What's wrong with polygamy?
 

Really, what the fuck is wrong with polygamy? Why do we look down upon it in our society and is that justification valid? If all members are consenting adults where is the problem? Even traditionalists can't argue with polygamy since it has been a valid form of marriage for millenia. So what's the problem here?

short answer: nothing is wrong with polygamy.

long answer: i think the main problem is that almost everyone i've met who is out there banging the drum for polygamy (note: not everyone who is doing it or for it but just the people who are very loud about it) seem like the kind of folks who cannot get it together to have a successful relationship with one person. Having been to a few bondage clubs and a couple of ren faires i have met a lot of people advocating the polyamorous life style and most of them strike me as complete tools. polyamory needs a good ad campaign cause i suspect there are some great couple who are making it work but because of societal pressures the only people who are out talking about the lifestyle are the sketchier elements.

Funny answer: multiple wives means multiple mothers-in-law. (shudders)

just for purposes of defining the discussion...

are we talking about strictly polygamy concerning one man and 2 or more wives... or one woman and 2 or more men also?

Its just a social thing really. In India some women marry a man and all of his brothers. So, its ok there. I think that in countires like USA we take polyigimst out and burn down there componds *waco*

I believe the standard view when Utah entered the union was that polygamy was an excuse for men to indulge their promiscuous desires by maintaining a harem of women who are socially repressed and sexually exploited. That, and some people say, "Icky."

As you say, it was not approached as an agreement between multiple, fully empowered individuals. Polygamy has generally been viewed as an excuse for promiscuity or else a result of the difference in power between the sexes. Most people do not look at, say, Saudi Arabia and see that as a model of how they want marriages to work in this country. This is a simple broken syllogism: men oppress women in [country x]; men marry multiple women in [country x]; therefore, polygamy is oppressive.

I'd n ever do it, personally. I consider it to be selfish. As for others, as long as the people involed are 100% confortable with the situation, I suppose it wouldn't bother me. It does strike me as odd that some people who are pro-polygamy are so very anti-gay. I find that amusing, in a selectively closed minded way.

I suppose as a matter of American jurisprudence, at least, we could note that this is not true. There is no polygamist tradition in the United States, as even Utah gave that up before entering. As such, a traditionalist or original interpretation approach to the Constitution will not support a right to practice polygamy. This would be similar to Scalia's dissent on the question of whether states can outlaw homosexualy sodomy: the framers did not have that in mind when they wrote the Constitution. While that is a legal question rather than a philosophical one, it is worth noting for the Americans that we have a pretty clear tradition of monogamous marriage.

If we want to go back millenia, we can find support for polygamous and homosexual marriages, but we are not going to find that in the history of the United States of America. Whether or not "tradition" is a good argument, (some) traditionalists are not being hypocritical. Just making sure we do not exceed our grasp with our arguments. :)

Very good point zubon. I'm sure filtherton meant something else (given the benifit of the doubt).

The standard opinion is that if a person cannot chose a single person as their life partner then the bond with the partners will not be nearly as strong as in a two person relationship. Thus leading to marital problems and divorce. Divorce is always a thing to be avoided since it’s a severe burden on the individuals, their children, society and the government. Adding extra people to the equation makes divorce settlements and inheritance laws very complicated which is a burden on the legal system.

From a personal perspective, polygamy contradicts my concept of marriage and relationship. Yet my arguments against polygamy are based on the argument mentioned above. If the argument can be de-spell then I will have no problem with other people practicing polygamy.

Me, sus, and mimi think what's wrong with it is calling it by that name and acting out of a "marriage" paradigm.

IMO, the problem is the concept of marriage itself - for couples and groups of any gender. Living together in love and having contractual business relationships as necessary is a whole lot more realistic and efficient than trying to work within a traditional paradigm with the kind of baggage that comes along with the concept and legal status of "marriage."

I'm *very* interested in this topic - in fact, my friend and I just had a long discussion today at lunch about this. Strange coincidence I guess.

Just to clarify, we have several thoughts in play here:

1. Polygamy is selfish. Presumably, this relates to what Zubon said in that its an "excuse for promiscuity".

2. Polygamy is a deviant trait used by those who "can't choose a single partner". I'm introducing the word "deviant", and although Mantus didn't use that word - I think its implied from his response as a whole. Also see Brianna's response that says "...the kind of folks who cannot get it together to have a successful relationship with one person".

To keep it simple (and philosopical) lets completely remove the legality variable. After all, laws are just a means to impose someone's (or some group's) personal moral values onto society.

Enter ARTelevision. In true form, he quickly narrows the focus to the razor-sharp contradiction between marriage and polygamy. Now we have a basis for the argument. SO instead of examining what's wrong with polygamy, I'd like to explore whats right with marriage.

What is this institution for? What purpose does it serve other than a legal framework for a "contractual business relationship" to quote ARTelevision. I mean let's get out of the legal aspects of this and really explore what benefit marriage has on the "human" level.

You say polygamy is selfish? I say marriage is selfish. Is it not a contractual commitment to the other? Look at what its become - a means to ensure financial support to another (usually the wife) in the event that the relationship ends. Its an immediate step to limit both party's options to terminate the relationship for whatever reason. This in and of itself leads to serious problems that could probably be addressed through open communication had the explicit limitation of options not been present. No one wants to feel "trapped" in a relationship.

Is it a "proclamation of two person's commitment to eachother" in front of God and everyone? What purpose would that serve, if not of a selfish intent to say "He/She's mine so hands off!? Couldn't you demonstrate this to the other person in the relationship through act and deed on a daily basis, not just through some one-time public ceremony?

To me, polygamy doesn't necessarily imply "having sex with lots of women and its ok"...its more than that - although I understand why society as a whole would reduce it to that. I think of it as a word to describe the "opposite" of feeling compelled to enter into the manmade "legal and binding contract" of marriage. Its the choice to love whomever, however and whenever you choose. What's wrong with that? Morally, philosophically, or otherwise?

[edit]

Before anyone else says it - I'm aware of the evolutionary/scientific/cultural argument that addresses: the care and nurturing of children in a "family unit", the man's "survival of my genes" drive to inseminate as many females as possible", as well as the females disposition to "secure a male to care for my offspring and I". Let's keep this current and suppose that all involved use the proper birth control methods.

when you phrase it all that way...marriage does sound worthless.

"He/She's mine so hands off"
Or...you genuinely want the community to celebrate and support your relationship. most human beings (not all) find the most emotional stability in a long term pair bond. to live in a community that is apathetic about that...damages that.

you act like jealousy was invented by monogamy, or monogomy was invented by jealousy. i'm not sure that's the case. when i'm in a relationship in which i feel that i'm supported in, that i have trust in, etc...i don't have issues about who my SO spends time with. undermining cultural recognition of marriage...as this culture has done so much of, only serves to pander to our base instinct of mistrust. marriage is a civilizing force that is meant to overcome that weakness.

from a religious standpoint...to not publicly celebrate a marriage is to deny part of God's action in the world. human love is one of the clearest manifestations of God's love, and to not give it it's due is an act of neglect. you want to ascribe very base motives to that public celebration...but did you try giving this the benifit of the doubt? Why instant cynicism?

Are all promises simply contracts?

ARTelevision,

Since our society is based on laws it would be difficult for the government to judge each couple on a case-by-case basis. Marriage insures that the matters of support, inheritance and the division of property upon separation is keep relatively easy…though this doesn’t quite seem to work…

I would love to see your vision of relationships becomes a socially accepted standard yet I just don’t think it’s possible because of the standard thorn in humanities side: greed.



Tibery,

It’s a mutual commitment. It would only be selfish is one partner is force into it. In the example you mentioned the wife stays at home and runs the family while husband provides financial support. There is nothing unfair about it.

Which brings me to the concept of mutual support. It should be a no brainier that two people working together get things done better then one. A relationship and most importantly a family are a complicated matter to run. It is also provides a safety line to cope with unexpected grievances such as ill health.

Once again, this is far from selfish. The agreement is mutual. The partners agree to commit to each other. Such bonds are important for a cohesive family. Of course the ceremony of marriage is actually not required to develop such a bond, but it helps to keep the slightly shaky relationships from falling apart, which is important.

You are absolutely correct.

Good point. The definition of tradition depends on how you define tradition. I was looking at it more from a biblical perspective since i think marriage is very often framed by religious terms.

Irate: i see no reason to draw distinctions between the genders of those involved in polygamy, although by definition there would have to be a little bit of homosexual marriage going on.

Anyways, we don't need excuses to be promiscuous anymore, nor do we need to be married to justify our sexual activity. Since marriage in general isn't always the result of the desires of two functional, well-adjusted adults i don't see why polygamy not always being the result of the desires of two functional, well-adjusted adults should have any bearing on a polygamy specific discussion.

You could say a polygamous marriage is doomed to fail, but most normal marriages are doomed to fail too.

It could also be said that marriage is useless, polygamy or not(a camp which i tend to be a part of), but that does little to further a discussion on the validity of one form of marriage over another.

At this point i don't understand why it isn't legal. Any legal complications could be ironed out with a little time and effort and most of the criticism levelled at polygamy could also be levelled at marriage in general. As a family unit, it probably makes more sense to have more adults involved. Imagine our economy if we all lived in three parent housholds. Would it be more or less financially stable? I'm starting to think that the nuclear family isn't the most efficient family unit.

It's funny though. The three of us have lived together in love for over 7 years. We lived in a suburban neighborhood and now we live in the country. Our families and our neighbors know and accept us as we are. We don't use a name for our relationship, we just have it.

I suppose what I'm seeing is that all the theoretical discussions involving something like vast legalistic, cultural, and sociological generalizations don't really come into play, unless one invokes them - typically by invoking a pre-existing definition requiring a relationship to traditional models or by expecting some sort of specialized status over and above the rights of individuals to make agreements and contracts with each other.

I suppose we could get all worked up about wishing we had our own set of laws governing things like income tax benefits and a few other legal/economic perks but for some reason discussions like this seem to be quite beyond what is required for happy, successful, prosperous relationships.

What about the argument that a significant portion of the women will get sucked up by rich, decent looking (or better) guys like Donald Trump, Brad Pitt, and less successful guys will be left with no wives and only prostitutes?

That, and it alters the fundamental family unit which has been preserved since the dawn of human civilization.

That is what they call a free market economy in the USA. And, what, you're going to let something like polygamy destroy your faith in true love?? You were hoping you could afford the right lady when she came along?? :)

As much as the traditionalists want to hang on to the concept of marriage that was popular back in 1776, I think at some point we all need to recognize it is already a very different institution, thanks to the high levels of divorce, 2nd and 3rd marriages, even Brittany and J.Lo treating it disposably. I don't say that makes it right - I just say that's how it is.

I wouldn't have a problem if all of the gold diggers could get married to the same rich fella.

Your "fundamental family unit" isn't at all fundamental. Many cultures raise children communally, and you'd be hard pressed to support the notion that a two adult household is fundamentally more stable than a three or four adult household.

I had a conversation with my father about this. He's a biologist who's mind is a bottomless pit of scientific information. Anyway, one night I was bored and interested in a few science things, so I we started talking.

Here are some facts about monogamy:

1) Less risk of contracting STDs
2) Altrustic tendancies of mammals are better suited to smaller families. (It's easier to defend/support a smaller group of immediate family members.)
3) Since females must carry their young, they become more vulerable. (Somone who's 8 months pregnant is an easier target to predators) It therefore becomes advantageous for men to have to defend less (#) pregnant women since they can focus their energies on one or few individuals.

These three properties about monogamy are global to any creature that exhibits altruism. There are more, however, only these three can directly be related to humans. When culture and technology are added into the mix, only the first fact remains valid- perhaps even STDs will become a figment of the past if we discover cures. Because of society and the lack of competition for survial, humans don't have any biological implications against practicing polygnamy. It therefore becomes a choice between individuals. It's a culture battle in the end- with no answer except the one inside your head.

"What about the argument that a significant portion of the women will get sucked up by rich, decent looking (or better) guys like Donald Trump, Brad Pitt, and less successful guys will be left with no wives and only prostitutes?"

What argument is here? It's a well known fact that in nature, the most successful and/or good looking animal will get the mate. Why do you think peacocks try so hard to show off their feathers? Why do frogs croak or crickets chirp? Some individuals will get multiple partners because he/she is better at attracting the opposite sex than others. In frog culture, the best croaker gets the women. In human culture, sometimes the best looking gets the mate- sometimes it's the one with the most money- or sometimes it's the one who listens the best, or tells the best jokes, or makes another person feel a certain way, or has the ability to say the right things at the best time that gets the mate.

"That, and it alters the fundamental family unit which has been preserved since the dawn of human civilization."

Polygamy doesn't alter the 'fundamental family unit', the 'fundamental family unit' alters polygamy! Any anthropologist will tell you, the most common form of union even today is polygamy. Since the dawn of civilization polygamy has been the dominant family unit.

Very cogent comments, Robaggio.
Thanks for the insightful contribution here.

Thanks robaggio. I forgot that polygamy is quite common in the animal kingdom.

I think the REASON for polygamy is genetic.

Young men are more likely to die then women.

On the other hand much of that reason is now not a factor in the monogamous part of the world.

Either way I don't care, but I do find 50 year old men marrying 16 year old girls pretty creepy and you do see that with polygamy.

All age of consent laws being equal, you probably see it just as much with monogamous marriage.

I don't have any stats, but I'll bet money you don't.

Logically you would need a 50 year old divorced man or widowed for it to happen currently.

With polygamy you basicly can trade daughters.

Its creepy to me and not fair to the 16 year old, widowed young.

I just don't really see the issue with it, if you want to live together do so, change your last names, have fun.

Yep, i don't have stats either, so let's avoid sweeping statements that we can't prove like "With polygamy you basicly can trade daughters."

You can't "basically trade daughters" with monogamous marriage? This is america, and we like to think that we have the right to decide who we are going to marry. No one can force another person to marry.

Although it is a bit far fetched, I'd ideally have topics stay purely philosophical. Philosophy is removed when people post what they think or believe. Truthly though, the point of philosophy is to remove ideals and beliefs so the topic at hand can be seen without predjudace.

There's no problem with posting these things in the Philosophy forum. I can understand your point though- too often posts here turn into value discussions not unlike those found in Politics, Living, Sexuality, etc. Nevertheless, if you're looking for it, you're more likely to get a true philosophical discussion here than in any other forum.

Perhaps the problem is I am speaking of the 'classical' polygamy, which I think leads to wierd and undesireable situations, vrs polyamorous relationships.

I don't have any problem with polyamorous relationships, that are joined by consenting adults. I'm not sure how the legal status should be, or if one is required, but if 3 25 year olds decide to be polyamorous I feel a lot 'better' about it then someone working on their child bride.

I hear you. I'm speaking strictly about the actions of consenting adults.

Almost as if STDs are nature's defense against open relationships, I've always felt that people with STDs are victims of there own permiscuity and not victims of disease. People who are born with it are victims, people who contract it through treating those with it are victims, people aquiring it through rape are victims. The ultimate cure for AIDS is to stop fucking carelessly. Even polygamy leads to less attention to those involved in the relationship, which could lead to more instances of adultery. I agree that every biological and social aspect of human nature is more suited towards monogomous relationships. Just like creatures adapt to changes in their enviroment, it would make alot of sense for humans to adapt to the epidemic that is mostly self inflicted.

I've alway felt that polygamy was dreamed up by a masochist.

Personally? I can't even handle one girlfriend for more than about a month. So the prospect of having multiple WIVES?! I give that one a hell no.

This may sound strange coming from a woman, but I don't think polygamy should be illegal. I wouldn't for one moment be with someone who wanted to be a polygamist, but what happened to personal freedoms? If someone wants to do it and finds willing partners, more power to them.

Fewer than 5 percent of mammals are monogamous. Perhaps some of the unhappiness in society is coming from trying to fit a square block into a circular hole in respect to our genetics and the society we've created.

Amen, Cathartic! As one-half of a very happy and very open 15 year marriage, I heartily agree. What this boils down to is a simple question of free choice between consenting adults. I think my lifestyle is much more healthy and honest than that of someone who's married and cheating, then lying about it to their spouse. I don't think that a family should be torn apart by divorce simply because one of the married parents got laid. It's your life, your body, make your own rules, and be honest and upfront with your partner(s) and yourself. I'll briefly cover the cheif arguments against polygamy here, and offer my responses:
1. It's immoral - perhaps by your value system, not by mine.
2. It's dangerous - STDs, etc. - if we avoided any potentially dangerous activity, we'd all be living on mother's milk in padded cells. My body, my choice.
3. One partner is enough for any normal person - avoiding the problematic issue of trying to define "normal", let me say this: sure, one partner is enough. My wife and I have a great physical relationship. I have no complaints. However, if I meet someone and there's an attraction, and I develop a trust and a friendship with that person, then I see no reason to deny myself. Ever take a second helping of dessert, even though you're already full? Philosophically, it's the same thing.
4. It takes time/money/energy away from your family - I am very careful and selective about outside partners, and though I'm no Brad Pitt, I can honestly say that I've turned away more potential outside partners than I've accepted. When I do spend time with my outside partner, it's during a business trip, when the kids are in school, etc. My wife and kids always come first, and my outside partner has known and accepted this since day one.
5. It sets a bad example for children - my children aren't even old enough to understand what to suspect, but if the day comes that they do ask us about it, our intention is to tell them that this is our choice, it is NOT an easy way to live, it is NOT the norm of our society, and we discourage anyone from jumping into it without careful consideration. If your primary relationship is not 100% solid, if there isn't complete love and trust there, it'll never work. Our attitude is that the possessiveness and jealousy so many monogamists feel regarding this issue is a clear sign that their marriages have some serious trust and self-esteem issues.

Three words: Utah Mormon Cults

Three words: What about them?

My opinion here at this time may be jaded (going through divorce), but here goes...to think that there is one and only one person ever that we should give our bodies, souls, hearts, minds...etc to is imo a little narrowminded. I did at one time think that IS how it should be. After 20 yrs of marriage I think I've changed my mind. As far as polygamy is concerned...I personally would never practice it. With that being said I really am not sure if I agree or disagree. I can see if children are involved that it is not a good choice. My opinions for what they're worth.

There's nothing wrong with multiple partners.

There's nothing "selfish" about it considering all partners agree with it... promiscuous? So? What's wrong with that? Just because someone doesn't agree with it or do it doesn't make it wrong.

IMO, that's the way to go. Being with ONE person for the rest of your life is boring. Hell, the concept of marriage itself is lame aside from the govt benefits you get... so why someone would want multiple liabilities instead of 1 is beyond me.

To get to the point of the topic: there's nothing wrong with it, just stuff wrong with the people who can't accept that others have different desires in life.

Child abuse in Mormonism

The following article from the New York Times clearly illustrates a recurring problem within the Mormon Church–child abuse. Child abuse is consistently higher in Utah than in the nation as a whole. It is a blight on Mormonism. Utah social workers have been quoted as being "blackly pessimistic" about the problem in their state.

All of this flies in the face of the projected image of Mormonism as a society which places the family at the highest level of its concern.

Of course Mormon authorities love children and want what's best for them. The failure of Mormonism stems from its hidebound structure. This is the religion of polygamy, patriarchy, and Blood Atonement. Such a culture simply doesn't have the ability to wave a wand of psychobabble over the Church and make everything right. Mormon social problems are systemic.

One of the worst areas of offense in Mormonism is uncovered in the following article. This story is repeated over and over again as the good old boys have their way with women and children in the ashes of Brigham Young's Mormonism


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sex Abuse Lawsuit Is Settled By Mormons for $3 Million

By Gustav Niebuhr
New York Times Sep. 5, 2001, A-14

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints disclosed yesterday that it would pay $3 million to settle a suit by an Oregon man who said he was sexually abused as a child by a church member. The suit said Mormon officials had known well in advance of that abuse that the accused man had also faced child molesting allegations before.

The case is unusual not only because the church disclosed the amount of the settlement, in advance of news conferences by the plaintiffs' lawyers today, but also because it centers on alleged abuse by a man who held no ministerial or leadership role. That man died in 1995.

In an interview, Von G. Keetch, a Salt Lake City lawyer representing the church, said it strongly believed that the case ''lacked merit'' and had settled only out of concern that the litigation, already a decade old, could continue for years more, at high cost.

Mr. Keetch said the decision was made after a number of rulings against the church by a county judge presiding over the case in Portland. Among the rulings were that the church could be held liable for the conduct of one member against another, and that the plaintiff could argue that the abuser was a clergyman because he held the title of high priest, which the church describes as a common lay designation.

The settlement follows by two weeks the disclosure of another settlement by a religious institution in a sexual abuse case. In that instance, two Roman Catholic dioceses in Southern California said they had paid $5.2 million to a man who maintained that as a high school student a decade ago, he was molested by a priest.

The Oregon suit was filed in December 1998 by a Portland man, Jeremiah Scott, who eventually sought $1.5 billion in damages from the church. He accused its authorities of withholding knowledge from his family that another member, Franklyn Curtis, had previously been accused of molesting children.

His lawyer, David Slader, said Mr. Scott was abused in 1991, the year he turned 11, after his mother invited Mr. Curtis to live with the family. Mr. Curtis, who was 88 and had been living in a group home, was a member of the same congregation as the Scotts.

Before bringing Mr. Curtis into her home, Mr. Slader said, Mrs. Scott sought advice from a local Mormon bishop, who advised the family against it because it would be too much work, but who did not inform them of the earlier accusations.

Mr. Slader noted that Mr. Curtis had been previously excommunicated after being accused of molesting children. But when he came to live with the Scotts, his membership had been restored and he held the title of high priest. He had not been criminally charged with abuse at that point, but later pleaded guilty to molesting Mr. Scott, Mr. Slader said.

''It's the institution that knew,'' Mr. Slader said, referring to church authorities. ''A church,'' he added, ''owes a very, very special and high duty to the children of its parishioners, the children whose souls it has taken responsibility for.''

Mr. Keetch, the lawyer for the church, quoted the bishop who advised the Scotts as saying in a deposition that he had known of no abuse accusations against Mr.

Curtis. Mr. Keetch said Mr. Curtis had been excommunicated in the 1980's in Pennsylvania, where he lived before moving back to Oregon. The decision to excommunicate, Mr. Keetch said, followed another Oregon bishop's notifying church authorities in Pennsylvania that Mr. Curtis had been accused of having ''inappropriately touched a child'' in an Oregon congregation different from the one where he and the Scotts were later members together.

Mr. Curtis was readmitted to membership ''after a fairly lengthy period of repentance,'' Mr. Keetch said, but never had any supervisory position over Mr. Scott and in fact had no leadership position at all. According to the church, the title of high priest is bestowed on Mormon men in good standing over the age of 40.

Mr. Keetch said he believed there was ''no church that does more either to protect children or to provide assistance to children'' who have been abused.

http://www.mazeministry.com/mormonis...x3.htm?FACTNet

Another article
 

Judge pulls more children from mother's home

By Brooks Adams The Salt Lake Tribune

A juvenile court judge temporarily removed eight children of polygamist John Daniel Kingston from their mother's home Tuesday after hearing new allegations of abuse and "games" the couple has played with a child welfare worker.

Only one of the couple's 11 children - a girl born in July - remains with Heidi Mattingly Foster as the state continues to make its case that the couple are unfit parents. Third District Juvenile Court Judge Andrew Valdez removed two older girls from the home earlier this year after a dispute over getting their ears pierced triggered a wider investigation of the family.

During Tuesday's emergency hearing, representatives for the Guardian Ad Litem's Office and attorney general asked Valdez to remove the other children for their own safety, saying Mattingly Foster has physically and emotionally abused them. The children's ages are 15, 12, 11, 9, 7, 5, 4 and 2.

Assistant Attorney General Carolyn Nichols said the couple's 2-year-old son had a black eye two weeks ago, and his mother gave differing accounts of where the injury occurred. She finally provided the name of a day care provider, Margaret Larson Owen, who also has 11 children with Kingston.
Mattingly Foster said after the hearing that the boy fell off a slide and that Owen filled out an injury report as required by state regulations.

Nichols said other children have been slapped and, contrary to a previous order, the couple's 15-year-old son attends Ensign Learning Center, a Kingston-run school, rather than West High.
Kingston, 49, and Mattingly Foster, 32, belong to the polygamous Kingston clan, known as "The Order." The group is said to have about 1,200 members in the Salt Lake Valley and operates a $150-million business empire that includes a mine, ranches, pawn shops, grocery stores, private schools, vending machine businesses and restaurant supply stores.

Kingston, a brother of clan leader Paul Kingston, has an estimated 14 spiritual wives and about 120 children; he pleaded no contest in 1999 to belt-whipping one of his children by another woman.
"The more information I get about these women who have children with Mr. Kingston, the more I think we're running a child mill here," Valdez said Tuesday, adding that if it were a "puppy mill" it would have been shut down a long time ago.

Nichols said Curtis Giles, the child welfare worker assigned to the Kingston children, has been continually thwarted when trying to check on their well-being. On one occasion when Giles tried to check on the children at Ensign Learning Center, the school alerted Kingston, who showed up with a tape recorder; the school's principal, Hyrum Kingston, turned Giles away two other times, saying statewide tests were in progress.
Valdez pointedly told Kingston and his attorney, Daniel Irvin, that no school policy "supersedes a court order."

Nichols also said Mattingly Foster refused to let a Child Protective Services worker interview the children after the state received the black-eye report unless Rachel Kingston, one of John Daniel Kingston's other "wives," was present.

Irvin said Kingston has fully complied with Valdez's past orders, limiting his interaction with his children to weekly supervised visits.

Russ Pietryga, a public defender now representing Mattingly Foster, said she is trying to be more cooperative and told Valdez the "problem can be solved in a less intrusive way than removing the children."
But Valdez said he had warned Mattingly Foster in previous court hearings that failure to cooperate with the state would lead to the children being removed from her home.

"We are going to pull these kids and see if you wake up, Ms. Mattingly, and find out if you're fully committed to having these children returned to you," Valdez said as he placed the children in protective custody. The children, who waited in another office in the courthouse during the hearing, were taken into state custody immediately. The seven youngest were placed in a shelter for abused children; the oldest boy, considered a flight risk, was taken to a secure facility.

In 1996, Mattingly Foster's children were removed from her home following a welfare investigation; in all, the state has investigated her four times over the past decade, finding inappropriately supervised children and unsafe living conditions. Each time, she received homemaking and counseling aid.
Valdez will hold a shelter hearing on Friday to decide whether to return the children home or leave them in state custody - a hearing the couple said would vindicate them and result in the children being returned home.
"We have 11 children and love every one of them," Kingston said after the court hearing. "It will be devastating to those children and is not in the best interest of those children to be removed from their home."
The couple issued a media statement that said: The state's "purpose is take the children from all polygamist parents and break up their families. They have no concern for our civil rights or what's best for the children."
"We really do expect that when we present our evidence on Friday they will be back," Kingston told The Salt Lake Tribune.

brooke@sltrib.com

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_2430209#top

Pinkie, those seem more like an argument against mormons than polygamists.

It should be pointed out that polygamists are generally excomunicated from the "official" Mormon church. Anyone who claims to be both a Mormon and a Polygamist is actually considered a fundimentalist Mormon.

When Joseph Smith started the Mormon Church he was monogamous, but he could not keep his hands off the 14 year old hired help. He evidently decided to justify his predilection by making polygamy a basic tenet of the religion that he was still creating. His reservations about how the rest of the Mormon community would react prevented him from making his views public in his lifetime, but his successors pushed it through. A significant proportion of Mormons were appalled. The US government forced them to officially backtrack on this issue finally in the 1920's, I think.

The problem with Mormon polygamy, at least as I see it, is that the male church power structure has an undue amount of influence over Mormon females, to the point which marraiges are arranged between 60 year old men and 15 year old girls. Female fundamentalist Mormons are told that they have to marry "Uncle Brigham" or they will be excomunicated and banished from the community.

John Krakauer (Into Thin Air, Into the Wild) wrote a interesting book on this topic, Under the Banner of Heaven, if you want to learn more. I have always been curious about Mormonism, and after reading some of what Mormons wanted me to read I had begun to believe they were fairly normal. But this book shoule be required reading for anyone considering joining them.

filtherton - You asked what was WRONG with polygamy.

ozahs - That's why I used the word CULTS.

http://www.xpolygamist.com/

http://www.rickross.com/groups/polygamy.html

As far as I can tell, "cult" is mostly just a pejorative term for someone else's beliefs... do you have a more specific definition in mind?

I don't think anything is wrong with polygamy/polyandry/etc., provided the individuals involved are consenting adults. The problem with the "Mormon" cases is that not all the individuals are consenting adults.

Do you have a link for this information or is it coming from the book that you mentioned in your post?

I think either way (mutiple husbands or wives) is fine. A combination is even better. IE 2-3 husbands and 2-3 wives, all sharing each other, and raising a group of kids as if each was their own. I think this is were our society will eventually evolve (I first heard this from Heinlein, great author and philosopher.)

Imagine a well functioning family unit like that. Think of all the love and affection in having 4-6 parents, a kid will always have someone to talk to, never be left unwatched, etc. And even better the other parents can go out without worrying about getting a babysitter, etc.

YES.

This is what I think of as the perfect "polygamist" relationship. If we take into consideration that the marriage covenant was likely founded around the protection of children, I think it makes perfect sense to have a more extended definition of family.

I think it also makes sense that marriage as we have defined it today is at least as much an economic contract as it is an emotional one. This helps shape what a polygamous relationship should/might be like.

Our ancient tradition as a people was most likely a tribal one; many men & women living together for the common good. I see this tribal group as very closely analagous to a polygamous relationship. It would allow the pooling of resources to further propagate the good of the family, and it would allow for a close-knit group of care-givers for the children borne of the relationship. Heinlein even had multi-generational family groups; so that the family unit would live on beyond the originators.

But would it work? I can see a few problems:

1. How to handle jealousy within the group, especially where sexuality is concerned.
2. How to handle those who wish to leave the family group, both from an emotional and an economic standpoint.

#1 is probably the toughest -- jealousy is an inescapable part of being human. Having Joe sleeping exclusively with Emma, for example, might cause another member of the group to harbor resentment towards the offending couple.

#2 is probably the easier -- have strict contractual agreements from the onset with regards to joining / leaving the group. Since these agreements are inevitably about money, you either leave with a share of the group's total assets, or you leave with nothing. Either way, spell it out contractually and there shouldn't be a problem.

Firstly, it should be noted that polygamy has NOTHING to do with arranged marriages. They are two seperate things and the fact that many cultures who practice polygamy ALSO practice arranged marriages is incidental.

Back to the question at hand, there is nothing wrong with polygamy, polyandry, or what-have-you. If 2 consenting adults want to enter into a lifetime partnership, that's great. If 5 consenting adults do, that's great too. There's nothing wrong with choosing to be polyamorous and, likewise, there's nothing wrong with deciding that it's not for you.

The government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all. Marriage is a religious institution and it should be entered into through a person's respective religious community. Marriage, being a religious institution which the government should have no involvement in, can have any limitations imposed on it that a person's respective religion chooses.

This is contrasted with what the government SHOULD be involved in - contractual relationships. This is where government involvement comes in. There is no reason why any person, or group of persons, cannot enter into a contractual relationship with another person or group of persons. So, from the government perspective, there can be any number of people involved in the contractual relationship as those people wish.

The result: Polyamorous relationships are perfectly legal in any regard since they are between consenting adults. Religions are then free to impose their own limits on marriages.

I can barely handle having one wife. Having multiple is only cool if they're independant career women who happen to be bisexual. (Yes, I'm cynical today)

Well, neutone, on a practical level I agree it would be tough. As you add people, you get a combinatoric explosion in the number of relationships, and those are hard to manage. But that's different from saying it is wrong.

Well, technically, most religions are cults or have cult-like behavior. I wouldn't say it's any more insulting to call them that than it is to try and force their beliefs on everyone who doesn't believe.

Anything where a mass of people get together and believe a common thing, no matter how WACKY it is, to me, is a cult.

Scientologists? Cult. Someone might have this belief, but that's no different than me believing that Santa Claus created this world when he fought a 10 headed dragon. It's silly.

Christianity? You bet. It's just common, so we think nothing of it. Eating the body of christ? Drinking his blood? Whaaaaaaat the hell is wrong with people? People getting eaten by whales and spat out later. Silly when ya think about it.

Mormons? Well, yes, because we know it was created by a guy in the 1920's - it wasn't "handed down by gods" or whatever people claim created it. Think David Koresh. Why do people follow a religion they know was created by a person? (Just like scientologists). That'd be like Gene Roddenberry trying to form a religion based on Star Trek.

The fundamental values aren't bad in pratice, because, for the most part, it's "love your neighbor" type stuff, which is fine, but anything beyond that needs to be suppressed. For example, take a look at Utah and their alcohol laws. Ridiculous and pointless! It doesn't stop there, there's tons of laws that they have that try to impose pointless moral values upon others. It's obnoxious.

Stuff like that, to me, is cultish.

Polygamy. Well, I think if you take religion out of our lives, both as a practice and as a concept of something that actually exists, no one would consider polygamy as something that was wrong. Those who wanted multiple partners, but were unable to attain them, would have problems related to envy and jealousy, but even they would not find it to be wrong. Religion dictates to a lot of people what is right or wrong. For the people who have nothing to do with religion, I feel it is a different question entirely: what is wrong with polygamy? I have no idea what the answer to that question is, but I do feel it is dependent on whether or not you subscribe to a set of laws/morals that have been set for you or if you chose to set your own.

there's nothing wrong with polygamy, I think. It's just the christian population :o (again!)

dksuddeth - Do you have a link for this information or is it coming from the book that you mentioned in your post?

It's from the book - Under the Banner of Heavan, by Jon Krakauer.

Polygamy is fine.

Just not for me. I have enough to do with one wife. ;)

No, it's not. Secrecy and separation from family and friends, mind rape, psychological manipulation and abuse, thought reform, behavior modification, and the demand of dangerous or abusive practices do not just fall into the category of "someone else's beliefs."

When you need an exit counselor to "de-program" you, you were not just brushed with the beliefs and values of an arbitrary group of "believers."

http://www.hoyweb.com/faq/cult.htm

[edit] added link

But polygamy doesn't necessarily mean JUST more than one wife. It could be a small community of married people, male and female!

(I agree that one male & multiple females is just problems waiting to happen -- solely on a financial matter, not to mention emotionally! *shudder*)

If by polygamy you mean having sex with more than one person at a time, or while you are in a relationship with someone, then nothing is morally wrong, but watch out for STD's.

If by polygamy you mean marriage to more than one person at the same time, then the problem is the same thing that's wrong with marriage to one person. Marriage is a institution dedicated to ownership of other people, and controlling interests in the property of others. It's consensual slavery.

Even if nobody found polygamy morally wrong, the STD thing, would probably put an end to it pretty quick. HIV, AIDS, Herpes.... the list goes on.

......... ownership ? ..... slavery ??!!
 

What a crappy assed view of marriage and monogamy !

When you meet someone you truly love then you'll want...WANT to spend the rest of your life with them ! Even years later ! Marriage and monogamy aren't a trap, they aren't something you commit to grudgingly as some sort of traumatizing obligation, and they definitely aren't slavery... You marry to that one fantastic person and stay faithful because you love them and only them. A healthy monogamous happy marriage is a place where you WANT to be.... It's not a trap.

I honestly don't think there's an inherent undeniable need for polygamy in humankind whatsoever. What there are, are unhappy people who feel like trapped slaves, who become cheaters and quitters.

pinkie, the main problem with your arguments is that you're assigning specific connotations to words that are a lot more global.

Ploygamy is not just people in Utah that have broken from the Mormons and force their daughters on one another, nor is 'cult' really meant to define groups that separate people from family/friends and brainwash them.

Polygamy is purely a union between on person and multiples between many of the opposite sex.
A cult is a collective of people of similar beliefs. In that regard, the entirity of christianity is a cult, so are any other religion. I think the pope and imams would beg to differ though.

If you claim ALL polygamy to be bad and just point at rebel mormons, then you may as well say that all Catholics are terrorists because of the primarily catholic-biased IRA.
Using that type of view, your argument holds no water. Particularly as your second quoted reason for it being bad was a man suing the LDS for child abuse by a church leader. What aspect of polygamy was that? May as well cite the Boston catholic child abuse cases as a reason against polygamy whilst you are at it.

Many parts of the world use polygamy for many reasons. Here's some:
-They don't have pensions, large families are necessary to support the adults in old age, hence many wives = many children. I refer to 1man many women here because 1 woman many men wouldn't acheive the same family size.

-Women may historically have less rights and outnumber men.
If a rich man only has daughters and the only other men are all married and women may not posess land and the associated rights in tribal life accompanying such owership, what is she to do if her father dies? she marries another man and still gets to keep control of her father's lands and dictate the proper use of his assets. (If her husband is wise and not greedy)

-Protection:
Marrying a more powerful man in a more backward tribal society lends protection by association to women who marry him. In return, he has a large family and enough people are generated in the family/tribe to protect its interests.


To say polygamy is inherently evil is wrong.
To say that some people advocate it to further their own interst if reasons like I've shown don't apply to them would be more acceptable.


And whilst you're at it, don't confuse the mormon church with those breakaways. It's one of my mormon buddies' biggest bug bears. The mormon church actively denounce its practise.

Polygamy is a primitive of modern divorce, IMO.

When you tire of your old wife, you get a shiny new one, and the old one still has hooks into your finances. Sounds a lot like alimony and child support, to me.

No you don't get a new one.
You are responsible for meeting the needs, physical, sexual and emotional, of all of your spouses.
However, you are forgetting that the spouses all have something in common and in themselves provide one another with a support group.

What's the difference really, in marrying one person then divorcing them and moving onto another than marrying two and divorcing one of them?
The net result is just the same.

Don't equate polygamy with more sex. That's the main thread I'm hearing here. There's a lot more reasons for a polygamous culture than sex. Typically, in societies that allow polygamy, you'll also find that if sex is desired by the male it's just taken forcibly anyway. Why marry more than one woman for the purpose of sex if this is the case?

I think if you assume emotionally and financially stable individuals, polygamy is definitely a more desirable arrangement than monogamy in terms of raising children.

I agree, with one addition: I honestly don't think there's an inherent undeniable need for polygamy or monogamy in humankind whatsoever.

What if the old one has failed to produce healthy male heirs?
To which tradition of polygamy are you referring in which this was the practice? What tradition of monogamy is this the practice, for that matter?
Or a pool for vicious intrigue.
I'm not sure what point you're making here.
Because the first one won't do anal? Because the first one no longer arouses you? Because the maiden you've dishonored is threatening to heap accusations upon your name if you do not pay the price of her honor?

He asked, "What's WRONG with polygamy?" I gave one example (context) of what was wrong with it.

I never said that all polygamy was bad, or lumped anything so broadly as you seem to be assuming.

Well, that may be your opinion, but again, I'm referring to WRONGS. Not all churches are like cults. (Key word: "like." Cults have specific characteristics that make them cults) Not every organization is a cult, and even fewer churches are destructive, abusive, mind raping, child molesting, pedophile breeding grounds. But they are out there too, and it’s a very sad state of affairs.

I'd go with the oppressive towards women argument.

Guys, are we arguing 'what's wrong with polygamy', or 'What's wrong with polygamy in America?'

Big difference.
Polygamy is practiced in MANY cultures. Some are oppressive of women and some aren't.

Joeshoe, you say polygamy is oppressive to women,so when you get married, you won't mind if your wife keeps her own name and refuses to assume your surname?
Western monogamy is JUST as oppressive in it's values regarding women.

I came to the same conclusion as you did above, especially concerning the legalization of gay marriage discussed in other threads in this forum. But this could certainly lead to some interesting arrangements.

All kinds of groups could form contactual relationships to share social security, medical, death benefits, etc... I wonder how much the government would have to be involved in these?

I guess my wife's and my families could put one of these arrangements together and the government would leave us alone. But what if all the (Christian only, atheist only, white only, black only, etc..) members of my family, or motorcycle club, or neighborhood, or city, or state, or country would form one of these contactual agreements? The possibilities are endless.

I know this seems silly in the context of marriage and polygamy, I'm just speculating, LOL.

Why not? Business entities do shit like this all of the time. It just makes a personal relationship a financial one.

Pinkie - mormons no longer practice or accept polygamy. Those who do are ex-communicated.

It's only a problem if you feel you need "society's" approval for your beliefs no matter what they are. If polygamy is something you've managed to practice in private then who gives a fuck what other people think?
"Society" is not a collaborative conspiracy. It is made up of individuals with practices and beliefs that are as diverse as their individual experiences. For example, if I wanted to sacrifice a chicken ceremoniously in my yard I really wouldn't need your acceptance to feel comfortable with my convictions.

I never understood the appeal of polygamy outside of the novelty of practicing a social taboo. What's the big deal?

A) If it's about love: It's tough enough to find one partner who can tolerate me ('till death do us part) let alone 2 or more...
B) If it's about sex: I got more sex from a variety of partners as a bachelor before I decided to settle down.

No, when I get married, I won't mind if my wife keeps her own last name.

Which countries are these that have polygamy without the women being oppressed. And how many of these countries also practice arranged marriages?

Find Africa in an atlas, close your eyes, put your finger down anywhere on the page.

Oppression in ANY relationship is an individual instance. Polygamy is NOT explicitly linked with oppression of women. You can have the same or worse oppression when it's just one man and a woman.

Would the definition of polygamy include the incidence of a woman having multiple men? Or is it entirely men having multiple women?

I'm thinking of polygamy in terms of any legally recognized relationship with more than the standard two members. Any combination of penises and vaginas will do.

well lets start with what I think should be cleared up. Most of you are talking about polygyny which is a type of polygamy, polyandry is the other. Polygyny is the marriage of one man and two or more women. Polyandry is the other. Those are strict with just one of the two sexes. Polygamy is with more than one of both sexes in the relationship.
Now to Scott. If you look at other cultures that accept polygamy in either of its forms, there will be the problem of jealousy. For simplicity lets say polygyny. That is sometimes taken care of by a "chief" wife who dictates who gets to sleep with the husband and when. She basically mediates and tries to keep things fair. There is also possiblity of a "schedule" for each husband to spend with one of his wives so that none of the other wives will intrude.

People also state that polygamy is selfish. You're right it is selfish. In some case studies of cultures that do practice polygamy its important because it keeps property/wealth inside the family. Think about it. You have 3 sons, who marry 3 different women, then you die you split your land into 3 smaller parts with 3 separate owners. Then all 3 of them have 3 sons who received part of their father's share of his father's land. Thus dividing the land into even smaller pieces. Instead would it not be smarter to keep the land as one large piece instead of many small pieces? That is why in some societies women have multiple husbands.

This will be the last part, sorry for the long post. Polygamy in the form of more than one of each sex, IE 2 men 2 females, they share responsibilities. One woman can go and pursue a career while the other stays home to take care of children. This is a mutually beneficial existence. Obviously if both women wish to get jobs then a man can stay home with little to no ill effect at all on the children. Someone can always be with them and take care of them.

On a side note, I do not support polygamy in any form

Why don't you support polygamy in any form?

It's not for me, but I have no problem with it as long as everybody goes in as a consenting adult.

In the case of the Utah Mormon-derived cults, the husbands were actually given power over their wives in excess of what is normally deemed acceptable. The women weren't considered equal. Moreover, one of the cult-leaders was arranging a marriage between his 14-year-old daughter and his 45-year-old friend. She had no say in it.

That said, anything that works between consenting adults and makes them happy and healthy is okay by me. I don't think that monogamy or polygamy are in themselves more or less selfish than one another. Selfish of whom? About what?

The major advantage of legal, monogamous marriage in our culture is that, as a legal institution, it comes with a package of rights and protections that are denied to other types of marriage, even male/female relationships in which no ceremony or piece of paper has been proferred.

For a non-legal marriage, you can build your own safety net out of legal agreements, powers of attorney, and trusts. But you really have to make sure that you have all the bases covered, and even then a vengeful relative can always try to throw a monkey wrench into the works in case of serious illness or accident (take guardianship of the injured party away from the partner, etc.)

The way I see it, any relationship between a group of people who honestly care about each other and want to be in the relationship in the first place can handle situations such as these just like any monogamous couple would. Honestly, I'm surprised more polygamy hasn't occured in the United States. I don't mean the forementioned "cult" polygamy which is basically results in a man with multiple wives. I'd honestly like to see groups of people who honestly care for and love each other be able to be married as a group without being looked upon as abnormal.

Well I guess I should have said that I don't condemn polygamy but neither do I condone it.