Poligamy and Freedom of Religion

[Tmy]

I have always found it strange that bigamy is illegal. Especially since gay marriage seems to be gaining so much steam through legal arguments.

Not to compare the two, but polygamy has the added protection of being a religious practice. What arguments agianst polygamy are strong enough to trump freedom of religion protections.

[geni]

Well do people who marry us citersens automaticly gain the right to live there? If so I have this horible image of one person being married to large sections of cuba (or any other country that has a large number of people who want to move to the US).

On the more serious side it has probably got something to do with poligamy being considered a "priamtive" practe and not some that civerlised counties did. These days I suspect it due to inertia and that no one with enough power cares enough to get it changed.

[Cleopatra]

I have another question instead. You have the right to live with as many women as you wish. I know " a family" like that ( in Greece!) and they seem very happy.They live together for more than 10 years and they have five chilrden. A man and two women.

Why people who want to live like that would want to get married "legally"? Those people are supposed to question or challenge the prevailing opinion that rejects polygamy.

Marriages of heterosexual couples were invented exactly for this reason,in order to eliminate and marginalize such tendencies in a society. Why groups of people wish to do what they challenge?

I consider the whole issue with marriages artificial and that it's used from groups only to create non-existent issues.

[JamesM]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Why people who want to live like that would want to get married "legally"?
I would imagine for tax purposes or other rights that arise, for example, when one partner dies, that are only granted to people in an official union recognised by the state. And the principle of the thing.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by JamesM

I would imagine for tax purposes or other rights that arise, for example, when one partner dies, that are only granted to people in an official union recognised by the state. And the principle of the thing.


This is the easy answer those people give.

Instead of fighting to legalize polygamy or homosexual marriages they should fight for legislations that cover such needs. This is what brings real progress. Marriages of homosexuals or legitimate polygamy doesn't constitute progress, you don't challenge norms like that. We will have achieved real progress when we persuade society to respect our lifestyle and not by trying to find a way fit in the life-style of the majority.

The legalization of the homosexual marriages is a victory of the Status Quo and not of the homosexuals.

[Larspeart]

Yeah, I have a problem with that law as well. While I disagree with the practice personally, in a land of the free (as we like to delude ourselves into believing we live in), how can ones choice of a mate or mates be called into question as 'illegal'. Unless it is through coersion (which, oftentimes it is), I can't see why 3, 4, or 10 consenting adults can't be married.

Considering that the 3rd largest religion in the world allows it (Islam), I see no reason it should be illegal. Now, frowned upon is ENTIRELY legal.

Frankly, incest doesn't really have a grounds to be illegal either. A brother and sister/cousin-cousin relationship between two consenting adults shouldn't have a LAW against it. I don't agree with it, but who am I to tell someone how they should live?

Yup, I am very libertarian.
:D

[Cleopatra]

None forbids a brother and sister to live as a couple, the problem starts when they want to get married and my question is why to want to get married since marriage means a specific thing.

I don't understand why marriage must be the medium that makes a relationship acceptable and the only way to enjoy the privileges that people who decide to be married do.
This is the idea that people must fight whether they are homosexual, simplings or they want to have a relationship with their dog.


The point is not to make more variations of marriage legitimate but to abolish the idea that marriage is the only way to live in a society and enjoy its privileges.

[Graham]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
The legalization of the homosexual marriages is a victory of the Status Quo and not of the homosexuals.

Stating the obvious first, when homosexual marriage is illegal, there are no homosexual marriages.

When homosexual marriage is made legal, homosexual marriages occur in increasing number for a while until a steady rate is achieved.

After a while, homosexual marriages are common and, eventually, "normal".

A victory over the status quo, no?

Graham

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Graham


Stating the obvious first, when homosexual marriage is illegal, there are no homosexual marriages.

When homosexual marriage is made legal, homosexual marriages occur in increasing number for a while until a steady rate is achieved.

After a while, homosexual marriages are common and, eventually, "normal".

A victory over the status quo, no?

Graham


No because the status quo has set Marriage as a prerequisite to be related to another human being and be part of a society without having problems or in order to enjoy certain privileges that have to do with taxation etc.

The point is to make marriage irrelevant as to whether certain needs will be covered by the Law or not.

[Hexxenhammer]

What you get with polygamy in America is the mormon fundamentalists and what they call "bleeding the beast". A man is married to 1 woman but "spiritually" married to several. He has childeren with them all. Since legally most of his wives are single and unemployed, they qualify for welfare and food stamps. This leads to massive welfare fraud. There is a whole town in northern Arizona that are polygamists (the name escapes me). The mayor, police, everyone. And they all "bleed the beast".

[bjornart]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
None forbids a brother and sister to live as a couple, the problem starts when they want to get married and my question is why to want to get married since marriage means a specific thing.

I don't understand why marriage must be the medium that makes a relationship acceptable and the only way to enjoy the privileges that people who decide to be married do.
This is the idea that people must fight whether they are homosexual, simplings or they want to have a relationship with their dog.


The point is not to make more variations of marriage legitimate but to abolish the idea that marriage is the only way to live in a society and enjoy its privileges.

Well, I can't be bothered to check for any other country, but Norway has the following laws:


§ 197. Anyone who has sexual congress with a relative in the descending line, is punished with up to 5 years inprisonment. As relative in the descending line are considered biological and adopted descendants.

§ 198. Anyone who has intercourse with brother or sister, is punished with up to 1 year of inprisonment.
Punishment is not applied to persons under 18.


So there are those who forbid brother and sister to live as a couple.

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer
What you get with polygamy in America is the mormon fundamentalists and what they call "bleeding the beast". A man is married to 1 woman but "spiritually" married to several. He has childeren with them all. Since legally most of his wives are single and unemployed, they qualify for welfare and food stamps. This leads to massive welfare fraud. There is a whole town in northern Arizona that are polygamists (the name escapes me). The mayor, police, everyone. And they all "bleed the beast".

I think it's Colorado City, AZ.

related to the "bleeding the beast" topic:

Tom Green, publically avowed polygamist, was sentenced to five years in prison for bigamy and failing to repay the state for thousands of dollars in welfare payments his family improperly received.

one link here:
http://helpthechildbrides.com/news/latimes020818.htm

Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a whole lot more of these types of prosecutions.

Although I personally don't like polygamy - especially from what I've seen of the Mormon practice, because it seems to be tied in with abuse - what cheeses me off the most is that they expect me to pay for their lifestyle. I don't care about the bigamy charge, he should be punished most severely for the welfare fraud.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by bjornart

So there are those who forbid brother and sister to live as a couple.


In that case which is the answer? To legalize marriage between siblings or to abolish such laws?

[Ed]

Originally posted by Tmy
I have always found it strange that bigamy is illegal. Especially since gay marriage seems to be gaining so much steam through legal arguments.

Not to compare the two, but polygamy has the added protection of being a religious practice. What arguments agianst polygamy are strong enough to trump freedom of religion protections.

Why not compare them? Once a traditional view of marrage (one man one woman) goes out the window anything goes. I really doubt that you would need any religious reasons for recognizing polygamy.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Bountiful, Bristish Columbia, Canada (http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/polygamy/)


Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints - no relation to the mainstream Mormons

Although it's illegal to have multiple wives in Canada so far nobody in Bountiful has been prosecuted for polygamy. In fact, nine years ago 3 Colorado girls living in Bountiful were denied immigrant status. They appealed the decision to Ottawa on humanitarian grounds and won. Now they are landed immigrants entitled to a full range of benefits like social assistance, complete health care and fully eligible for a child tax credit.


In Canada children under 16 need their parents permission and a judge's signature to get married. And when it comes to sex, a child between the age of 12 and 14 is permitted to have sex but their partner must be less than two years older.
.


Immigration officers are frustrated with the practice of young girls being sent back and forth across the US/Can border for the express purpose of marriage.

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by Tmy
I have always found it strange that bigamy is illegal. Especially since gay marriage seems to be gaining so much steam through legal arguments.

Not to compare the two, but polygamy has the added protection of being a religious practice. What arguments agianst polygamy are strong enough to trump freedom of religion protections.

There is a good chance that successful legal challenges to anti-gay marriage legislation will be cited by others who wish to see choices such as polygamy under the same legal umbrella.

[Lemastre]

As long as all the parties to a polygamous marriage are comfortable with the arrangement, I see no need to ban it. A man with several wives can even be viewed as following the natural pattern in which one male propagates his species by impregnating several females. I’m not aware of a similar rationale for one wife with several husbands, though.

Our general acceptance of monogamy probably developed out of financial and psychological considerations. Apparently, most men can’t adequately provide for more than one wife and a few children. And nowadays, it seems to take more than one income to do it. Even our more successful bigamists have had to keep their marital status secret and their two spouses separated and unaware of one another because the women don’t generally wish to share their husbands.

The issue of homosexual marriages has nothing to do with all this, however. Homosexuals merely want access to the marriage contracts we now have in order to enjoy the same rights straight couples do. Seems a reasonable desire to me.

[Dorian Gray]

The legalization of the homosexual marriages is a victory of the Status Quo and not of the homosexuals. Somehow, I think there's a lot of people who would disagree with that.

Having said that, would anyone like to venture further into polygamous homosexual marriages?

[davefoc]

If a man isn't legally married to more than one woman at a time but still lives with multiple women is the man in violation of anti-polygamy laws?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by davefoc
If a man isn't legally married to more than one woman at a time but still lives with multiple women is the man in violation of anti-polygamy laws?

I don't see how.

[crimresearch]

Common law marriages require little more than cohabitation, or the appearance of living together as spouses, so the charge could be made in some states.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Ed
Why not compare them? Once a traditional view of marrage (one man one woman) goes out the window anything goes.

I find it funny that you call "one man, one woman" the "traditional" view.

Exactly who's tradition are you referring to? The "European" tradition, that's what. It's a fairly narrow view.

[Bikewer]

During the gay marriage discussions on NPR a while back, one of the commentators brought this up; that if (or when) gay marriage becomes accepted, that polygamy will have to be adressed.

I personally don't see any huge problems, as the poster above indicates, solving the legislative problems attendant to property division, child custody, and so forth may be challenging, but certainly not impossible.

I recall a great little bit from the movie "Sahara" with Humphrey Bogart. One of the soldiers is discussing marriage with the Arab guide. The Arab says that according to Islam, the ideal would be four wives. "One is not sufficient. Two will fight. Three...Two will take sides against the other. Four is the ideal.
The soldier then asks him, "Well, how many wives do YOU have?"

"Why, none at all."

[Michael Redman]

Polygamy was outlawed for the same reason as homosexual conduct, and murder. Those in charge believed that those practices were harmful to society. It does not follow that gay marriage will lead to legalized polygamy any more than it will to legalized murder. Each prohibition must be judged on it's own utility and the loss of freedom required by its enforcement.

The "traditional" view used to be one man and one woman exclusively of the same race. When we got rid of anti-miscegenation laws, the results were hardly "anything goes".


You can't be common-law married if you can't otherwise be legally married. Unmarried cohabiting groups may be guilty of fornication and adultery, but not polygamy.

[Dorian Gray]

Polygamy was outlawed for the same reason as homosexual conduct, and murder. Those in charge believed that those practices were harmful to society. That's too secular. I believe the laws were put in place for religious reasons.

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
I find it funny that you call "one man, one woman" the "traditional" view.

Exactly who's tradition are you referring to? The "European" tradition, that's what. It's a fairly narrow view.

And exactly which tradition would *you* prefer that the American legal codes be based upon?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
That's too secular. I believe the laws were put in place for religious reasons.
Interesting. I believe religion was put in place to provide divine enforcement for the laws necessary for society.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by crimresearch
And exactly which tradition would *you* prefer that the American legal codes be based upon?

I would base them on a tradition that is not discriminatory. If you can't find such a thing, then don't base it on tradition at all. I don't see why we can't define our own rules to accomodate modern society and treat all people fairly. Traditionally, black people in America have been treated very poorly. Doesn't mean we should keep it that way.

But to the point, the claim that "marriage is traditionally one man and one woman" is a fairly limited view. Many cultures have had very different concepts of marriage.

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
That's too secular. I believe the laws were put in place for religious reasons. You don't think people can believe behavior is bad for society because of religious reasons?

[toddjh]

There is one point that I always bring up in discussions of polygamy, which I'm always amazed no one else brings up first: the issue of practicality.

If marriages are limited to two people, then the situation is simple. Inheritance paths are clear, decision making is as simple as possible, with two equal partners. The most complicated arrangement possible is a couple, and that's not bad.

With a poly marriage, even the most simple arrangement (allowing two spouses per person) can allow marriage networks of arbitrary size. How can inheritance function in a system like that? If Person A is married to Person B, who is also married to Person C, and Person A and Person B have a kid, who is responsible? Does Person C have joint custody with Person A and Person B? What about Person D, who is Person C's other spouse? What if Person D doesn't want responsibility for a kid who, after all, he didn't have any part in creating? Maybe he doesn't even know his spouse's spouse's spouse that well.

It would be a nightmare. Are poly marriages treated as multiple weddings of two people each (Person A + Person B, and Person B + Person C) or as a big group (Person A + Person B + Person C)? If the marriage is dissolved, how do you distribute assets between them? Should people who have been in the marriage longer get more of the assets? Suppose one person in the marriage is critically injured. Which of his spouses is responsible for making medical decisions for him? What if the others disagree?

The only solution is to specify in advance the "chain of command." A marriage of more than two people ceases to be a partnership and becomes a set of hierarchies. Apart from being decidedly unromantic, that is a huge increase in paperwork and bureaucracy, and would be a burden on the courts. Even the simplest decision or change would require something not unlike a shareholder's meeting.

Plus, who wants to go to a poly wedding? Exchanging vows is a O(n²) operation.

Jeremy

[crimresearch]

"There is one point that I always bring up in discussions of polygamy, which I'm always amazed no one else brings up first: the issue of practicality.

If marriages are limited to two people, then the situation is simple. Inheritance paths are clear, decision making is as simple as possible, with two equal partners. The most complicated arrangement possible is a couple, and that's not bad."

It is pretty much a given that the laws regarding polygamy have inheritance issues at their basis...absent government passing laws respecting religious practices, the government's main reason for intruding into such an intensely individual liberty is to look after the perceived right of society to deal with property issues though a clearcut line of succession.

[American]

Funny you can knock up as many chicks as you want as long as you don't marry one of them.

Conversely, a chick can be a total whore and then get married when she's old, but if she marries young then she only gets to have one d!ck her whole life.

I hate them all. They should only want me (spiritually, mainly, but also for sporadic sexual congress).

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by toddjh

Plus, who wants to go to a poly wedding? Exchanging vows is a O(n²) operation.

Jeremy

Not only that, the person with 2 wives ends up with 2 mother-in-laws.

I think polygamist marriges should be outlined because of that... after all, aren't there laws against cruel and unusual punishment?

[CBL4]

Banning homosexual marriages discriminates against a small minority. Banning polygamous marriages treats all people the same – e.g. you get to marry any one person of your choice. A government should not discriminate against people without a compelling reason and bigotry based on the ethics of ancient tribes is not compelling.

Having said that, I think we should legalize homosexual marriage today and work on what it would mean to legalize group marriages in a way that is fair to everyone.

CBL

[dsm]

Originally posted by crimresearch

And exactly which tradition would *you* prefer that the American legal codes be based upon?


Uh, none? Laws should be put in place to further the goals of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Tradition, like religion, should not be the reason for establishing laws (they can influence it the discussion, but not be the reason).

[dsm]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
You don't think people can believe behavior is bad for society because of religious reasons?

If the majority believes that, then they can democratically choose to do something about it (as in establish laws). However, the US also believes that the rights of the individual should be preserved, so, if the behaviors do not cause undo harm to the society, then there should be judicial process to ensure that one person's "religious reasons" do not trump another person's individual rights.

[shemp]

Here's my take on an evolutionary argument against polygamy:

Allowing one man to marry multiple women excludes a significant number of men's genes from the gene pool. One can argue that the men whose genes are excluded were inferior (because they were less successful in obtaining mates), but in the long run, allowing polygamy reduces the variety of the gene pool and increases the chances of inheritable defects.

So what happens if you also allow polyandry, the practice of a woman marrying multiple men. This might increase the variety in the gene pool by allowing more men to mate, but it also makes it more difficult for a man to be sure whether the child his wife bears is really his own. (Of course, this could be overcome by DNA testing, but for the sake of argument, let's stick with what nature gave us.) In some species that practice polyandry, males are known to kill the offspring of females with whom they mated if they are unsure of parentage. This also would wreak havoc, as pointed out above, with inheritance laws.

I don't think goverment should be in the business of recognizing marriage. Marriage should be the province of religion. Secular society should recognize only civil unions. Any two adults should be allowed to enter into a civil union for the purposes of spousal benefits and inheritance; but don't call it marriage. Adults in a civil union could be married if they can find any religious body to marry them, or not, if they choose to do so. Those who are married within a religious body could obtain a civil union, or not, if they choose to do so. But keep them separate. This would allow a person to marry multiple people if they wish, but it only would be valid in the eyes of their religion; secular society could just refuse to allow multiple civil unions, so polygamy could be practiced but not civilly recognized. Children from two people united in a religious marriage, but not in a civil union, would have the same status as illegitimate children in the eyes of the state. Similarly, a person could be married to multiple people, but could only provide one of them with spousal benefits through marriage.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by shemp
Any two adults should be allowed to enter into a civil union for the purposes of spousal benefits and inheritance; but don't call it marriage. Adults in a civil union could be married if they can find any religious body to marry them, or not, if they choose to do so. Those who are married within a religious body could obtain a civil union, or not, if they choose to do so. But keep them separate. This would allow a person to marry multiple people if they wish, but it only would be valid in the eyes of their religion; secular society could just refuse to allow multiple civil unions, so polygamy could be practiced but not civilly recognized. Children from two people united in a religious marriage, but not in a civil union, would have the same status as illegitimate children in the eyes of the state. Similarly, a person could be married to multiple people, but could only provide one of them with spousal benefits through marriage.

How is this any different from the status quo (once gay marriage is allowed), apart from what things are called?

Jeremy

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by dsm
If the majority believes that, then they can democratically choose to do something about it (as in establish laws). However, the US also believes that the rights of the individual should be preserved, so, if the behaviors do not cause undo harm to the society, then there should be judicial process to ensure that one person's "religious reasons" do not trump another person's individual rights. My post said nothing about how things should be. I was explaining why they are as they are.

[Michael Redman]

I agree with Shemp. Marriage as a religious sacrament should be separated from union as a pragmatic civil contract.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
I agree with Shemp. Marriage as a religious sacrament should be separated from union as a pragmatic civil contract.

But...isn't it already? You can have a religious wedding ceremony that is not legally binding (I know some gay and even poly people who have done this), and you can have a civil ceremony that is completely non-religious. Surely there's no harm in allowing people to combine the two if they want, to make things easier. What is it that you think should be different, apart from changing the names?

Jeremy

[jnelso99]

The problem is that the fundies get their panties in a bunch over the word "marriage". They feel that if a civil "marriage" includes that of two men or two women, the religious concept of "marriage" is "weakened" somehow, and must be "defended".

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by jnelso99
The problem is that the fundies get their panties in a bunch over the word "marriage". They feel that if a civil "marriage" includes that of two men or two women, the religious concept of "marriage" is "weakened" somehow, and must be "defended". That is exactly right. I don't get the argument, but the Republicans sure seem to.

[davefoc]

Shemp's views are pretty close to mine.

People didn't seem to pick up on the fact that he said any two people (probably meaning any two adults) and not gays. One of my objections to the current discussions about gay marriage is that it ignores other people who may want and deserve the government provided advantages of civil marriage.

.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by davefoc
People didn't seem to pick up on the fact that he said any two people (probably meaning any two adults) and not gays. One of my objections to the current discussions about gay marriage is that it ignores other people who may want and deserve the government provided advantages of civil marriage.

I agree with the sentiment, but (assuming same-sex marriages are soon made legal) what's to stop any two adults from getting married (or "unionized") as things currently stand?

A lot of people seem to agree with Shemp (and don't get me wrong -- I do, too), but I really don't see how what he says is any different from the status quo, apart from the same-sex thing. Can someone enlighten me?

Jeremy

[Michael Redman]

Fundies can't argue that same-sex union damages marriage. In addition, some people want to enter a union, but not one called marriage, due to the religious connotation.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
Fundies can't argue that same-sex union damages marriage.

Let them argue all they want. Changing names isn't going to help in the short term, and in the long term it'll happen whether they like it or not. And, the way things are going now, it won't even be that long term.

In addition, some people want to enter a union, but not one called marriage, due to the religious connotation.

This is where you lose me. It reminds me of the things the anti-gay marriage people say. If other people attach religious significance to their marriages, how does that affect your marriage?

It's a losing battle anyway. In most people's heads, religious and civil marriages will always be the same thing. And that's fine. Let people view marriage however they want, as long as no one's rights are being abridged along the way. For the foreseeable future, people who want a strictly religious marriage or a strictly civil marriage will be in the minority -- but the option is there all the same.

Jeremy

[Dorian Gray]

Interesting. I believe religion was put in place to provide divine enforcement for the laws necessary for society. For a society that would benefit those making the laws in the greatest possible way, yes.
You don't think people can believe behavior is bad for society because of religious reasons? I think people use religion to justify all sorts of actions and thoughts.
REphrase: Polygamy was outlawed for the same reason as homosexual conduct, and murder. Those in charge believed that those practices were harmful to society.
I think that the 'harmful to society' argument is too secular. Instead, I believe those laws were put in place for religious reasons. I would PREFER more secular laws, as these would tend to be more fair and all-encompassing.

If marriages are limited to two people, then the situation is simple. Inheritance paths are clear, decision making is as simple as possible, with two equal partners. The most complicated arrangement possible is a couple, and that's not bad. WRONG! There are PLENTY of nasty probate arguments over inheritance.

Toddjh, I submit to you that you can't use 'too complicated' as a reason to justify banning polygamy. First of all, it's THEIR problem if it's complicated. Second, do you also favor outlawing quantum physics, molecular biology, rocket science, women, or anything ELSE that's 'too complicated'?

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
Toddjh, I submit to you that you can't use 'too complicated' as a reason to justify banning polygamy. First of all, it's THEIR problem if it's complicated.

It's also the courts' problem. I'm not just talking about inheritance, either. Child custody would be a nightmare, which would negatively affect some children, too. It would also be very difficult to determine a person's standing with respect to other people in the marriage graph.

Also, how do you define "cheating" in a polygamous relationship? I know you can define it ethically, but what about in a legal sense, to determine how a divorce should proceed? Can a person forbid his/her spouse from marrying someone else? If not, a person who wanted to have an affair could just nip off to Vegas and marry their partner real quick, then cheat with (legal) impunity.

Second, do you also favor outlawing quantum physics, molecular biology, rocket science, women, or anything ELSE that's 'too complicated'?

Oh, settle down. It's not that polygamy is "just too complicated." It's that polygamy is complicated enough that it's hard to justify in terms of the limited return it would provide. If society is going to provide special treatment in certain situations, those situations need to give something back. Traditionally, marriage has gotten special treatment because it (in theory) provided a stable foundation for family life. Even today, that is still a large part of marriage for the majority of people.

And I'm not talking about "outlawing" anything. I think it's perfectly dandy to have multiple relationships, if that's what you're into. I'm certainly not monogamous myself. I simply think trying to get government tangled up in that would be an almighty mess

Jeremy

[Dorian Gray]

I just think that entanglements and messes are not enough justification to prevent polygamy. As for jetting off to Vegas, I think the marriage wouldn't be legal unless everyone in the polygamy group married the newcomer. I don't think of polygamy in the central figure sense, but in the Heinleinian sense of a businesslike arrangement of equals.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
I just think that entanglements and messes are not enough justification to prevent polygamy. As for jetting off to Vegas, I think the marriage wouldn't be legal unless everyone in the polygamy group married the newcomer.

So it seems as though you think the entanglements and messes are sufficient to prevent some forms of polygamy, no? You agree that the "central figure" variety (which is not the name I would pick, by the way) would be unworkable?

I think the Heinleinian variety will be far too rare to worry about. Very few people would want to live that way as a social group -- even most monogamous relationships don't make it, and, as you add more people, the potential for personal incompatibility increases at a geometric rate. I'd argue that those who want a "businesslike arrangement of equals" would be better served by forming a partnership or corporation.

Jeremy

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
I think people use religion to justify all sorts of actions and thoughts.
* * *
I think that the 'harmful to society' argument is too secular. Instead, I believe those laws were put in place for religious reasons. I would PREFER more secular laws, as these would tend to be more fair and all-encompassing. You seem to be implying that people do not believe religion, but only use it as a tool to control people and excuse actions they would take anyway.

People who believe that moral standards are handed down from the bible genuinely believe that society will suffer if we deviate from those standards. While there are obviously shrewd con-artists in power who do not believe, but recognize the utility of exploiting religion, that is not the case for most believers, nor is it a reasonable explanation of how a democratic society decides on its laws. We have religiously influenced laws in this country because people honestly believe that their religion contributes to a better way of life, and it's rules benefit society as a whole.

It's our job to educate people into seeing that laws should be based on reason and human nature, and that, while such laws often coincide with most religions' teachings (for obvious reasons) sometimes there are conflicts, and we are better off in those circumstances sticking with reason as all see it, rather than the religion of some.

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
As for jetting off to Vegas, I think the marriage wouldn't be legal unless everyone in the polygamy group married the newcomer. As far as I know, traditional polygamy models have one man who enteres into a series of bilateral contracts. The various wives are not married to each other. If we legalized polygamy, of course, we could adopt whatever rules we chose. How about a chain marriage, where one person originates the union, and the second partner can add one new person, and that third person can then add one, and so on? Soon, we'll be members of long marriage strings, like clans. Then we can fued.

I guess I'm about done contributing to this thread.