The legal argument for polygamous vs. homosexual marriages

[Rapunzel]

After doing some research online, it seems like Muslim polygamy is mostly practiced outside of the U.S., and actually that many, many cultures have or have had polygamists before. It was prevalent in Hinduism, in Imperial China, Ancient Judiasm. For the purpose of this debate topic -- legalizing polygamy and/or gay marriage in the United States --- it seems that the largest segment of the US population that practices it are the Mormon Fundamentalists. Even the article I found from the Salt Lake Tribune reprinted on polygamy.com says

Well, doing a bit of research myself I found that .5% of the American population currently identifies as Muslim. That's about 2 - 4 million Muslims in the U.S. using the middle-of-the-road estimate ( http://www.religioustolerance.org/isl_numb.htm ). Muslims MUST accept polygamy as part of their religious beliefs according to everything I have read. It's integral.

Now, let's examine the number of those who claim to be practioners in polygamy and call themselves "Mormon Fundamentalists". The following site (an advocacy site for such people) claims there are around 37,000 of these people in the U.S.: http://www.principlevoices.org/staticpa ... 0074625545

Hmmm..... Now, if we're going to look at this honestly it would appear that the 2-4 million Muslims who must accept polygamy as a course of religious obligation are going to benefit far more from the legalization of plural marriage than are the 37,000 members of fringe groups in the mountains. And, statistically, you are very, very likely to see that quite a number of these 2-4 million Muslims in the United States are already secret practitioners of polygamy. In fact, the website I previously linked to seemed to imply that was the case in the U.S. and Canada already.

Polygamy has been used in various cultures over the course of history. However, the current culture which embraces it and has the most political sway in the United States is byfar the Muslim culture/religion. Everyone else (ie the Mormon break-off groups) are peanuts in comparison.

[pstone]

To me there are to different issues at play here.

1st. Legal Marriage - (defined by goverment backed benefits, ie social security etc.) is something that the majority has the right to define. I personal don't see a benefit to society to same-sex marriages. We do have finite resources and I can't see extending benefits to everybody....Although I know it is a slippery slope.

2nd Religious or Personal Marriage - I really could care less who wants to live, love, marry each other. If two men want to have a ceremony and spend the rest of thier life together all the power to them, if a private company wants to give domestic partners health benefits I think that is great. All us married folks realize it has nothing to do with state sponsored piece of paper.

[PrincessFiona]

My brain just won't slip into debate mode right now...so...this is the useless tidbit I'll add.

Who in their right mind would want to be polygamous? Can you imagine all of the work and effort that would go into that? blech....What if I could practice polygamy and have...3 or 4 husbands...they'd drive me nuts! No thanks!

Sorry for that useless blurb.

kris

[spotty_dog]

Well, I'm reading the arguments so far as saying that because Mormon fundamentalists have been known to abuse young girls in the context of plural marriage, and because Muslim polygynists are promoting female subordination, polygamy as a legal institution should be outlawed on order to prevent these morally reprehensible, religiously-based actions.

But if you consider the thousands of people in the United States, of many religious backgrounds but mostly pagan in some form, who identify as polyamorous and consider themselves "hardwired" to love more than one person, then the question expands. Not "should the government condone fringe religious behavior" but "where do we draw the line for the government to support and legally recognize consensual adult unions?"

The argument proposed is that if we challenge the statement that "marriage is between one man and one woman" on the grounds of opening marriage to people of the same sex, then we must as a matter of logical extension also challenge the part that limits such a union to only two individuals.

Despite my belief that polyamory is an acceptable way for adults to engage in sexual and romantic relationships, I don't think that the above argument holds sway. Legal marriage can and should continue to be defined between TWO individuals. Expanding it to fluff's guy with six wives and 54 children is a legal, logistic, and financial nightmare that is not justified by the simple argument that "if two guys can marry, five girls and three guys can marry as well".

'Least, that's the way I see it.

And Kris, you're totally right, even non-legalized polyamory is really difficult! People usually have to lay down explicit written rules with their primary partners (eg. no sex until your primary partner approves of the person), often have to travel to see their non-live-in partners, coordinate date nights and other "couple time", it's crazy! Certainly not for me. One man, and a marriage based on monogamy and fidelity, is working just fine so far.

[PrincessFiona]

Well Alison, one man is about all I can handle right now. Love him dearly, of course!

I would like to open up a sidebar or two here... we refer to polygamy, but really, we're debating polygyny. How often - or rather - have you EVER heard of one woman with multiple husbands (polyandry)? You would think that as we stray from our biological and biblical roles, this might naturally become more prevalent, but it has not. I've read that it exists in remote areas of India and Tibet where women can marry at and/or above their station, or marry brothers from one family, respectively. One benefit gay marriage has that polygamy doesn’t is that, in its current construct, it’s fair to both sexes. Until men can bear children, I don’t see any women cashing in on the opportunity to have multiple husbands.

The feminist in me is deeply troubled by the stereotypical Mormon fundamentalist polygynous (I may have just made that word up) relationship in which young girls are victimized by being forced into a marriage, a sexual relationship and motherhood. They are not the only victims; young men are forced to separate from the families they know - dozens of siblings and their parents - and are basically exiled because they are seen as a threat to the elders. They're kicked out of a community that they were initially not allowed to exist outside of for the most random infractions, and sometimes for no reason at all, and forced to fend for themselves in unfamiliar territory at a very young age.

It’s all so tragically patriarchal. The Muslim justification is no exception to this. Now, keep in mind that I have a great deal of difficulty understanding this religion, especially in light of the current situation of the Muslim who converted to Christianity in Afghanistan. He is facing the death penalty or, if let free, will be the victim of a crime (but only a crime by Western standards) so hideous and violent, if I let myself think of it I will have nightmares for months. I think it’s barbaric and as absurd as “honor killings”, which are typically committed against women. But I digress, the Muslim religion seems to have many… conveniences for men… a sense of “duty” in screwing around in the name of god, being violent against infidels… and seems to blame and punish women. It doesn’t really surprise me that they’ve come up with what they consider a satisfactory justification for polygyny.
Take this all with a grain of salt, please. I’m just thinking out loud here (though that may be obvious).

[spotty_dog]

I would like to open up a sidebar or two here... we refer to polygamy, but really, we're debating polygyny. How often - or rather - have you EVER heard of one woman with multiple husbands (polyandry)? You would think that as we stray from our biological and biblical roles, this might naturally become more prevalent, but it has not.

Yes, exactly! I used those terms but didn't emphasize them: in a society with guaranteed equality of the sexes, religious polygyny is not up for debate as part of this legal marriage issue, I don't think. But legal polygamy with *any* combination of sexes, all partners equal in the relationship, *is* a valid consideration.

Pagan handfasting can include multiple individuals of any combination of sexes, so in that sense there is polyandry practiced on some small scale in the modern time.

[fluffhead]

Polyandry becomes much more prevalent in areas with fewer resources, where it might take 4 or 5 hunters and gatherers to provide for one woman and her children. In areas with more resources, you find one man able to support many wives and all their children, so polygamy becomes more prevalent.
(my 1985 undergraduate Human Ethnology class is coming back to me - I think the Bushmen of the Kalahari practiced polyandry)

What Fluff said re: resources. Polyandry is (was?) practiced in parts of Nepal -- very limited land available for living/farming/animals. Not sure to what degree, if any, religion plays in that.

[Gwendolyn]

dayismae-you took the words right out of my mouth! When you are talking about protecting polygamy, you are talking about a patriarchal right to marry multiple women...which, I believe is the only reason it is under consideration.

I am confused by the subtle debate about who practices it...Mormons or Muslims. In both communities, the practice is generally condemned and frowned upon...even though the Koran "allows" it, most mainstream Muslim women would also draw blood at the proposal.

Are there no legal contracts that include only two parties, regardless of gender? (there can only be one buyer and one seller, right?)

I am having a hard time coming up with a good argument for why the two should be considered legally different. Other than to add to the beginning of this post...we are talking about a pretty misogynist structure here. Maybe the difference is gay marriage is about continuing to pursue liberty and justice for all, where as polygamy might be more about the subjugation of women. (All bizarrely consensual unions aside).

[Rapunzel]

I am confused by the subtle debate about who practices it...Mormons or Muslims. In both communities, the practice is generally condemned and frowned upon...even though the Koran "allows" it, most mainstream Muslim women would also draw blood at the proposal.

Ummm.... No, in the Muslim community it is not condemned nor frowned upon. It is allowed AND encouraged. As I pointed out many Muslim men in the United States and Canada secretly practice polygamy already.

I just found the following story demonstrating that Australia has this problem as well:

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common ... 8,18753017^2862,00.html

MUSLIM men in Australia are trawling "marriage websites" looking for second wives in what Immigration officials say is a growing illegal trade.

Now, perhaps Muslim women who live in Western nations share the revulsion of the practice that women in westernized societies feel. However, if these men are obtaining their second and third brides from places where women have no say in the matter then it's a moot point what westernized Muslim women think of the issue. In fact, such women could accurately be called "apostate" by devout Muslims.

[Rapunzel]

The feminist in me is deeply troubled by the stereotypical Mormon fundamentalist polygynous (I may have just made that word up) relationship in which young girls are victimized by being forced into a marriage, a sexual relationship and motherhood. They are not the only victims; young men are forced to separate from the families they know - dozens of siblings and their parents - and are basically exiled because they are seen as a threat to the elders. They're kicked out of a community that they were initially not allowed to exist outside of for the most random infractions, and sometimes for no reason at all, and forced to fend for themselves in unfamiliar territory at a very young age.

I just want to point out the misuse of the term "Mormon fundamentalist". I am an LDS fundamentalist by the definition of the term "fundamentalist". The people described above are far removed from the fundamentals of the LDS - or "Mormon" - faith. A more accurate term is "pseudo-Mormons" or, simply, "the excommunicated" and/or "the apostate" or possibly "the severely misguided". Unfortunately the media has perpetuated this fallacy in our society.

Here is the church's official statement on the misuse of the name:

There is no such thing as a "fundamentalist" Mormon. Mormon is a common name for a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The Church discontinued polygamy more than a century ago. No members of the Church today can enter into polygamy without being excommunicated. Polygamist groups in Utah, other parts of the American West and elsewhere have nothing whatsoever to do with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

http://www.lds.org/newsroom/mistakes/0, ... 70,00.html



Here is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint's comments on the HBO program "Big Love":

Church Responds to Questions on HBO's Big Love
Various media outlets, 6 March 2006

Over the past few weeks, Church Public Affairs has received numerous calls from newspaper, magazine and TV entertainment writers about a new television series called Big Love. In the series, set in a modern suburb of Salt Lake City, the main character keeps up a deceptive life in a fringe world of polygamy with his three wives and households. Journalists want to know what the Church thinks of the program, the subject matter and HBO’s decision to promote it.

In responding, Church spokesmen have made three major points:

1. Concern for abuse victims
The Church has long been concerned about the illegal practice of polygamy in some communities, and in particular about persistent reports of emotional and physical child and wife abuse emanating from them. It will be regrettable if this program, by making polygamy the subject of entertainment, minimizes the seriousness of that problem and adds to the suffering of abuse victims.

2. Confusion over the continued practice of polygamy
The central characters of Big Love are not “Mormons,” or, more properly termed, Latter-day Saints. HBO has said the script makes it clear that members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints don’t practice polygamy. Still, placing the series in Salt Lake City, the international headquarters of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is enough to blur the line between the modern Church and the program’s subject matter and to reinforce old and long-outdated stereotypes.

Polygamy was officially discontinued by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in 1890. Any Church member adopting the practice today is excommunicated. Groups that continue the practice in Utah and elsewhere have no association whatsoever with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Most of their practitioners have never been among its members.

Unfortunately, this distinction is often lost on members of the public and even on some senior journalists. When ABC network’s Prime Time recently aired a program focused on the secretive polygamous community of Colorado City, the reporter repeatedly referred to members of the community as “Mormon polygamists.” In response, the Church points to the Associated Press style guide for journalists which states: "The term Mormon is not properly applied to the other ... churches that resulted from the split after (Joseph) Smith's death." In other words, polygamous communities should never be referred to as "Mormon" polygamists or “Mormon” fundamentalists.

3. Concern over the moral standards of television entertainment
Despite its popularity with some, much of today’s television entertainment shows an unhealthy preoccupation with sex, coarse humor and foul language. Big Love, like so much other television programming, is essentially lazy and indulgent entertainment that does nothing for our society and will never nourish great minds. Parents who are casual about their viewing habits ought not to be surprised if teaching moral choices and civic values to their children becomes harder as a result.

For that reason and others, Church leaders have consistently cautioned against such entertainment, joining with other religious, education and government leaders in inviting individuals and families to follow a higher road of decency, self-discipline and integrity.

http://www.lds.org/newsroom/mistakes/0, ... -1,00.html