The case for polygamy has really weakened rather than strenghtened, you might say.
Legolas Send a noteboard - 20/10/2012 03:53:34 PM
Historically, polygamy has existed in many societies, much more so than gay marriage, but the logic behind them was socio-economic in most cases. To take Muhammad's case, his main reasons for contracting additional marriages tended to be either creating closer ties to the family of those women, or charity towards widows of fallen comrades who would be hard-pressed to feed themselves and their children without income. Other reasons included being able to share the workload of the household among several women, factors of prestige, and so on. But polygamous marriages between three or more people who did so just because they all loved each other and wanted to go through life together... not so much.
Of course, the evolution in marriage in general that has made gay marriage more relevant and more of an issue now than it used to be - i.e., the shift, in the West at least, from an institution that was at least to a large extent socio-economic to one that is predominantly romantic - also might make this new kind of polygamy, the truly polyamorous kind, more relevant. How many of those relationships are there, though? I would think even today, and even in the West, polygamy if legal would primarily be practiced in the traditional way and for the traditional reasons, either among radical Mormon sects, or among conservative Muslims from countries like Saudi Arabia, like in your example. And I'm not convinced that that's something that should be encouraged.
Which, incidentally, means your "I'm not asking opponents of gay marriage because I already know what they'd say" is not quite accurate - it's a small minority of conservatives that would favour polygamy, and almost exclusively those belonging to a few specific religions or denominations, but it's still there and from what I can see, it's probably more numerous than the progressives who want it because they're in a genuinely polyamorous relationship.
I have issues with this new-style polygamy for practical reasons too, obviously - it's hard to see how they could work all that out.
Of course, the evolution in marriage in general that has made gay marriage more relevant and more of an issue now than it used to be - i.e., the shift, in the West at least, from an institution that was at least to a large extent socio-economic to one that is predominantly romantic - also might make this new kind of polygamy, the truly polyamorous kind, more relevant. How many of those relationships are there, though? I would think even today, and even in the West, polygamy if legal would primarily be practiced in the traditional way and for the traditional reasons, either among radical Mormon sects, or among conservative Muslims from countries like Saudi Arabia, like in your example. And I'm not convinced that that's something that should be encouraged.
Which, incidentally, means your "I'm not asking opponents of gay marriage because I already know what they'd say" is not quite accurate - it's a small minority of conservatives that would favour polygamy, and almost exclusively those belonging to a few specific religions or denominations, but it's still there and from what I can see, it's probably more numerous than the progressives who want it because they're in a genuinely polyamorous relationship.
I have issues with this new-style polygamy for practical reasons too, obviously - it's hard to see how they could work all that out.
For all you supporters of Gay Marriage: What about polygamy?
20/10/2012 12:02:06 AM
- 1368 Views
Legal rights.
20/10/2012 12:14:10 AM
- 776 Views
should be legal, would be nice for poly people. should include polygyny and polyandry. *NM*
20/10/2012 03:29:05 AM
- 376 Views
Government needs to stop legislating morality. So yes *NM*
20/10/2012 03:36:37 AM
- 367 Views
That's a huge chunk of what government does.
20/10/2012 04:35:45 PM
- 704 Views
That's not what I'm saying
21/10/2012 03:21:08 AM
- 721 Views
So you're opposed to abortion and gun control then? Welcome aboard!
21/10/2012 06:14:14 AM
- 669 Views
Why do you keep talking about gay marriage and polygamy in the same sentence..
20/10/2012 03:58:26 AM
- 746 Views
Get a grip. Your response is just what I tried to avoid.
20/10/2012 04:33:40 AM
- 665 Views
The more fool you.
21/10/2012 05:55:30 AM
- 759 Views
This, and legal recognition of it, is precisely why marriage has become an Equal Protection issue.
22/10/2012 03:40:01 PM
- 693 Views
Because they are both violations of the paradigm of genuine marriage. Like it or not.
21/10/2012 05:49:32 AM
- 648 Views
I have no problem with polygamy being legal, but marriage is a privilege and can be limited to two.
20/10/2012 04:16:08 AM
- 755 Views
The only problem with that is that it was established with a heterosexist assumption
21/10/2012 06:33:32 AM
- 716 Views
From a legal perspective, all of your arguments are irrelevant
21/10/2012 03:12:39 PM
- 821 Views
This really is blatantly obvious, but still it might bear repeating...
21/10/2012 04:43:13 PM
- 712 Views
Yes, but only if its equal. Multi-people relationships should be more acceptable by society.
20/10/2012 05:15:24 AM
- 766 Views
"Polygamy" is the all-inclusive term; whether or not he meant it, he said it.
22/10/2012 04:31:09 PM
- 656 Views
I support autogamy in addition to various forms of exogenic relationships
20/10/2012 05:49:07 AM
- 690 Views
Have you seen the Glee episode where Sue Sylvester conducts a marriage of herself to herself? *NM*
20/10/2012 09:50:32 AM
- 365 Views
I am fine with it if all existing parties to the marriage consent to each addition.
20/10/2012 10:10:19 AM
- 762 Views
The case for polygamy has really weakened rather than strenghtened, you might say.
20/10/2012 03:53:34 PM
- 864 Views
I have no problem with it, but as Amy says, it's not really relevant. *NM*
20/10/2012 05:40:50 PM
- 393 Views
Legalize polygamy and create a familymaking process, but don't cover polygamy under marriage.
20/10/2012 10:14:58 PM
- 683 Views
The state shouldn't even recognize marriage beyond name changes anyway
21/10/2012 03:52:40 AM
- 732 Views
Indeed
21/10/2012 06:04:41 AM
- 790 Views
I don't give a damn what you call it. That's your business.
21/10/2012 06:17:40 AM
- 1066 Views
And so?
21/10/2012 07:05:08 AM
- 698 Views
Re: And so?
21/10/2012 04:10:19 PM
- 864 Views
So can we call it garriage, give the same legal effect and call it good? *NM*
22/10/2012 03:28:33 AM
- 371 Views
According to your argument we could afford gay couples the same legal privileges...
22/10/2012 03:20:17 AM
- 628 Views
"...separate educational facilities are inherently unequal."
22/10/2012 04:45:31 PM
- 689 Views
That may well be the ideal solution. And also the most ironically amusing in how it would fail.
22/10/2012 07:35:05 PM
- 658 Views
We already went there and did that in '04, and yes, it was funny as f--k.
22/10/2012 09:51:49 PM
- 607 Views
Agreed in principle, but custody/cohabitation/assets go well beyond name change.
22/10/2012 04:37:09 PM
- 665 Views
This is the sort of thing that *needs* to be about principle
23/10/2012 04:54:10 AM
- 600 Views
Parental, property and other rights need government protection, and thus government involvement.
23/10/2012 05:14:37 AM
- 646 Views
Legal contracts must be open to all consenting adults, or none.
22/10/2012 03:11:55 PM
- 744 Views
You are correct, yet your reasoning is flawed.
23/10/2012 03:20:25 PM
- 671 Views
Again, the Equal Protection Clause has far less force on private entities than on government.
23/10/2012 03:52:06 PM
- 603 Views
Much less force, yes.
23/10/2012 04:15:03 PM
- 612 Views
The crux is "If it's my business, it's my business."
23/10/2012 04:43:25 PM
- 684 Views
Re: The crux is "If it's my business, it's my business."
23/10/2012 07:15:17 PM
- 628 Views
Like you said: By referring to "all invididuals" (or, better, "persons" or "citizens.")
24/10/2012 04:14:55 PM
- 651 Views
But we know very well that it doesn't have dire commercial consequences.
25/10/2012 07:17:55 PM
- 706 Views
I have several friends who practice polyamory, if they wanted to marry I would support it. *NM*
24/10/2012 06:47:58 PM
- 339 Views