Serious question about polygamy...

Question

Serious question that requires thought here...

I am not a polygamist and don't think I would want to be. But, with all of the talk about Mormon Fundamentalists and stuff, I've begun to wonder about something:

Do we have the right, as a nation, to tell other consenting adults that it's wrong...especially if it is part of their religion. I'm not talking about children marrying adults or incest or anything (which is obviously wrong). If all parties involved are consenting adults, are happy, and are functioning in society, what is the problem?

Answer 1

Our government is based on the first a lawful traditions known to man and one of those traditions is, ONE man to ONE woman and vice versa.

Answer 2

On one hand, I see your point.

On the other hand, I see the right of a person to require that the marriage that they contemplate be an "exclusive contract".  

So let's pretend that society and the law recognize polygamy.  Now, you wanted your marriage to be one man, one woman, and even put that into a valid contract.  Now let's say your spouse goes out and remarries against your will.

What's your remedy?

I'm just wondering if allowing polygamy for those that are willing to be part of it would tend to inflict it on those that aren't.  

Answer 3

I believe that the Edmunds and the Edmuds-Tucker acts were unconstitutional. I think that, if the USgovernment hadn't stuck their nose into things and let the Mormons just do what they wanted, there wouldn't be problems with men like Warren Jeffs. They would simply be ex'd and that would be the end of it.

Answer 4

i feel the same way about it.  let them be if they are consenting adults and are happy.  The guy must be doing something right.  it is either that or we can have women roll the dice with 50/50 odds and just get married to another guy and end up in divorce.

Answer 5

Read the NEW Testament.  It pretty much does away with the OLD testament & they're violence, polygamy & vengeance.

Answer 6

you mentioned acts that were 'obviously wrong.' i guess it depends on who is deciding what is 'right' and what is 'wrong'

Answer 7

Here is my argument:

1) a marriage of more than two people is illegal most places

2) it is NOT illegal most places for two or three or four adults to live together, including all sleeping int he same bed if they so choose.

So putting those together, how can it be possible for society to charge one group who call themselves 'married' (which is a claim with no validity), and yet leave alone another group who chooses not to make that same claim?

It's ridiculous, and a total waste of resources, time, and money, to try pursuing these groups.  Let them claim they are married all they want.  Don't allow them to get special privileges as married couples, but people exaggerate those benefits anyway, there are actually very few benefits to be gained, other than those based simply of numbers of person (tax deductions for instance).  These will often apply whether the group calls themselves married or not.

Really, doesn't society have more important things to deal with?

Answer 8

Well the great October surprise in the presidential election this year will be when The Republican Party officially endorses Polygamy. They need the Mormon vote in order to win. The Platform and John McCain will officially endorse Polygamy so stay tuned. The Republicans will help you out.

Answer 9

In theory I agree with you.  In practice though, it wouldn't work.  Marriage protects society more than it does the couple.  Right off the bat, to make it equal you'd have to allow either a man or a woman to have multiple spouses.  But then if a man is married to 7 women, can the women each be married to 7 other men?  An employer currently covers a family and estimates that each family will be 4 people.  Now the family can skyrocket easily to 100 people.  Employers won't be able to cvoer the costs so they'll simply stop offering insurance.  Society now has to offer insurance to everyone.  The guy dies and 7 people have to split the social security?  They divorce and 7 get alimony?  Financially the country would be bankrupt because there would be so many people asking for assistance.  There is no longer such a thing as a brother or a sister or a cousin because eventually everyone is related to everyone.  Incest becomes routine and genetically, disaster occurs.  The main person dies and the house gets split among 7 spouses?  The remaining spouses die and the house gets split among 50 kids?  Soon everything breaks down and it's decided to do away with families and marriage altogether.  

And then someone comes along and decides hey about each person just has 1 husband or 1 wife?

EDIT:  As far as biblical/religious prohibitions, they're not really making a case for "god" when they prohibit it, they're making a case against god.  When religion began, you had small tribes and incest and birth defects were common.  And tribes had to become bigger to survive.  So then historically, you began to see religious "laws" being made against the practice.  Because when you want to convince people to stop doing something, nothing works better than a supernatural deity commanding it.  

When DNA starts being mixed, a paternity test is no longer possible because the baby's DNA looks fairly similar to every man alive.  So men don't know who their children are, so the affection isn't there.  And multiple spouses mean multiple nationalities - a woman marries 7 men and becomes a naturalized citizen of 7 countries.  Her children also become citizens of all these countries.  So Israel wants the kid for their army and so does the US and so does Africa, etc. etc.  You arrest someone for treason in the US and they say, well I don't have to listen to the US constitution because I'm also a citizen of 6 other countries.  War isn't possible becuase any way you look at it, you'll be fighting your family.  Which starts out as being a good thing, but now you don't get along with your in-laws and it's a small spat.  Then you have a fight with your-in-laws and it becomes state against state and nation against nation because your sis said that you had gained a little weight.

There is no such thing as a president because no one is just a citizen of one country anymore.  

Historically, smart people started to realize the problems both good and bad.  Yo want Joey to join your religion but Joey's mom is one religion and Joey's dad is another.  So to gain power for your religion you need to start isolating people and drawing lines and making them see differences between one another that were unclear without "marriage" as we know it.

It's just another reason why you have to look critically at religious writings and keep in the mind the times and what was going on at the time the writings were put into effect.  With a historical perspective, you start to see "god" coincidentally beginning to "appear" with commandments and prohibitions that seem to benefit those in charge, more than the peasants.

Answer 10

Yes, you are right.  Consenting adults have the right to do whatever they choose religiously within the limits of common decency and peaceful harmony.  Polygamists should have the right to choose that status within their religion and on their own religious compound.  States do have a right to limit marriage in the civil sense as the majority sees fit.  Therefore, polygamy is fine as long as the members of the relationship do not seek civil authorization.

Answer 11

it becomes illegal when they try to marry multiples, there is nothing wrong with 3, 4, 6 consenting adults living together, but when you marry you get certain benefits, get it?

Answer 12

the problem is that it devalues genuine marrage (one man, one woman).

if two people of the same s*x or half a dozen of any s*x can marry, with all of the rights of the real thing, then what is marrage?

marrage is what makes it good to have s*x and children, it is a life long commitment between a man and a woman. outside of marrage, it is rarely good to do either.

how about my hetrosexual male roomate and i, should we be permitted to marry and adopt children or should we be denied this right simply because we are not sexual? what if a basketball team or a corporation wishes to adopt a child? on what grounds should they be denied these rights if someone does not recognize marrage as a covenant between one man and one woman?

religion is not the issue in my opinion.  

Answer 13

I agree. who are we to say whats wrong and whats wrong.Just coz it's not my cup of tea, doesn't mean its wrong.

Answer 14

We deny quite a few rights that are religious. Look at the restrictions Native Americans face for what they consider sacred ceremonies. Also if I consider it my religion to kill an animal and sacrifice it by burning it on an altar I can't just walk out and kill a stray animal and burn it in my backyard. I might get off on an argument of religion, but if I claimed a religion where I had to use my neighbor's pet I could NEVER win. I can understand that if everyone involves is an adult and agrees and they aren't in poverty then polygamy should be ok. I know that isn't how it works though. They need to accept the laws or leave the country, that is their freedom.

What influence did Moses have on Christianity? Moses is part of our HISTORY, not part of our RELIGION. Christians follow the example Christ set(ok marriage aside). The Ten Commandments are God's laws, and they say s*x outside marriage is wrong. About all Moses really set with Christianity is give us the Ten Commandments. Although half the Christians seem to forget they are supposed to be followed.

Answer 15

The problem is that these men are making kids marry and sleep with them when they are 13 or younger... and these men are like in their 50's and are making young girls have their babies, and than when these babies become old enough they do the same with them. Thats wrong.

Answer 16

How many men in the Bible had multiple wives????  Moses did, I'm pretty sure he had 8 or 9 and look at the influence he had in Christianity.  It is a complete double standard, depending on religion, but if all parties are in agreeance, I dont feel that there is a problem.  Personally I would not choose this lifestyle but if it floats your boat, more power to you!!!

Answer 17

I have to agree with you. And I don't really think religion enters into the equation. If some guy wants more then one wife, I don't see a problem. Same as one woman having more then one husband.

There's nothing any one can do about more then two people living together, why penalize people who want to form a legal (and religious) bond?

Answer 18

Actually.. yes, the state/ law does have valid authority and reason to define marriage laws.  For example.. if any religion ALLOWED or encouraged wife beating, or murdering infants.. it would not matter that it is part of the religion.  It is pretty standard, anywhere in the world that LEGAL authority concerning marriage (and the word legal is critical here) is accepted as reasonable.

In other words... freedom of religion has boundaries, compared to government authority.

If you go back historically... there WAS a time when wives were legally seen almost as property, had few if any rights, and husbands owned anything, even that which was inheiritance. Even if not enough, laws regarding one wife, had valid cause.

In fact, if you listened carefully to many of the news reports a few months ago.. there ARE (as you mention) consenting adults who practice polygamy, have children in the home, etc. Several appeared on TV reports. They have what they personally view as a valid marriage, but also realize that their marriage(s) are not valid in the LEGAL sense.  Most of those relationships are left alone, and no one is trying to prosecute them.  The key reason.. the adults ARE adults, and there was never any question of coersion to underage girls. The group in question claimed that they were being prosecuted strictly for polygamy, which was false all along.  

Answer 19

I agree if they are happy and AWARE of what is going on. These poor women and children (and many of the men) are so brainwashed they probably don't know what true happiness really is. It wouldn't be so bad if the women choose who they could marry, even if it was into polygamy.  But what usually happens is that the marriages are arranged by old men trying to marry teen girls.  I recently read "Escape" by Carolyn Jessop who escaped from polygamy.  The book was extremely interesting and horrifying.

Any religion or group that takes away another human's basic rights is wrong.

Sheesh I said I agree with your last sentence as long as the women are TRULY happy, not just saying they are because if they don't their husband is going to beat them later on.

I can't be pro-polygamy after reading "Escape".  It was too horrific and disgusting.

Answer 20

God made it pretty clear that it should be one man and one woman.

Answer 21

i agree... and i feel the same about g*y marriage!

i'm neither g*y, or a polygamist, but i believe in equal rights :)

Answer 22

The sects, which practice bigamy, are usually ignored, unless it involves the marriage of underage girls.  But when you live in a closed society, no one knows just how many are underage when they are married.  When they have no place to go if they disagree with the majority, don't you think that girls will do as they are expected to do?  They appear to have received no formal education, which might give them a choice as to how they will live, if they are not married off before they are old enough to support themselves and find a means to escape.  It also does not seem that they are exposed to other views and are taught to conform to the beliefs of the group from childhood.  When they are isolated, how can they learn that there is any other way to live or tell anyone else how they are living?  I think that it is important to listen to what the women who escaped from fundamentalist sects and the boys, who were kicked out so the older men could have the girls, have to say.  Another problem is that when a group of people isolate themselves and intermarry over the generations, there surely must be birth defects.  Another thought, if the men are allowed to have multiple wives, why shouldn't the women be allowed to have multiple husbands, if they choose?