seem to be implying a closed society as some religious sects tend to prefer, and the current FLDS tend towards. And yes such a closed group can result in a higher probability of consanguinity, but that would happen regardless of whether there was monogamy, polygamy or both. But in and of itself, polygamy does not result in inbreeding anymore than anything else does.

 

That is a problem with government involving itself in marriage in the first place. WHy does government need to be involved?

 

True: historically, consanguinity has mostly resulted from customs like cousin-marriages (as in contemporary Pakistan) or sibling unions, as occurred in the ancient Egyptian royal family.

Not quite true. The reduced probability that a given male will have any offspring at all means reduced genetic diversity and increased probability of consanguinity. This is one reason our hunter-gatherer and nomadic herding forebears developed the pattern of adolescents, especially girls, leaving the local tribe to seek partners in neighboring ones. In many other social mammal species -- which are almost all polygamous -- young males are forcibly ejected from the group by the dominant males, and must seek admission to another group where the dominant males are weaker.

 

I will just focus on the enlarged text, because the rest is both a grab-bag, of ideas, as well as seeming, a trick of sophistry: to admit that you do not have a right to legal marriage, but then to add the assertion, that no one does! So, IOW, you are really saying, that you believe that polygamists are just as entitled to legal marriage, as are monogamists. But you do not underline, that this is truly your point.

Going back to my last post's question, about your claim that you only think polygamists are entitled to religious, and social acceptance of their marriages, not "legal" acceptance: this also seems a bit of a disingenuous argument, because if polygamist unions were accepted by society, and religious institutions, they obviously would, then, become legal.

I will repeat, that there is nothing "illegal" about any kind of polygamist marriage, except for legal marriages. For clarity's sake, then, I want to suggest a change in our way of discussing this; namely that NO marriage, is illegal. The illegal part, is the accessing of the rights and privileges, inherent with a legal union.

 

It's a contract, so government is responsible for enforcing it. Government picks and chooses what contracts it will consider legally enforceable. Some are outright illegal.

 

In our current society...especially now...with marriage being seen as a perk rather then a strong commitment to the family unit.. and hook up culture prevalent, and lack of spiritual self sacrifice, Polygamy would basically mean kids being raised among an orgy of people coming into and out of the group. Not something to encourage.

 

Man, this is the most boring Penthouse Letters EVER!

 

That is stereotyping. There are poly families out there with decades under their belts as a single consistent unit. Not to mention that we already have the "revolving door" happening under monogamy right now. So this seems more like an argument to dispense with legal marriage than to not allow polygamy.

 

I haven't had the time to properly go over the previous posts and answer them in the manner that they deserve. However, I think that both you and I have noted where each of us have made errors in what the other has been saying, either due to failure to present the argument clearly or in misreading what was said, or interperting under previously frequently presented arguments that were similar but not actually the same as what was presented.

In light of that, might I suggest, when I get time hopefully later this week, that we do a kind of reset. One where I put out as a larger whole picture my position and argument on polygamy (ignoring the rest of the Ethical Non-Monogamy grouping) both in the social and legal senses, and we start from there. I will, of course attempt to cover what concerns you have previously raised, but I cannot guarantee such. But hopefully, I can address most and then we can go from there. If you do not wish to go this route, then I will of course try to catch up on the previous posts. Your opinion?

FYI, I just used this post as the jumping platform, and not addressing anything specifically on it.

 

That is merely an assumption on your part. It is also possible that polygamy would reduce the problem of children being raised in transient relationships by permitting women to share long-term relationships with the best and most responsible men, who currently are currently allowed to commit to no more than one woman. That is certainly how it has worked in societies where polygamy is legal.

 

Bingo. Women are ALREADY choosing to share sexual relationships with the most attractive men rather than have an inferior -- or even average -- man to themselves. You've heard of people in undemocratic countries "voting with their feet" by leaving? Well, women are voting for polygamy with a different part of their anatomy...

 

It's not stereotyping. Frivolous relationships are the trend. As is self gratification and self focus. The fact that monogamy relationships becoming revolving door....should be your clue that polygamy will as well and worse. If two people can't "work it out" then certainly 3, 4 or more is impossible. The fact is that our government should encourage family unit that is best for the raising of children. They are our future. That would be a nuclear family of mom and dad. Anything else is just adults playing fetishes and wanting accolades for it.

 

Obviously, if your time is tight, right now, then it is preferable to wait until you don't feel you need to jam our conversation into an already packed schedule, as I had earlier said (and meant). However, I would like you to hold on to this particular post (which you had just used, for your "jumping platform") of mine, for reference, since I think it represents my having winnowed away many of those mistaken impressions, and other miscommunications (of which you now speak, in recommending a "reset"), and finally having traced this argument, to its roots.

 

I sign contracts everyday, and the government is involved in zero of them unless there is a dispute.

 

So in fact, it's involved in every single one of them. The wording is all chosen to conform to what government has deemed enforceable. You just choose not to know that fact.

 

Um. No.

The language is chosen by my attorney and my insurance company to mitigate liability.

The government is not, and shouldn't be, central to every aspect of our existence.

Why does the government need to issue a marriage license?

 

Um, yes actually.

As determined by government laws and courts.

But it has to be central in contracts, because they have to be enforceable if they are going to e of any use.

Because it is a contract that the government will end up having to enforce, or adjudicate in the event of breakdown.

 

Dang, this thread has legs. Who could have guessed that? I can give you one reason for poligamy being illegal. 80 yo Perv and 13 yo girl. Do we need more examples?

 

Huh?? How is a monogamous marriage between an 80-year-old pervert and a 13-year-old girl a reason for polygamy to be illegal, hmmmmmmmm??? Polygamy just means people -- especially women -- have the right to choose to share the most desirable partners rather than either be stuck with less desirable ones or stay single.

 

Yeah.... that's the answer...

 

Since that happens with monogamy too, what's your point?

 

This is an interesting argument you make-- certainly completely logical-- because I use the same argument, but to support the opposite conclusion. That is, it is obvious, if contracts be legally enforceable, then the government is underwriting the validity of all legal contracts; it is acknowledging the potential, in the case of any dispute, of the government (i.e., the court system) becoming involved, in enforcement of the law. @jcarlilesiu's argument that this only applies, if there is a dispute, is clearly a bogus one; it is like saying that co-signing on someone's loan application is not any sort of commitment, since it is meaningless except if the borrower defaults. That a potential exists, certainly requires that one's endorser, like one's bail bondsman, assumes risk, unto themselves.

But that is why I say that, if the government looks at the horribly complicated messes that would attend the legalizing of multiple marriage, and says that it wants no part in that Gordian legal knot, that is a valid reason for it to make multiple marriages, not legally binding. Not all agreements, I'm sure you understand, are legally binding. Therefore, unless you can show any obligation of the government (IOW, upon our society) to provide all the guarantees of legal marriage to more than a single partner for anyone, at any given time, then group marriage is something for which one must proceed into, at one's own risk. This seems a perfectly legitimate argument, for the validity of limiting the number of one's legal partners, to just one at a time.


EDIT: I am also certain that you understand the concept, that having a "right" to something-- like free speech, or gun ownership-- does not imply that the right is absolute, and cannot be reasonably limited.