[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;273997]It is a "slippery slope" argument.[/QUOTE]I'm interested to know why you think so. In particular, please give me a reason that polygamy should not be given the same treatment as gay marriage, and make sure the reason is not one that can similarly be leveled at gay marriage.

The slippery slope is pretty obvious...first gay marriage, the polygamy, then...oh, let's see, legal child molesting....oh wait a minute, isn't that a consequence of polygamy?

Polygamy should not be given equal treatment to gay marriage because polygamy is primarily an unequal partnership, in which a few men are given high status at the expense of their many wives. In places where it is practiced, we find old men marrying rather young girls, since the supply of marriagable girls is generally exhausted by the practice. Such marriages with essentially children are rarely based on the informed, voluntary, adult consent of both parties. They also tend to produce inbreeding, with the resultant high rates of birth defects.

In other words: Polygamy is about a power imbalance, not about creating a suitable environment for raising healthy children. It is practiced more as a cult.

Still waiting for a written version of the Fox video.

[QUOTE=Christenson;274059]The slippery slope is pretty obvious...first gay marriage, the polygamy, then...oh, let's see, legal child molesting....oh wait a minute, isn't that a consequence of polygamy?[/quote]Actually, no it isn't a consequence of polygamy. There have been many polygamists who have never molested a child.

Do you have any evidence that polygamy, in and of itself, leads to child molestation? Or are you one of those people who was all for the Texas authorities kidnapping, oh pardon me, rescuing children from their parents without even a credible accusation?

As any one professing to be in the LGBTQ crowd will tell you, that exact same accusation has been, and continues to be, leveled at them. Unfairly. Without evidence.

I'll go out on a limb and guess that you, up to this point, have never read a single study demonstrating the polygamy results in higher child molestation rates. I'll guess you are repeating bigoted statements which if pressed you have no evidence to support.

And I'll go further and guess that you can't find any valid study which demonstrates such a connection. The best you might do is find a study that among certain groups of polygamists there is a higher rate of child molestation, or a lower age of marriage than you or I feel comfortable with. But you would have to agree that it would be unfair of me to judge gay marriage by focusing only on certain subcommunities, or on certain prominent immoral figureheads. If it would be unfair of me to judge the validity of gay marriage on the basis of the average age when those who profess to be in the LGBTQ crowd first had a sexual encounter, it would similarly be unfair for me to judge polygamy by the age of those being married in certain communities.

[quote]Polygamy should not be given equal treatment to gay marriage because polygamy is primarily an unequal partnership, in which a few men are given high status at the expense of their many wives.[/quote]This is a non-issue. If polygamy would be legal, so would polyandry. Polyamory in general would be legal.

However, I am curious what "expense" you are talking about.

[quote]In places where it is practiced, we find old men marrying rather young girls, since the supply of marriagable girls is generally exhausted by the practice.[/quote]In some places. And in some places where homosexual acts are performed (such as jail, which accounts for a significant portion of such acts) it is often a form of rape. So?

Besides, it is currently not illegal for an old man to marry a young woman (nor vice versa). Furthermore, if polyamorous relations were available then it seems reasonable that the "supply" would balance out (in non-insular communities).

[quote]Such marriages with essentially children are rarely based on the informed, voluntary, adult consent of both parties.[/quote]That is more the effect of the insularity of those communities, where it is hard for neutral authorities to validate that the girls are old enough to make informed decisions. (Even so, do you have evidence that they are "rarely" based on informed, voluntary, adult consent? If so, you have more evidence than they did in Texas, where they only found evidence of a few cases.)

But once again, if it is fair for you to judge polyamorous relations by the example of a few communities, it is fair for others to judge gay marriage similarly.

[quote]They also tend to produce inbreeding, with the resultant high rates of birth defects.[/quote]Any evidence that this is an effect of polygamy, rather than their insularity? I doubt it. There are numerous polyamorous species of animals, and I haven't heard of any increased rate in birth defects in them.

[quote]In other words: Polygamy is about a power imbalance, not about creating a suitable environment for raising healthy children. It is practiced more as a cult.[/quote]And the same accusations have been leveled at the gay marriage crowd.

I'm thinking on the basis of Colorado City's jack Mormons. The insularity is there, the inbreeding is there, the cult leader is(now was) there. It is well known that child molestation is most prominently practiced among heterosexual men, especially those of high status (like priests, and, oh, let's see, cult leaders like Warren Jeffs). It is well-recognized legally that when a man of 19 or so gets sexually involved with a girl of 16 or so, it's statutory rape, precisely because the two are not, on average, peers. Parental consent is also required for marriage below a certain age in most states.

I don't believe in the legality or morality of much of anything that happens in Texas that makes the news; you might remember Waco, or Steve Jackson Games. or their patent courts. Grabbing those kids was a power play, a laying out of the welcome mat as it were....and given a reasonable level of planning on the polygamist's part, or even no planning, the kids could have been told or figured out the correct responses. After all, it's a very brave kid that turns in his parents and turns his back on everything he or she knows. That's true even in frankly abusive situations -- I've seen enough of those first hand, and heard enough second-hand to know that getting out is infrequent.

In my mind, a polyamourous (whether polygamous or polyandrous) union inherently involves inequality, which makes the gross power imbalances that prevent true lifetime partnership much too prevalent. Two can gang up on one, but it's a lot harder for one to gang up on one. Not that these power imbalances don't show up in one-to-one partnerships of the hetero or homosexual varieties, but I do suggest that the frequency is much, much higher in relationships with more than two partners.

So how does an openly homosexual marriage lend itself to coercion more than a hetersoxual marriage? (that is, one with both black and white sox)

[QUOTE=Christenson;274059]Polygamy should not be given equal treatment to gay marriage because polygamy is primarily an unequal partnership, in which a few men are given high status at the expense of their many wives.[/QUOTE]Not true.

You are describing [i]polygyny[/i], the state of having many wives.

Polyandry is the state of having many husbands.

Polygamy is the state of having many spouses(*).


Paul

(*) Or should that be "spice"? Regardless, polygamy is independent of the sex of the people in that state.

Here in the U.S., the term "polygamy" has come to be synonymous with a single man having multiple wives. This is so pervasive that it is shown in most dictionaries.

I have no problems with polygamy. In fact, if I were going to curse a man, I would wish 2 or more wives on him. The flip side, to curse a woman, I would wish 2 or more husbands on her.

What happened to Polyamory?

DarJones

Christenson,

It appears your latest post validates my thesis that you don't have any evidence to back up your assertions and you are judging the institution by the actions of a single small community.

[QUOTE]...but I do suggest that the frequency [of power imbalances] is much, much higher in relationships with more than two partners.[/QUOTE]Do you have any evidence to back up your suggestion? How much higher is the frequency? If I find a similar jump in the frequency of some negative behavior among homosexuals, is that a valid concern I can use against gay marriage?

[QUOTE=Fusion_power;274127]Here in the U.S., the term "polygamy" has come to be synonymous with a single man having multiple wives. This is so pervasive that it is shown in most dictionaries.

I have no problems with polygamy. In fact, if I were going to curse a man, I would wish 2 or more wives on him. The flip side, to curse a woman, I would wish 2 or more husbands on her.

What happened to Polyamory?

DarJones[/QUOTE]I also have no problem with polygamy [i]per se[/i] or either of its extreme cases which I defined above. Just a personal view, of course.

Paul

[QUOTE=Fusion_power;274127]What happened to Polyamory?[/QUOTE]I wasn't aware that anything had happened to the state of having multiple lovers. Equally, I thought that wasn't the question being addressed. As has become quite clear over the centuries, love and the institution of marriage may be correlated but the correlation is very far from perfect.


Paul

[QUOTE=Fusion_power;274127]What happened to Polyamory?

DarJones[/QUOTE]I think you're actually talking about polyandry. That's 1 wife with multiple husbands.

[QUOTE=xilman;274134]I also have no problem with polygamy [i]per se[/i] or either of its extreme cases which I defined above. Just a personal view, of course.

Paul[/QUOTE]

I have no problem either, but see considerable difficulties. Imagine how
complicated divorce would get! For example, in a 4-person marriage,
two people decide they want to divorce one of the others but the 4th
objects. Or 3 of 4 decide they want to marry one more, but the 4th
objects. etc. etc. One can imagine many such complicated situations.
If divorce is ugly now, just wait!

And consider the tax considerations.