PDA

View Full Version : Polygamy, Too



Odysseus
04-19-2012, 12:06 PM
Apparently, some of the more aggressive Islamists see the opportunity for force their marriage agenda on the rest of us, thanks to that other activist group that is having their way with the marriage laws. And yet, when I pointed out that gay marriage would open up the door to the polygamists, I was presumed to be ignorant, bigoted and provincial.


NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE www.nationalreview.com
http://www.nationalreview.com/blogs/print/296493

Polygamy, Too

By David J. Rusin
April 19, 2012 4:00 A.M. Presidential candidate Rick Santorum got jeered for comparing the legalization of same-sex marriage to that of polygamy, but, whether or not the comparison is rationally sound, thoughts of the former’s facilitating the latter bring a smile to many Islamists. If the definition of marriage can evolve in terms of gender, some Muslims ask, why not in terms of number?

Islam sanctions polygamy — more specifically, polygyny — allowing Muslim men to keep up to four wives at once. Though marrying a second woman while remaining married to the first is prohibited across the Western world, including all 50 U.S. states, a Muslim can circumvent the law by wedding one woman in a government-recognized marriage and joining with others in unlicensed religious unions devoid of legal standing.

As Muslims have grown more numerous in the West, so too have Muslim polygamists. France, home to the largest Islamic population in Western Europe, was estimated in 2006 to host 16,000 to 20,000 polygamous families — almost all Muslim — containing 180,000 total people, including children. In the United States, such Muslims may have already reached numerical parity with their fundamentalist-Mormon counterparts; as many as 100,000 Muslims reside in multi-wife families, and the phenomenon has gained particular traction among black Muslims.

The increasingly prominent profile of Islamic polygamy in the West has inspired a range of accommodations. Several governments now recognize plural marriages contracted lawfully in immigrants’ countries of origin. In the United Kingdom, these polygamous men are eligible to receive extra welfare benefits — an arrangement that some government ministers hope to kill — and a Scottish court once permitted a Muslim who had been cited for speeding to retain his driver’s license because he had to commute between his wives.

The ultimate accommodation would involve placing polygamous and monogamous marriages on the same legal footing, but Islamists have been relatively quiet on this front, a silence that some attribute to satisfaction with the status quo or a desire to avoid drawing negative publicity. There have, of course, been exceptions. The Muslim Parliament of Great Britain made waves in 2000 about challenging the U.K.’s ban on polygamy, but little came of it. In addition, two of Australia’s most influential Islamic figures called for recognition of polygamous unions several years ago.

With the legal definition of marriage expanding in various U.S. states, as it has in other nations, should we anticipate rising demands that we recognize polygamous marriages? Debra Majeed, an academic apologist for Islamic polygamy, has tried to downplay such concerns, claiming that “opponents of same-sex unions, rather than proponents of polygyny as practiced by Muslims, are the usual sources of arguments that a door open to one would encourage a more visible practice of the other.” Yet some American Muslims apparently did not get the memo.

Because off-the-cuff remarks can be the most revealing, consider a tweet by Moein Khawaja, executive director of the Philadelphia branch of the radical Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). After New York legalized same-sex marriage last June, Khawaja expressed what many Islamists must have been thinking: “Easy to support gay marriage today bc it’s mainstream. Lets see same people go to bat for polygamy, its the same argument. *crickets*”

The “same argument” theme is fleshed out in an October 2011 piece titled “Polygamy: Tis the Season?” in the Muslim Link, a newspaper serving the Washington and Baltimore areas. “There are murmurs among the polygamist community as the country moves toward the legalization of gay marriage,” it explains. “As citizens of the United States, they argue, they should have the right to legally marry whoever they please, or however many they please.” The story quotes several Muslim advocates of polygamy. “As far as legalization, I think they should,” says Hassan Amin, a Baltimore imam who performs polygamous religious unions. “We should strive to have it legalized because Allah has already legalized it.”

Again and again the article connects the normalization of same-sex marriage and Islamic polygamy. “As states move toward legalizing gay marriage, the criminalization of polygamy is a seemingly striking inconsistency in constitutional law,” it asserts. “Be it gay marriage or polygamous marriage, the rights of the people should not be based on their popularity but rather on the constitutional laws that are meant to protect them.”

According to a survey carried out by the Link, polygamy suffers from no lack of popularity among American Muslims. Thirty-nine percent reported their intention to enter polygamous marriages if it becomes legal to do so, and “nearly 70 percent said they believe that the U.S. should legalize polygamy now that it is beginning to legalize gay marriage.” Unfortunately, no details about the methodology or sample size are provided, and in general quality data on Western Muslims’ views of polygamy are scarce and often contradictory. Results from a recent poll of SingleMuslim.com users, many of whom live in the West, show significant support for the religious institution of polygamy, while findings from a more professional-looking survey of French Muslims indicate little desire for legalization.

Odysseus
04-19-2012, 12:06 PM
Nevertheless, the number of polygamous Muslims and the opportunity presented by the redefining of marriage make it very likely that direct appeals for official recognition will ramp up over the next decade, as more Muslims join vocal non-Muslims already laying out the case that polygamists deserve no fewer rights than gays. In the meantime, watch for Islamists and their allies to prepare for ideological battle.

For starters, one hears a lot about the alleged social necessity of recognizing Islamic polygamy. The hardships encountered by second, third, and fourth wives who lack legal protections are regularly highlighted, while polygamy is promoted as a solution to the loss of marriageable black men in America to drugs, violence, and prison. Because polygamists who are not legally married are known to abuse welfare systems — for instance, Muslim women in polygamous marriages often claim benefits as single mothers — it would not be shocking to see legalization pushed even as a means of curbing fraud.

These practical arguments are supplemented with heavy-handed attempts to extol the supposed virtues of Islamic polygamy, as in a Georgia middle-school assignment featuring a sharia-lauding Muslim who tells students that “if our marriage has problems, my husband can take another wife rather than divorce me, and I would still be cared for.” Leftist academics such as Miriam Cooke, who has peddled the fiction that polygamy frees married Muslim women to pursue lovers, will have a role to play as well.

The good news for opponents of polygamy is that eventual legalization remains far from certain in the U.S. or elsewhere. State representatives will not be rushing to introduce pro-polygamy bills when, according to a Gallup survey from last year, almost nine in ten Americans still see the practice as morally wrong. Opinions can change, of course, as they have regarding same-sex marriage. Unfortunately for polygamy’s backers, however, the equality arguments employed to great effect by gay-marriage advocates may ring hollow, in that recognizing polygamy — which almost always takes the form of polygyny — would essentially endorse inequality between the genders.

Convincing American judges to overturn restrictions will be an uphill battle as well — and not just because of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1879 rejection of the “religious duty” defense of marrying multiple partners in Reynolds v. United States. More recently, state supreme courts have explicitly held the line against polygamy in their rulings to extend marriage rights to same-sex pairs. See Goodridge v. Department of Public Health (Massachusetts, 2003) and In re Marriage Cases (California, 2008); the latter decision describes both polygamous and incestuous unions as “inimical to the mutually supportive and healthy family relationships promoted by the constitutional right to marry.”

Judicial criticism of polygamy is not unique to the U.S. In a case concerning self-proclaimed Mormon fundamentalists, the supreme court of British Columbia upheld Canada’s ban on plural marriage last November after the chief justice, in the words of the New York Times, “found that women in polygamous relationships faced higher rates of domestic, physical and sexual abuse, died younger and were more prone to mental illnesses. Children from those marriages, he said, were more likely to be abused and neglected, less likely to perform well at school and often suffered from emotional and behavioral problems.”

Focusing on polygamy in the Islamic world does not yield a happier image. Based on her experiences in Afghanistan, feminist university professor Phyllis Chesler has called the practice “humiliating, cruel, [and] unfair to the wives,” and noted that it “sets up fearful rivalries among the half-brothers of different mothers who have lifelong quarrels over their inheritances.” Likewise, Egyptian-born human-rights activist Nonie Darwish has elucidated polygamy’s “devastating impact on the healthy function and the structure of loyalties” within Muslim families.

Recent studies have bolstered these accounts. According to new research, Israeli Arab women in polygamous marriages are worse off than those in monogamous ones. A separate investigation uncovered similar negative effects on Malaysian Muslims. In addition, an academic paper released this year concludes that polygamous societies in general lag behind their monogamous counterparts and explores the reasons for this, including the increased tension and criminal activity that result from creating a surplus of single, low-status men.

There are many other arguments against polygamy that supporters of legalization will have to defeat, such as that expanding marriage to three or more people would require massive alterations of Western family law. However, neither bureaucratic obstacles nor public exposure of the social ills accompanying polygamy will deter polygamous Muslims from seeking what they desire.

Recognition of polygamous marriages would be a major win for stealth jihadists — and the time is nearly optimal for them to make their move. How ironic that laws benefiting gay couples may aid Islamists — followers of an ideology that despises homosexuals — in their campaign to establish sharia in the Western world.

— David J. Rusin is a research fellow at Islamist Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum. This article initially appeared in the April 16, 2012, issue of National Review.





© National Review Online 2012. All Rights Reserved.

Deadhead
04-19-2012, 01:08 PM
It's just my opinion, but why the hell not? It's a victimless crime. Marriage has already been ruined by pop and celebrity culture, so I don't see the harm in polygamy.

But then again, that's just me

noonwitch
04-19-2012, 04:32 PM
The IRS will never allow polygamy in the US. It's too complicated for them.

In the communities in this country where it is practiced in defiance of the law, it seems to be an institution that results in the sexual abuse of teenaged girls.


Gay marriage is not the same as polygamy. A marriage between two same-gendered partners is still just a marriage between two people.

Arroyo_Doble
04-19-2012, 05:04 PM
The IRS will never allow polygamy in the US. It's too complicated for them.

In the communities in this country where it is practiced in defiance of the law, it seems to be an institution that results in the sexual abuse of teenaged girls.


Gay marriage is not the same as polygamy. A marriage between two same-gendered partners is still just a marriage between two people.

If the driving moral issue concerning same sex marriage is the liberty of consenting adults to enter into relationships of their choosing then how do you deny the same for polygamous relationships?

FlaGator
04-19-2012, 05:39 PM
Same sex marriage was the first step on the slippery slop that many have denied. Romania is considering the legalization of incest between consenting adults and several European countries do not prosecute incestuous relationships. NAMBLA argues for the legalization of homosexual/pedophile relationships between men and young boys. Bestiality is not that far over the horizon. Once the genie was set free from the bottle it will be impossible to put it back in. Just another step in a series of them meant to remove the moral structures from society and replace them with the pluralistic philosophy of if it feels good it must be OK.

Odysseus
04-19-2012, 06:10 PM
It's just my opinion, but why the hell not? It's a victimless crime. Marriage has already been ruined by pop and celebrity culture, so I don't see the harm in polygamy.

But then again, that's just me

Polygamy is incredibly socially corrosive. First, marriage is a zero sum game. If one man can marry four women, then three other men have to do without, which creates a population of surplus men who have no marriage prospects, and no outlet for their sexual impulses beyond prostitutes and self abuse. A culture of middle-aged male virgins may produce some great comic books and science fiction, but it is also extremely volatile. Just look at the cultures of the various Muslim states, or China, which has artificially created the same situation through the strict application of the One Child policy. Want a volatile mob to show up at the drop of a hat? Go to those countries.

Second polygamy is exploitive. Women become commodities, to be purchased. The status of women in polygamous countries is invariably lower than men's. Also, the isolation of women in order to protect their value leads to a culture of endogamy, or kinship marriage. I could go on at length, but it's a miserable life for everybody involved.


If the driving moral issue concerning same sex marriage is the liberty of consenting adults to enter into relationships of their choosing then how do you deny the same for polygamous relationships?

But that isn't the driving moral issue. The driving moral issue is that gays feel slighted, and demand what they used to pretend they didn't want.

Novaheart
04-19-2012, 06:31 PM
Apparently, some of the more aggressive Islamists see the opportunity for force their marriage agenda on the rest of us, thanks to that other activist group that is having their way with the marriage laws. And yet, when I pointed out that gay marriage would open up the door to the polygamists, I was presumed to be ignorant, bigoted and provincial.

America has gone several rounds with polygamy before Mohammedans (quaint, isn't it?) ever were taken into account. Gay marriage did not open up the door to polygamy, polygamy is traditional marriage in Asia and Africa, you can't get much more traditional than polygamy. The reason that polygamy is forbidden in European countries (including the US) has nothing whatsoever to do with Christianity or the other Asian religions. Roman law only permitted one wife. Of course, Roman aristocrats kept concubines and recognized the children of those relationships, as did European nobility for centuries thereafter. This is further proof that marriage laws are about property and inheritance, not gods.

Novaheart
04-19-2012, 06:36 PM
The IRS will never allow polygamy in the US. It's too complicated for them.

In the communities in this country where it is practiced in defiance of the law, it seems to be an institution that results in the sexual abuse of teenaged girls.


Gay marriage is not the same as polygamy. A marriage between two same-gendered partners is still just a marriage between two people.

AS much as I welcome your thoughtful position on gay marriage, I have to disagree with you on plural marriage. Child brides are not the essence of plural marriage, they are a cultural artifact which the law already addresses. Plural marriage, in and of itself is harmless. It would be better if we had law which define it in terms of property and position. Obviously where there are four wives only one can make medical decisions in the absence of a directive. I'd say that honor goes to the first wife.

Novaheart
04-19-2012, 06:40 PM
Polygamy is incredibly socially corrosive. First, marriage is a zero sum game. If one man can marry four women, then three other men have to do without, which creates a population of surplus men who have no marriage prospects, and no outlet for their sexual impulses beyond prostitutes and self abuse.

Females outnumber males.
Males are much more likely to die young in accidents, crime, and war.
More males are gay than females are gay.
Most societies which permit polygamy have rules about the ability to support said wives.
In the US where polygamy is practiced against the law, we have polygamists with wives and children on welfare.
Not everybody wants four wives.

Articulate_Ape
04-19-2012, 08:03 PM
I would submit that, given the fact that one out of every two marriages now ends in divorce and many divorcees remarry, even repeatedly (see Hollywood), that polygamy is widely practiced here already. It is simply done in a consecutive manner rather than a concurrent manner. It makes people feel better about themselves to separate the two approaches I guess.

JB
04-19-2012, 09:22 PM
It's just my opinion, but why the hell not? It's a victimless crime. Marriage has already been ruined by pop and celebrity culture, so I don't see the harm in polygamy.

But then again, that's just meDid you read the article? Allow me to quote:


...these polygamous men are eligible to receive extra welfare benefits...and a Scottish court once permitted a Muslim who had been cited for speeding to retain his driver’s license because he had to commute between his wives.I am the victim.

Odysseus
04-19-2012, 10:29 PM
America has gone several rounds with polygamy before Mohammedans (quaint, isn't it?) ever were taken into account. Gay marriage did not open up the door to polygamy, polygamy is traditional marriage in Asia and Africa, you can't get much more traditional than polygamy. The reason that polygamy is forbidden in European countries (including the US) has nothing whatsoever to do with Christianity or the other Asian religions. Roman law only permitted one wife. Of course, Roman aristocrats kept concubines and recognized the children of those relationships, as did European nobility for centuries thereafter. This is further proof that marriage laws are about property and inheritance, not gods.

Polygamy is traditional marriage in non-western cultures. It hasn't been traditional in western cultures since the rise of Christianity. And today, gay marriage is opening the door to polygamy.


AS much as I welcome your thoughtful position on gay marriage, I have to disagree with you on plural marriage. Child brides are not the essence of plural marriage, they are a cultural artifact which the law already addresses. Plural marriage, in and of itself is harmless. It would be better if we had law which define it in terms of property and position. Obviously where there are four wives only one can make medical decisions in the absence of a directive. I'd say that honor goes to the first wife.

Plural marriage is not harmless. As I said a while back when arguing this with the late, unlamented Wilbur:


First, marriage is a zero-sum game. If one man can marry one woman, and the ratio of men to women is roughly equal, then there's no problem. If, OTOH, one man can marry multiple women, then other men cannot marry at all. Surplus single males with no prospects for family are socially disruptive. Many of the suicide bombers and radicals in the Islamic world are educated young men from affluent backgrounds who tend to be second or third sons, and whose marriage prospects are therefore not a priority for their families. Remember that in polygamous cultures, the proof that a man can support a wife is the "bride price" which his family pays to hers. That leads to the next issue.

Second, polygamy is exploitive of women, who become a commodity. In every polygamous culture, the status of women is lower than that of men. And far more men will seek multiple wives than women will seek multiple husbands. Affluent men will prove that they can support a wife by paying her family, while men of fewer means will not be able to do so. Thus, financial incentives will drive families to guard their daughters and keep them under close watch (virginity becomes a critical factor in polygamous cultures).

Third, marital property becomes hopelessly convoluted in polygamous marriages. If a man with multiple wives divorces one of them, how much of the marital property is hers, as opposed to the other wives'? Inheritance becomes equally convoluted, with estates getting divided among far more children, with eventual dissolution of large holdings. There's a reason that polygamous cultures tend towards poverty.

Fourth, polygamy provides and unstable home environment for raising children. Wives in polygamous relationships cannot count on the stability of their marriages and tend to see their future security through their children, rather than through their own or their husband's efforts. This leads to constant intrigue. Multiple women, competing for their children's status within the household, create a culture of conflict and mistrust which is common in tribal cultures. Harems are notorious for their political machinations. This creates a culture of conspiracy and manipulation, rather than a culture of trust.

Polygamy devalues women, makes relationships less stable and undermines the home environment.


Females outnumber males.
Not by a 4:1 ratio, they don't. Most cultures have a slightly uneven birth rate, roughly 1:1.02, male to female. In order to satisfy a polygamous culture, the birth rate would have to be an order of magnitude greater.

Males are much more likely to die young in accidents, crime, and war.
Not enough to make polygamy viable. Men would have to be dying like flies in order to fill the ratios.


More males are gay than females are gay.
2.5% vs. 1.25% isn't enough to make a difference.


Most societies which permit polygamy have rules about the ability to support said wives.
Yes, but they also result in greater poverty. Four wives living off of the earnings of one husband end up living fairly poorly.


In the US where polygamy is practiced against the law, we have polygamists with wives and children on welfare.
This is not an argument for polygamy. It's an argument against welfare.

Not everybody wants four wives.
Doesn't matter. Even if you allow two wives, it's still a zero-sum game. If I marry two hot babes (I can dream), then somebody else doesn't get to marry any. If I marry three, then two other guys don't get to marry anyone, and if I marry four, then three other guys will end up without prospects. If Hugh Hefner shacks up with seven Playmates, six guys are going without. Even with the minuscule variations in male to female ratios that result from your floundering citations above, the numbers don't add up to enough women to go around. Two girls for every guy may have been the ratio in Surf City, but nowhere else on Earth will you find it.

Articulate_Ape
04-20-2012, 12:36 AM
Have any divorced and remarried friends, Ody? I'm not saying it's all good, but I'm saying that western culture simply adopted a different version of polygamy a long, long time ago. I know you know that.

Zeus
04-20-2012, 12:48 AM
I would submit that, given the fact that one out of every two marriages now ends in divorce and many divorcees remarry, even repeatedly (see Hollywood), that polygamy is widely practiced here already. It is simply done in a consecutive manner rather than a concurrent manner. It makes people feel better about themselves to separate the two approaches I guess.

That's a misnomer


Divorce Rate: It's Not as High as You Think
By DAN HURLEY
The New York Times
April 19, 2005

How many American marriages end in divorce? One in two, if you believe the
statistic endlessly repeated in news media reports, academic papers and
campaign speeches.

The figure is based on a simple - and flawed - calculation: the annual
marriage rate per 1,000 people compared with the annual divorce rate. In
2003, for example, the most recent year for which data is available, there
were 7.5 marriages per 1,000 people and 3.8 divorces, according to the
National Center for Health Statistics.

But researchers say that this is misleading because the people who are
divorcing in any given year are not the same as those who are marrying, and
that the statistic is virtually useless in understanding divorce rates. In
fact, they say, studies find that the divorce rate in the United States has
never reached one in every two marriages, and new research suggests that,
with rates now declining, it probably never will.

The method preferred by social scientists in determining the divorce rate is
to calculate how many people who have ever married subsequently divorced.
Counted that way, the rate has never exceeded about 41 percent, researchers
say. Although sharply rising rates in the 1970's led some to project that
the number would keep increasing, the rate has instead begun to inch
downward.

"At this point, unless there's some kind of turnaround, I wouldn't expect
any cohort to reach 50 percent, since none already has," said Dr. Rose M.
Kreider, a demographer in the Fertility and Family Statistics Branch of the
Census Bureau.

Two years ago, based on a 1996 survey, she and another demographer at the
bureau predicted that if trends then in place held steady, the divorce rate
for some age groups might eventually hit the 50 percent mark. But in
February, the bureau issued a new report, based on 2001 data and written by
Dr. Kreider.

According to the report, for people born in 1955 or later, "the proportion
ever divorced had actually declined," compared with those among people born
earlier. And, compared with women married before 1975, those married since
1975 had slightly better odds of reaching their 10th and 15th wedding
anniversaries with their marriages still intact.

Zeus
04-20-2012, 01:19 AM
The highest rate of divorce in the 2001 survey was 41 percent for men who
were then between the ages of 50 to 59, and 39 percent for women in the same
age group.

Researchers say that the small drop in the overall divorce rate is caused by
a steep decline in the rate among college graduates. As a result, a "divorce
divide" has opened up between those with and without college degrees, said
Dr. Steven P. Martin, an assistant professor of sociology at the University
of Maryland.

"Families with highly educated mothers and families with less educated
mothers are clearly moving in opposite directions," Dr. Martin wrote in a
paper that has not yet been published but has been presented and widely
discussed at scientific meetings.

As the overall divorce rates shot up from the early 1960's through the late
1970's, Dr. Martin found, the divorce rate for women with college degrees
and those without moved in lockstep, with graduates consistently having
about one-third to one-fourth the divorce rate of nongraduates.

But since 1980, the two groups have taken diverging paths. Women without
undergraduate degrees have remained at about the same rate, their risk of
divorce or separation within the first 10 years of marriage hovering at
around 35 percent. But for college graduates, the divorce rate in the first
10 years of marriage has plummeted to just over 16 percent of those married
between 1990 and 1994 from 27 percent of those married between 1975 and
1979.

About 60 percent of all marriages that eventually end in divorce do so
within the first 10 years, researchers say. If that continues to hold true,
the divorce rate for college graduates who married between 1990 and 1994
would end up at only about 25 percent, compared to well over 50 percent for
those without a four-year college degree.

"It's a big wow sort of story," Dr. Martin said. "I've been looking for two
years at other data sets to see if it's wrong, but it really looks like it's
happening."

Still, some researchers remain skeptical about the significance of the small
drop in overall divorce rates.

"The crude divorce rate has been going down," said Dr. Andrew J. Cherlin,
professor of public policy in the sociology department at Johns Hopkins.
"But whether the rates will ultimately reach 45 percent or 50 percent over
the next few decades are just projections. None of them are ironclad."

Dr. Larry Bumpass, an emeritus professor of sociology at the University of
Wisconsin's Center for Demography and Ecology, has long held that divorce
rates will eventually reach or exceed 50 percent. In an interview, he said
that it was "probably right" that the official divorce statistics might fall
below 50 percent, but that the rate would still be close.

"About half is still a very sensible statement," he said.

What all experts do agree on is that, after more than a century of rising
divorce rates in the United States, the rates abruptly stopped going up
around 1980.

Part of the uncertainty about the most recent trends derives from the fact
that no detailed annual figures have been available since 1996, when the
National Center for Health Statistics stopped collecting detailed data from
states on the age, income, education and race of people who divorced.

As a result, estimates from surveys have had to fill in the gaps.

"The government has dropped the ball on data collection," said Dr. David
Popenoe, professor of sociology and co-director of the National Marriage
Project at Rutgers University.

Joshua R. Goldstein, associate professor of sociology and public affairs at
Princeton's Office of Population Research, said the loss of detailed
government data, coming at a time when divorce rates were at their highest,
might have distorted not only public perception, but people's behavior.

"Expectations of high divorce are in some ways self-fulfilling," he said.
"That's a partial explanation for why rates went up in the 1970's."

As word gets out that rates have tempered or actually begun to fall, Dr.
Goldstein added, "It could lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy in the other
direction.".

m00
04-20-2012, 01:23 AM
It's just my opinion, but why the hell not? It's a victimless crime. Marriage has already been ruined by pop and celebrity culture, so I don't see the harm in polygamy.

But then again, that's just me

I was actually thinking the same thing.

Articulate_Ape
04-20-2012, 01:25 AM
That's a misnomer it's like 1 in 8

With all due respect, Zeus, it is a statistical fact, that your can find here (http://www.divorcerate.org/), even adjusted for future projections. What I stated is also not a misnomer (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Misnomer?s=t), even if it was incorrect. It would have been a perhaps a misconception on my part if the known data didn't support my position.

It happens, Zeus. A lot. Trust me.

PS> I can't read your last post. The font is black against dark gray.

Zeus
04-20-2012, 01:31 AM
With all due respect, Zeus, it is a statistical fact, that your can find here (http://www.divorcerate.org/), even adjusted for future projections. What I stated is also not a misnomer (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Misnomer?s=t), even if it was incorrect. It would have been a perhaps a misconception on my part if the known data didn't support my position.

It happens, Zeus. A lot. Trust me.

PS> I can't read your last post. The font is black against dark gray.

You Caught me between edits. Check the article I posted. Then tell me why I should trust you over it ?

Articulate_Ape
04-20-2012, 01:38 AM
You Caught me between edits. Check the article I posted. Then tell me why I should trust you over it ?

Still black on dark gray to me, but I highlighted it and it looks like an outdated article, but I don't know because you linked to no citation. I'm not asking you to trust me. Why would you? I did, however, at least cite the statistical claims I was making. It's up to you whether you believe them or not. Not my problem.

Zeus
04-20-2012, 01:47 AM
Still black on dark gray to me, but I highlighted it and it looks like an outdated article, but I don't know because you linked to no citation. I'm not asking you to trust me. Why would you? I did, however, at least cite the statistical claims I was making. It's up to you whether you believe them or not. Not my problem.

My Mistake. When you posted 'Trust Me" I actually thought you meant 'Trust me".

The studies and sources are referenced thoughout the article "Trust me".

Novaheart
04-20-2012, 09:15 AM
Polygamy is traditional marriage in non-western cultures. It hasn't been traditional in western cultures since the rise of Christianity.

Which western cultures embraced polygamy prior to the rise of Christianity?



And today, gay marriage is opening the door to polygamy.

How can you maintain that marriage equality for gay people opens the door to polygamy? Was Oneida gay? Were the Mormons gay? Were the American Indians gay? Are the Muslims who have brought their wives to the US with them gay? Are the men who have children by many women gay? Are the serial divorcees gay?

Odysseus
04-20-2012, 11:36 AM
Which western cultures embraced polygamy prior to the rise of Christianity?

Polygamy occurred among the Celtic peoples, the Judeans, the early Greeks and the Germanic and Gallic tribes of Europe. The classical Greeks were only permitted to marry one woman at a time, as were the Romans. Concubinage was common, until the rise of Christianity made it a form of fornication.


How can you maintain that marriage equality for gay people opens the door to polygamy? Was Oneida gay? Were the Mormons gay? Were the American Indians gay? Are the Muslims who have brought their wives to the US with them gay? Are the men who have children by many women gay? Are the serial divorcees gay?

First, let's dispense with the term "marriage equality". Gays had the same marriage rights as straights. They could marry any person of the opposite sex who would consent to it. What gays sought was to redefine marriage so as to lend the state's sanction to their relationships with their own sexes. That redefinition of marriage threw out centuries of understanding of what a marriage was and is, and substituted the latest cultural fads. It transformed marriage from a specific relationship between a man and a woman to a nebulous relationship which can be redefined at will, provided the activists have sufficient money, time and intensity. Once the status of marriage changed to a "civil rights" and equality issue, it became easy for other groups to demand the same "equality". Thus, if our laws discriminated against the gay man who wanted to marry his partner, then they also discriminated against the man who wanted to marry several women. When you break the dam, you no longer control what will come in with the flood.

Rockntractor
04-20-2012, 11:40 AM
Polygamy occurred among the Celtic peoples, the Judeans, the early Greeks and the Germanic and Gallic tribes of Europe. The classical Greeks were only permitted to marry one woman at a time, as were the Romans. Concubinage was common, until the rise of Christianity made it a form of fornication.



First, let's dispense with the term "marriage equality". Gays had the same marriage rights as straights. They could marry any person of the opposite sex who would consent to it. What gays sought was to redefine marriage so as to lend the state's sanction to their relationships with their own sexes. That redefinition of marriage threw out centuries of understanding of what a marriage was and is, and substituted the latest cultural fads. It transformed marriage from a specific relationship between a man and a woman to a nebulous relationship which can be redefined at will, provided the activists have sufficient money, time and intensity. Once the status of marriage changed to a "civil rights" and equality issue, it became easy for other groups to demand the same "equality". Thus, if our laws discriminated against the gay man who wanted to marry his partner, then they also discriminated against the man who wanted to marry several women. When you break the dam, you no longer control what will come in with the flood.

Nova see's it as one man with four wives = three more men with him in the hot tub.

Novaheart
04-20-2012, 12:25 PM
Nova see's it as one man with four wives = three more men with him in the hot tub.

Nova has no historical romantic fantasies. Life before soap, toothpaste, indoor plumbing, air conditioning, and anti-biotics is not sexy.

Novaheart
04-20-2012, 12:28 PM
Once the status of marriage changed to a "civil rights" and equality issue, it became easy for other groups to demand the same "equality".

Was it constitutional for the Congress to require the Mormon Church to cease and denounce their sacrament of polygamy as a condition of statehood for Utah?

Generation Why?
04-20-2012, 12:44 PM
1. There are laws against polygamy.
2. Those laws are not really relevant, being that they get circumvented as it is through non-legally binding ceremonies.
3. That doesn't affect me. If Mohammed or Hiram wants to have 4 wives and only one is his legally binding wife, who cares? I don't lose any sleep over it. The other three wives are religiously married to him. Big deal. That, is not illegal, because he is only legally married once.
4. Gay marriage doesn't bother me either. Once again, I am not losing sleep over Seth and Steve tying the knot.

Odysseus
04-20-2012, 01:15 PM
Was it constitutional for the Congress to require the Mormon Church to cease and denounce their sacrament of polygamy as a condition of statehood for Utah?

Congress didn't order the church to end its sacrament. The church recognized that polygamy was an impediment to statehood, and banned it by itself. It took several attempts after the civil and ecclesiastical bans for congress to approve statehood. However, the congress could have compelled the legislature to ban polygamy as a condition of statehood, regardless of church practice. The Constitution gives congress the authority to regulate the laws of territories, and to determine which territories will become states.

Article IV - The States
Section 3

Clause 1:

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
Clause 2:
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.


The rules of the territory were therefore congress' domain. The vote for statehood required that a congressional majority support the bill, and that took the LDS church's willingness to live by the laws of the rest of the US.


1. There are laws against polygamy.
There were laws against same-sex marriage, or at least laws recognizing a marriage as being between a man and a woman.

2. Those laws are not really relevant, being that they get circumvented as it is through non-legally binding ceremonies.
The operative phrase is non-legally binding. It's only when the state is compelled to recognize those ceremonies as legally binding that it becomes an issue.

3. That doesn't affect me. If Mohammed or Hiram wants to have 4 wives and only one is his legally binding wife, who cares? I don't lose any sleep over it. The other three wives are religiously married to him. Big deal. That, is not illegal, because he is only legally married once.
So, you're okay with the state providing recognition of those marriages? Extending welfare payments? Allowing chain immigration to polygamous spouses? The implications go far beyond simply saying, "it's not my problem," because it becomes your problem when the state takes a role.

4. Gay marriage doesn't bother me either. Once again, I am not losing sleep over Seth and Steve tying the knot.
Now that Seth and Steve can tie the knot, Seth and Stephanie and Samantha and Sheila want their relationship to be granted the same status. Do they have the same right to state sanction? Whose kids take precedence when Seth kicks the bucket? If Seth and Stephanie grow apart, does Stephanie's community property include Samantha's and Sheila's holdings? If Seth and Steve want a third man to live with them, does the state have an obligation to recognize their triad as a marriage?

Novaheart
04-20-2012, 03:54 PM
Now that Seth and Steve can tie the knot, Seth and Stephanie and Samantha and Sheila want their relationship to be granted the same status. Do they have the same right to state sanction? Whose kids take precedence when Seth kicks the bucket? If Seth and Stephanie grow apart, does Stephanie's community property include Samantha's and Sheila's holdings? If Seth and Steve want a third man to live with them, does the state have an obligation to recognize their triad as a marriage?

Seth and Steve getting married has nothing to do with polygamy. Doesn't inspire it, doesn't open the door to it, none of your business actually.

As for benefits- most welfare benefits are targeted at children, so the children of Seth and his now third wife aren't any different before the law than they are for Ody and his sequential third wife.

Inheritance might need some work, but then it already needs some work. AS it is, if Ody dies without a will, his former wife and children by her are screwed as long as his now wife lives. Unless I am mistaken, his now wife gets his entire estate and survivor benefits. I hate to say this, but I think the Koran actually lays this one out pretty fairly.

Rockntractor
04-20-2012, 04:00 PM
Never name a child Steve!

Generation Why?
04-20-2012, 04:03 PM
So, you're okay with the state providing recognition of those marriages? Extending welfare payments? Allowing chain immigration to polygamous spouses? The implications go far beyond simply saying, "it's not my problem," because it becomes your problem when the state takes a role.



I am okay with the state recognizing the 1 legally binding marriage. The other 2, 3, or however many can be recognized by the church or religious office all they want.

Zeus
04-20-2012, 04:08 PM
Seth and Steve getting married has nothing to do with polygamy. Doesn't inspire it, doesn't open the door to it, none of your business actually.

As for benefits- most welfare benefits are targeted at children, so the children of Seth and his now third wife aren't any different before the law than they are for Ody and his sequential third wife.

Inheritance might need some work, but then it already needs some work. AS it is, if Ody dies without a will, his former wife and children by her are screwed as long as his now wife lives. Unless I am mistaken, his now wife gets his entire estate and survivor benefits. I hate to say this, but I think the Koran actually lays this one out pretty fairly.

In most states if one dies Intestate and they were married and have children the wife would receive half and the remainder divided amongst any surviving children. That is if there is no lawsuit which is more likely than not in such situations, actually lawsuits are pretty common in estate distribution even when there is a will. Wills aren't worth the paper they are written on except to people of honor.

noonwitch
04-20-2012, 04:21 PM
I am okay with the state recognizing the 1 legally binding marriage. The other 2, 3, or however many can be recognized by the church or religious office all they want.


I am okay with that, too, to a certain extent. I am concerned about the children of wife 2, 3 and so on. Are they considered legitimate? How does child support work? If the mothers receive support or all parties live in the same home, are the "sister wives" then eligible to apply for welfare?

Odysseus
04-21-2012, 12:53 AM
Seth and Steve getting married has nothing to do with polygamy. Doesn't inspire it, doesn't open the door to it, none of your business actually.

Oh, well, that settles that. Thanks for clearing that up. :rolleyes:

Aside from your assertions, do you have any arguments to support that position? No? Then try to address mine. The issue, as I keep trying to explain to you, is that when you bust the definition of marriage, you lose control over what is and isn't a marriage. For the last 5,000 years, marriage was the union of a man and a woman, at least in the west. In the east, it was the union of one man and at least one woman, but it didn't have to be. But it was never the union of two men, or two women. The redefinition of marriage doesn't legitimize gay marriages, it simply erodes the definition of marriage. The arguments used to erode it, the presumption of discrimination and the equal "right" to marry whoever or whatever you want to, are just as applicable to polygamy. You can deny it all you like, but as I said before, once you break the dam, you have no control over what comes in with the flood.


As for benefits- most welfare benefits are targeted at children, so the children of Seth and his now third wife aren't any different before the law than they are for Ody and his sequential third wife.

First off, I find it interesting that you continually assume that all marriages are dysfunctional, and that serial monogamy is not just the norm, but the equivalent of polygamy. Second, estate law is one of the most complex, convoluted areas of the law, precisely because of the kinds of disruptions that occur when families break. Complicating it further in order to benefit your particular desires doesn't do the rest of us any good.


Inheritance might need some work, but then it already needs some work. AS it is, if Ody dies without a will, his former wife and children by her are screwed as long as his now wife lives. Unless I am mistaken, his now wife gets his entire estate and survivor benefits. I hate to say this, but I think the Koran actually lays this one out pretty fairly.

The Qur'an specifies that a son receives a full share of the father's estate, while a daughter receives a half share. The wives receive nothing, but are cared for by the children. That's hardly fair, unless you consider a woman half as valuable as a man.


I am okay with the state recognizing the 1 legally binding marriage. The other 2, 3, or however many can be recognized by the church or religious office all they want.

So, you're okay with a system that reduces women to chattel and maximizes poverty for children? Really?

m00
04-21-2012, 01:24 AM
I'm probably the only one on this board that thinks the government just should get out of marriage completely. Which to be fair actually supports Ody's argument if anything. Because I only hold this opinion really, since it seems like the only "just" thing at this point, because otherwise you have the government picking and choosing who gets to get married and who doesn't. And it only seems unfair now because so many people who previous had no intention nor desire to get married are making the case for legal equality. I think the logic there is valid - it's unfair. But marriage isn't fair, and monogamous marriages came into the mainstream before we even had the concept of a government for The People that was supposed to be fair.

I guess what I personally try to reconcile is that I completely see the logic for gay marriage, polygamous marriage etc... if I can suspend my knowledge of what marriage actually is for. That it has a higher purpose than a legally binding social contract. Because if it was just a legally binding social contract, ever since Loving v Virginia we've been going down the path to where we are today and it's all very logical and correct. I suppose it does make me a bit uncomfortable that the alternative is advocating federal government recognize an unfair, exclusionary, and religious institution which I can see in principle running afoul of constitutional separations between church and state.

On the other hand, I think maybe the founders were a bit naive not realizing how drastically things would change in 200+ years. Maybe they would say "wait, wait... I take it back... if gays are asking for marriage then by all means take a few layers of brick off that wall of separation." It was probably completely outside their imagination.

To Nova: I guess what I don't understand is how you can see the case for gay marriage but NOT see the case for polygamous marriages. Isn't that exactly the same situation that the gay community experienced... when blacks could see the case for interracial marriage but NOT see the case for gay marriage?

Rockntractor
04-21-2012, 01:35 AM
I'm probably the only one on this board that thinks the government just should get out of marriage completely. Which to be fair actually supports Ody's argument if anything. Because I only hold this opinion really, since it seems like the only "just" thing at this point, because otherwise you have the government picking and choosing who gets to get married and who doesn't. And it only seems unfair now because so many people who previous had no intention nor desire to get married are making the case for legal equality. I think the logic there is valid - it's unfair. But marriage isn't fair, and monogamous marriages came into the mainstream before we even had the concept of a government for The People that was supposed to be fair.

I guess what I personally try to reconcile is that I completely see the logic for gay marriage, polygamous marriage etc... if I can suspend my knowledge of what marriage actually is for. That it has a higher purpose than a legally binding social contract. Because if it was just a legally binding social contract, ever since Loving v Virginia we've been going down the path to where we are today and it's all very logical and correct. I suppose it does make me a bit uncomfortable that the alternative is advocating federal government recognize an unfair, exclusionary, and religious institution which I can see in principle running afoul of constitutional separations between church and state.

On the other hand, I think maybe the founders were a bit naive not realizing how drastically things would change in 200+ years. Maybe they would say "wait, wait... I take it back... if gays are asking for marriage then by all means take a few layers of brick off that wall of separation." It was probably completely outside their imagination.

To Nova: I guess what I don't understand is how you can see the case for gay marriage but NOT see the case for polygamous marriages. Isn't that exactly the same situation that the gay community experienced... when blacks could see the case for interracial marriage but NOT see the case for gay marriage?
I see it more from a dollars and cents point of view, I think the desire for gay marriage comes from a want for benefits from the government and employer.
I don't think more benefits should be given to someone because of their marital status whatever it is, your benefits and pay should be based on your ability and value as an employee and as far as government goes every adult should pay the same percentage in taxes based on income not based on marital status, class, or anything else.

Deadhead
04-21-2012, 03:45 AM
I'm probably the only one on this board that thinks the government just should get out of marriage completely. Which to be fair actually supports Ody's argument if anything. Because I only hold this opinion really, since it seems like the only "just" thing at this point, because otherwise you have the government picking and choosing who gets to get married and who doesn't. And it only seems unfair now because so many people who previous had no intention nor desire to get married are making the case for legal equality. I think the logic there is valid - it's unfair. But marriage isn't fair, and monogamous marriages came into the mainstream before we even had the concept of a government for The People that was supposed to be fair.

I guess what I personally try to reconcile is that I completely see the logic for gay marriage, polygamous marriage etc... if I can suspend my knowledge of what marriage actually is for. That it has a higher purpose than a legally binding social contract. Because if it was just a legally binding social contract, ever since Loving v Virginia we've been going down the path to where we are today and it's all very logical and correct. I suppose it does make me a bit uncomfortable that the alternative is advocating federal government recognize an unfair, exclusionary, and religious institution which I can see in principle running afoul of constitutional separations between church and state.

On the other hand, I think maybe the founders were a bit naive not realizing how drastically things would change in 200+ years. Maybe they would say "wait, wait... I take it back... if gays are asking for marriage then by all means take a few layers of brick off that wall of separation." It was probably completely outside their imagination.

To Nova: I guess what I don't understand is how you can see the case for gay marriage but NOT see the case for polygamous marriages. Isn't that exactly the same situation that the gay community experienced... when blacks could see the case for interracial marriage but NOT see the case for gay marriage?

I pretty much agree with all of this. I support almost anything that gives the individual more control over their lives and the government less. Hence, I support gay marriage, polygamous marriage, etc(freedom to choose who we marry). True, there are alot of logistics to hammer out with polygamy, but I support the concept. It isn't hurting me if Abdullah wants to have 2, 3, 4 wives, whatever.

Articulate_Ape
04-21-2012, 02:01 PM
Let's face it, polygamy is just a really bad idea. I mean how many times a day is a guy expected to have to say, "shut your pie hole"?

JB
04-21-2012, 02:25 PM
I mean how many times a day is a guy expected to have to say, "shut your pie hole"?Plus the health issues.

Five wives bringing you five sammiches and five beers five times a day? You're going to be five hundred pounds in about three weeks.

Articulate_Ape
04-21-2012, 04:23 PM
Plus the health issues.

Five wives bringing you five sammiches and five beers five times a day? You're going to be five hundred pounds in about three weeks.

Excellent point.

Zeus
04-21-2012, 04:54 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NNpmU6o2yWY#! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NNpmU6o2yWY#!)

Odysseus
04-21-2012, 06:31 PM
I pretty much agree with all of this. I support almost anything that gives the individual more control over their lives and the government less. Hence, I support gay marriage, polygamous marriage, etc(freedom to choose who we marry). True, there are alot of logistics to hammer out with polygamy, but I support the concept. It isn't hurting me if Abdullah wants to have 2, 3, 4 wives, whatever.

You're forgetting that the principal purpose of government is to protect us from each other. Polygamy's exploitive nature, its commodification and subjugation of women, its impoverishment of women and children and it creation of a class of frustrated, destructive men all undermine the social order. We permit it at our peril.


Plus the health issues.

Five wives bringing you five sammiches and five beers five times a day? You're going to be five hundred pounds in about three weeks.

This is one of the arguments against gay marriage. Who makes the sammiches and fetches the beer? How is that decision arrived at? The potential for domestic violence is huge. :evil-grin:

Apache
04-21-2012, 11:47 PM
Plus the health issues.

Five wives bringing you five sammiches and five beers five times a day? You're going to be five hundred pounds in about three weeks.

Not to mention the "friend" that comes once a month... That is one hell I wish to avoid :friendly_wink:

Deadhead
04-22-2012, 01:40 AM
Plus the health issues.

Five wives bringing you five sammiches and five beers five times a day? You're going to be five hundred pounds in about three weeks.

And living in a free society I believe you should have the right to do that:smile-new:

Odysseus
04-22-2012, 11:59 AM
And living in a free society I believe you should have the right to do that:smile-new:

Sorry, but under Obamacare, you lose that right, too.

Bailey
04-22-2012, 12:03 PM
Not to mention the "friend" that comes once a month... That is one hell I wish to avoid :friendly_wink:

well its good that if 5 wives live in the same place that they will sync their monthly friend. Could you imagine if they had it on separate weeks? :blue:

Apache
04-22-2012, 12:36 PM
Could you imagine if they had it on separate weeks? :blue:

That's what I was talking about...:cold:

Rockntractor
04-22-2012, 12:43 PM
That's what I was talking about...:cold:

Worse yet MENOPAUSE men have been killed and at the very least tortured during this hideous process, you will only live through it once if at all!http://www.smiley-lol.com/smiley/asile/marteau1.gifhttp://www.smiley-lol.com/smiley/dispute/poelle.gif

Apache
04-22-2012, 01:41 PM
Worse yet MENOPAUSE men have been killed and at the very least tortured during this hideous process, you will only live through it once if at all!http://www.smiley-lol.com/smiley/asile/marteau1.gifhttp://www.smiley-lol.com/smiley/dispute/poelle.gif

:DDsmilie_panic::OhNoes::DDsmilie_panic:

noonwitch
04-23-2012, 08:40 AM
well its good that if 5 wives live in the same place that they will sync their monthly friend. Could you imagine if they had it on separate weeks? :blue:

That's why the polygamist ancient jews of Genesis had the whole "red tent" thing.

Generation Why?
04-23-2012, 12:55 PM
So, you're okay with a system that reduces women to chattel and maximizes poverty for children? Really?

No. But I am okay with a woman who conciously decides to be a "sister wife".

JB
04-23-2012, 12:59 PM
And living in a free society I believe you should have the right to do that:smile-new:OK but do you disagree with this:
...these polygamous men are eligible to receive extra welfare benefits...and a Scottish court once permitted a Muslim who had been cited for speeding to retain his driver’s license because he had to commute between his wives.

Odysseus
04-23-2012, 03:25 PM
No. But I am okay with a woman who conciously decides to be a "sister wife".

Would you be okay with letting your daughter make that decision?

FlaGator
04-23-2012, 03:42 PM
Would you be okay with letting your daughter make that decision?

Puts a whole new shine on the concept when it's your kids making that choice doesn't it?

Generation Why?
04-23-2012, 04:50 PM
Would you be okay with letting your daughter make that decision?

My dad taught me a great thing after high school. Regardless of any decision I made his answer was "You're an adult, you can do what you want." He doesn't always agree with my decisions but he supports me in whatever I do. If my daughter decided that is what she wanted, then so be it. All I would hope is her husband was caring and didn't hit her. When I have childre, I will only have control of what they do until they leave the house. What they decide to do afterwards is on them. Personally, I would not want her to do it. I believe in monogamy. But if she did, then I would just hope for the best.

Deadhead
04-28-2012, 04:24 AM
OK but do you disagree with this:
Of course I don't agree with that, but I realize that there will always be people who will find a way to exploit the system. For example, at Wal Mart tonight I saw a woman pay with an EBT card even though I happened to spot no less than three hundred dollar bills in her wallet. That doesn't mean however that I'm opposed to the idea of food stamps altogether. Like I said, polygamy would require alot of logistics to hammer out and the means of exploitation is, I'll give you, much easier. But like I said, just because some would exploit the system doesn't mean I should be opposed to it altogether.

Hope that makes sense, even if you disagree

Constitutionally Speaking
04-28-2012, 08:50 AM
It's just my opinion, but why the hell not? It's a victimless crime. Marriage has already been ruined by pop and celebrity culture, so I don't see the harm in polygamy.

But then again, that's just me


If marriage has been ruined, then the answer is NOT to further degrade society - the answer is to restore marriage.

Marriage has been a KEY to civilized society - which is PRECISELY why liberals have been attacking it for so long.