Anyone want to discuss polygamy?

[gatorsmom]

Tonight was the season finale of Season 4 of Big Love (and by the way, it was GOOD). It's a show on HBO about the life of a polygamist family. The Husband, Bill Henrickson (played by Bill Paxton), has 3 wives and was born on a fundamentalist, polygamist compound of LDS. He was pushed out of his house at a young age and became a "Lost Boy" but eventually became a successful business man who was able to support his 3 wives and their children.

Of course, this is all fiction, but it got me thinking (as I'm sure the writers of the show had intended). I believe polygamy is wrong. But topics we've discussed here kept ringing in my mind. Mainly I started thinking, who am I to say that this lifestyle is wrong simply because it's what I believe? What if there are families in hiding out there like this, who are successfully supporting their families without breaking any laws except the ones that say they can't marry more than one person?

Any thoughts?

[jgenie]

It wouldn't work for me - DH has so little time that he isn't working or traveling and the thought that I would have to share that would not fly here. I think it would be great to have the extra help around the house taking care of the kids and house, but I would prefer to just hire help if we needed it.

If other people wanted to live that way I don't think it's my place to tell them they can't. The only issues I can think of off the top of my head would be the practice of 'marrying' young women to older men without them having a free choice and the practice of kicking out young men to keep competition for the women low.

[gatorsmom]

The only issues I can think of off the top of my head would be the practice of 'marrying' young women to older men without them having a free choice and the practice of kicking out young men to keep competition for the women low.

If you haven't seen Big Love yet, you should rent it. It's really entertaining!

In the show, it's only the Fundamentalists on the compounds that force the young, minor girls to marry and force the boys out. Bill Henrickson- who is not a Fundamentalist- married the 3 women he did because he was in love with each of them and they chose to marry him. He loves all his children and would never kick them out to keep down competition. He can feed and support all his children too. They live in side-by-side houses that share a common backyard in suburbia. Big Love shows a polygamist family that is healthy and working (well it was until Bill decided to become a politician).

The only way I could be in a polygamist marriage would be if I were the first wife. I'm way too bossy to be anything but the first! :p

[sariana]

I've actually thought about this a lot. I'm very much a live and let live kind of person. I really don't care whom someone chooses to marry, or why, as long as everyone is fully informed and is of age (whatever that happens to be).

The only real problem I see is someone taking advantage of tax laws and health insurance. It would be unfair to allow someone to claim multiple people as dependents because that could affect how much income tax the household pays. (I don't know enough about tax laws to know how this would actually affect someone's returns.)

I don't think an employer should be responsible for providing health care to more than one spouse because doing so could lead to abuse. "You don't have health insurance? Oh, okay, I'll marry you then."

Of course, universal health care would preclude the latter situation. But that's an entirely different topic.

And I have to admit, there are times when it would be nice to say, "Not tonight. Go see if number 2 is interested.":D

[Melaine]

and i have to admit, there are times when it would be nice to say, "not tonight. Go see if number 2 is interested.":d

:rotflmao:

[viba424]

Im looking at this thread scared Ill see a spoiler for season 4. Please dont spoil! We're waiting to watch it on dvd.

[american_mama]

DH and I halfway through season 2, watching one episode a night, plus we saw the first 2 or 3 episodes of season 4. Just saw the one last night where Nikki and Bill go to the compound for Roman's wedding to Rhonda. We talk about it a TON. I resisted watching it for several years because I thought it would normalize polygamy to me, which it does. I really think polygamy should be a line in the sand that we as society do not cross, so I am not happy about my sympathetic reaction to the characters, but man, is it a good show. Very interesting, entertaining, thought-provoking, and DH loves talking about it which is good for us, because I like movie and TV but they rarely interest DH.

Here are my thoughts:

1. I am sure there are "normal" polygamous families living in suburbia. A close friend of mine is Mormon, and when I visited her family in Utah (very close to the suburb where "Big Love" takes place), her father mentioned that there was a polygamist family up the street. Soon after the premier of Big Love, I heard an NPR interview with a polygamous family (the wives were vocal about not liking the show, too much focus on sex, and the largely silent husband admittedly privately to the interviewer that he thought the show was great). I also heard an NPR interview with an African-American Muslim family that was polygamous (one husband, two wives, no children at home).

2. I am a live-and-let-live person too, but can't feel good about extending that attitude towards polygamy, even though the show makes it easy to do so.

So, what's bad about polygamy?

1. First, all the secrecy, hiding, shame, and lack of legal protections or responsibilities that come with the illegality of it. In the show, the first wife and subsequent children are legal, carry the father's last name, can be a family in public, and would of course have rights if the husband were to leave, divorce, or die. But the other families have no legal standing in those situations. The little children can't even call out "daddy" in public, the older children can't readily have friends over. A morally stand-up woman who has gone to the extremes for her religious beliefs has to deny any interst in that very religion (because how can she explain why she is so religious and not going to church, and how can she go to church without being found out?) AND gets labeled a tart, because how else does she explain being unmarried and having children and/or being pregnant?

2. But let's say polygamy was legal. It still greatly confuses familial roles, making young women (let's say 21, like Margie is in season 2) supposed "mothers" to teenage sons from the first marriage. That's a recipe for role confusion and conflict, to put it mildy, and I would think sexual attraction is a common problem between, at the least, the teen sons towards the new young women in their midst. And if that comes out, it causes problems for everyone, especially the father and son who become competitors rather than father-son. It confuses other roles too.... the sister wives are all supposedly peers, even if one is a wise grandmother and the other an idiotic young woman. It makes the young woman a mother, a boss, an authority to the adult children of her husband.

3. Even if polygamy was legal, who would sign on it for it? Women with few choices, I think. So far, in season 2, Margene (wife #3) has talked about how she never saw a family that worked before she met Bill's and how she was aimless in her job, unconnected to her family or high school friends. Who else would sign on to be a plural wife, with no power in the family and only a third of her husband's attention, time, money and general resources, all things she is entitled to 100% as a wife? Who would say that's good enough for them? Somoeone who doesn't think they can do any better. There was a short plotline in season 1 where a non-polygamous Mormon guy is interested in Margene, so she could have had a normal life if she'd believed it, waited for it, developed it.

4. It's probably just this show, whcih is primarily about the adult relationships, but the parents don't do a great job raising through children, especially the older teens. The teens are very polite and responsive to the adults on the show, but they go out and drink Robotussin at college parties, have reluctant sex with their girlfriend, try to break up with girlfriends, get beat up at a concert, etc., all pretty much without their parents even noticing. Again, I am pretty sure that is just because the show wants to focus on the adult relationships, but it does lead me to wonder if a polygamous family simply becomes so large, so complex with personalities, relationships, jealousies, schedules that some family members invariably get overlooked.

Love to hear others thoughts!

5.

[sste]

I think any familial structure or relationship between consenting adults should be recognized legally and is not a problem. So, as a supporter of same-sex marriage I am also in favor of legally recognizing polygamous arrangements. In addition to all of the civil liberties interests, I think it is efficient for people to have flexibility to figure out what works best for them individually rather than a one-size fits all approach to families/marriage.

Could I see myself in a polygamous or polyamorous relationship? Well, I actually think I WOULD be able to function with DH as as Husband #1 as my primary emotional and sexual relationship and a husband #2 who wanted to be a sahp and an occasional sexual diversion :) in exchange for financial support and family membership. I don't know if I am cut out for a relationship where I was one of multiple wives, I can be intensely competitive.

[mommy111]

Let me start out by saying that I do not support polygamy and I'm glad its not something that our legal system allows, because I can see how it could be used as a very abusive tool. However, having lived in parts of Africa that are polygamous during my childhood travels, I just want to put out the perspective of a polygamous society.
1) Polygamy affords the legal rights and protections of marriage to women who would otherwise be mistresses and have no legal rights.
2) In societies where the male mortality rate is higher (e.g tribal wars), its allows for the women in society who outnumber men to be married even if it be to someone who has other wives, and therefore offers them financial protection.
3) Definitely the 'not tonight dear, ask #2' advantage
But I also see how polygamy could be grossly abused and I think for us and for our society, it is just not an appropriate choice.

[StantonHyde]

A voice from the land of polygamy here. There really are sort of 2 kinds of polygamy. There's the cult people (think the Texas raid, etc) and there are about 3 of those in Utah. They are beholden to one leader and his whims. This is where you see the abuses: young girls married off, boys kicked out, whole families reassigned to worthy men, and a smorgasboard of welfare abuse. These women are not supported. The husbands provide housing, but the woman has to work to support her 6 kids--which also means foodstamps etc because how can one woman (who does not even have a high school education) support 6 kids? Plus, in some of those cults, the members work at cult owned businesses that pay in script. That is virtual slavery.

And then there are the fairly normal people who live up the street kind. In general, you see smaller familiesi there--eg 3 wives, not 8 or 10. One of the best examples was someone who lived in Big Water Utah (I think his name was Alex Joseph) who had something like 5 wives. One was the mayor of the town, the other ran a store, and a couple of them stayed home and raised the kids. I am not sure what he did. These women were all happy with their lives.

In some ways, it really makes sense. One woman can't do it all. And, frankly, I find women way more helpful with kids than men. (IME) And I can talk to women about all the details that DH could not care less about!

I honestly think they ought to legalize it because that would give the women and children the protection they deserve. I wouldn't do it and I would support any and all legal actions against the cult groups.

If you want to read some interesting books on this issue, try Under the Banner of Heaven by John Krakauer and The Red Tent by Anita Diamant. The first is book about some whack job Mormon fundamentalists and basically what religion/culture can do when it is taken to the extreme. The other is a fictional book about a woman who grows up in Biblical times in a polygamist family.

[gatorsmom]

But I also see how polygamy could be grossly abused and I think for us and for our society, it is just not an appropriate choice.

Really, any relationship can be abused. There can be domestic violence between a man and his wife. Or between 2 same sex partners. Or to a father (or mother) and their children. And honestly, I think if there was ever a society who should be open to polygamy, it's ours. Honestly, I see a polygamist family like the Henricksons being more suited to our society than a homosexual family. And frankly, I think if our society legalized homosexual marriage, I think it should consider polygamy. (again, I am just playing the devil's advocate here- due to my religious beliefs, I think polygamy is wrong).

I think I remember hearing or reading somewhere that the reason polygamy was outlawed in Utah was due to societal pressures- not because of a conflict with an LDS law or policy (not sure that made sense, I'm struggling to find the right words here). If there are well-functioning polygamist families who contribute positively to society, then why couldn't it be an appropriate choice for our society?

And I'm honestly surprised that those people who are very vocal about their support of gay marriage are not on board with legalizing polygamy? Why is the line drawn there?

[gatorsmom]

A voice from the land of polygamy here. There really are sort of 2 kinds of polygamy. There's the cult people (think the Texas raid, etc) and there are about 3 of those in Utah. They are beholden to one leader and his whims. This is where you see the abuses: young girls married off, boys kicked out, whole families reassigned to worthy men, and a smorgasboard of welfare abuse. These women are not supported. The husbands provide housing, but the woman has to work to support her 6 kids--which also means foodstamps etc because how can one woman (who does not even have a high school education) support 6 kids? Plus, in some of those cults, the members work at cult owned businesses that pay in script. That is virtual slavery.

And then there are the fairly normal people who live up the street kind. In general, you see smaller familiesi there--eg 3 wives, not 8 or 10. One of the best examples was someone who lived in Big Water Utah (I think his name was Alex Joseph) who had something like 5 wives. One was the mayor of the town, the other ran a store, and a couple of them stayed home and raised the kids. I am not sure what he did. These women were all happy with their lives.

In some ways, it really makes sense. One woman can't do it all. And, frankly, I find women way more helpful with kids than men. (IME) And I can talk to women about all the details that DH could not care less about!

I honestly think they ought to legalize it because that would give the women and children the protection they deserve. I wouldn't do it and I would support any and all legal actions against the cult groups.

If you want to read some interesting books on this issue, try Under the Banner of Heaven by John Krakauer and The Red Tent by Anita Diamant. The first is book about some whack job Mormon fundamentalists and basically what religion/culture can do when it is taken to the extreme. The other is a fictional book about a woman who grows up in Biblical times in a polygamist family.

Thank you for your input. I read The REd Tent several years ago and loved it. It's hard to see that applied to our American society though. I think the Henrickson's from Big Love do a great job of helping understand how a modern, American, polygamist family would function.

[egoldber]

When I was in high school, a friend of mine's family was polygamous. Her father had two wives, her mother and her mother's younger sister. (Obviously only the first marriage was legal.) He had two houses, one for each wife.

When the younger wife became pregnant, both families moved together and bought a house large enough for all of them to live in. I lost track of her at that point, but it seemed to work for the wives. But my friend was deeply ashamed and embarrassed.

[Tondi G]

And I have to admit, there are times when it would be nice to say, "Not tonight. Go see if number 2 is interested.":D

this would be the only reason I could find it appealing. LOL. I am too competitive though... I couldn't share my husband.

[gatorsmom]

But my friend was deeply ashamed and embarrassed.

Probably not unlike how homosexuals have felt for a long time.

[JTsMom]

I'm all about letting consenting adults make their own decisions about these things. Those two aspects are key though- consenting and adults, which rules out the cult types, of course.

I can see where the healthcare and tax situation could become tricky though, and I'm not sure what the answer is there, but I don't think that's reason enough for it to be outlawed.

I would have no interest in a polygamous/polyamorous relationship, but I can see where it would have certain benefits, namely working with others to raise children, etc, which has already been mentioned above.

[american_mama]

The reason I think homosexual marriage is ok but plural marriage not is:

1) I think homosexuality is generally innate to a person and ought to receive the same legal protections as other innate characteristics often discrimated against, like race and gender. And I think the innateness helps makes the moral case that gay people deserve the same treatment as heterosexuals. I do not think plural marriage is innate.

2) The model for homosexual marriage - two people - is already established, with all the legal and social structures to support it. You can apply them all to two gay people as easily as two heterosexuals, with the possible exception of assisted reproductive technology and what that might mean in a custody dispute (like one parter is the egg donor and one is the surrogate who gave birth, or one partner supplied the sperm and the other partner nothing biological). But law about those issues is evolving, and applies to heterosexual couples too, so I still think the model is there.

3.) Personally, I feel polygamy generally gives women the short end of the stick, which is why I oppose it. I do not think homosexuality in general or gay marriage targets women in any way.

For all those saying/joking about the appeal of "not tonight, dear... see wife #2," that is not how it happens on the show. They rotate nights with the husband (9 pm to 9 am) and those hours are just between husband and that wife, to have sex or argue about it like any other couple. There is a scene where Barb (first wife) doesn't want sex and turns Bill down. He's not allowed to go to another wife. Another scene where he gets confused about where he is supposed to be, snuggles in with wife #3 who is very happy to have him but says he forgot and is supposed to go to wife #1 (and when he arrives there, a kid is in bed with his wife, so he ends up on the couch alone). There are also scenes - in fact, a whole plotline - where Bill has impromptu sex with a wife when it's not their turn together, and it causes problems. In other words, there are times when the wives want their husband and can't have him, because he "belongs" to another woman that night. Not such a nice idea, is it?

[stillplayswithbarbies]

3.) Personally, I feel polygamy generally gives women the short end of the stick, which is why I oppose it.

If polygamy was legal, would it be just for multiple wives, or couldn't a woman have multiple husbands too?

And gay people could have multiple spouses.

And you could have a triad situation where all three (or more) people in the marriage have a relationship with each other, gay, bisexual, and heterosexual in any combination.

Polygamy isn't just "sister wives" and one husband.

[bubbaray]

My maternal GF's family did The Trek and split from the Mormon church (which then supported polygamy) over this very issue. My relatives were very much opposed to polygamy.

Joking references aside (with respect to how nice it would be for *me* to have a SAHW be June Cleaver for me), I am very much opposed to polygamy. It is a highly relevant issue here as there is a criminal trial ongoing and one of the issues before the courts is whether the Canadian Charter of Rights can be used to strike down the provisions of the Criminal Code re polygamy under freedom of religion. I think that is a crock.

Polygamy is a crime and should remain so. JMHO.

[maestramommy]

I'm selfish. I don't want to share my man. :loveeyes:

[pharmjenn]

If polygamy was legal, would it be just for multiple wives, or couldn't a woman have multiple husbands too?

And gay people could have multiple spouses.

And you could have a triad situation where all three (or more) people in the marriage have a relationship with each other, gay, bisexual, and heterosexual in any combination.

Polygamy isn't just "sister wives" and one husband.

I knew a family in Maine that had something similar. The couple was married, with 2 kids an another on the way. They had a live in lover, female, that was with both spouses. The wife was bisexual, so enjoyed time with both the husband and the female lover, as did the husband. I am sure there were some three-ways going on as well, but that is another thread!
Anyway, they lived very happily together.

[kijip]

Ok, first off there is no way, no how that I am interested in having sex with someone besides my husband. And no way, no how that I would be down with him being with someone else. Sure, I say "not tonight" sometimes, but that just makes the next morning or night that much better. :heartbeat:

Second off, I find the statement that polygamy/polyandry/plural relationships would somehow be better in our culture ("more suited") than homosexual marriages patently offensive. Maybe some can identify with a man with 3 wives in a white suburb better than they can with gay relationships, but that is all in the eye of the beholder. The idea that gay marriage opens the door for all sorts of different marriages is one of the least convincing arguments on the gay marriage issue. Our culture is set up for couples- taxes, health insurance, next of kin etc. Same sex fits into that far easier than plural marriages. Should the company I work for offer health insurance to families with more than 2 adults? 3? 14? What about social security benefits and survivors benefits? How the heck does a same sex couple, which we are legally set up for in every way and is already legal and working well in some states, less suitable to our culture?

Having observed a close relative seriously hurt, financially and emotionally, by the implications of a plural arrangement, I am more than a little skeptical. I tend to doubt that it plays out like it does on the TV. I don't think it should be illegal, but I don't think that our culture can in anyway accommodate the economic implications of group marriages- so social security, health insurance etc are huge unsolvable issues in my mind. Unless we have single payer, but that does not address the SS and tax issues.

[gatorsmom]

If polygamy was legal, would it be just for multiple wives, or couldn't a woman have multiple husbands too?



Actually, this very interesting situation came up this season. Without giving away too many spoilers, one of Bill's wives went into a civil marriage with a man who was going to be deported because his visa ran out. The topic came up of why couldn't Bill's wife be married to Bill as well as the foreigner? Bill said it wasn't right but when asked why not he essentially replied "because it doesn't work that way." It was an interesting turn of events!

[kijip]

If polygamy was legal, would it be just for multiple wives, or couldn't a woman have multiple husbands too?

Polygamy isn't just "sister wives" and one husband.

To get technical, polygamy is nearly always used for just multiple wives to 1 man. The technical term is polygyny, but that is nearly always replaced with the word polygamy. Polyandry technically and more commonly used for the far less common practice of multiple husbands to 1 wife. All sorts of names get applied to more than 1 wife/husband where the sexual relationships are not all heterosexual. Plural marriage, group marriage, polyamorous or just plain poly.

I tend to agree with Dan Savage on the subject:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP_hZBLlTtE

[bigpassport]

For the record, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (i.e. the Mormon Church) does not practice or condone polygamy. The LDS church discontinued polygamy officially in 1890. Anyone currently practicing polygamy is not LDS or Mormon.

[gatorsmom]

For the record, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (i.e. the Mormon Church) does not practice or condone polygamy. The LDS church discontinued polygamy officially in 1890. Anyone currently practicing polygamy is not LDS or Mormon.

If you are LDS, I hope you don't think this thread or anything in it has been respectful. I absolutely didn't intend for that to be the case and if it is, I"m sorry.

And I'm wondering if you can tell us why the LDS church discontinued polygamy?

[BelleoftheBallFlagstaff]

For the record, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (i.e. the Mormon Church) does not practice or condone polygamy. The LDS church discontinued polygamy officially in 1890. Anyone currently practicing polygamy is not LDS or Mormon.

They may not be recognized by the church, but the same way Catholicism is opposed to homosexuality and there are gay Catholics, there are polygamist LDS people.

I have no interest in polygamy, but to each their own. Consenting adults that don't harm others should be allowed to marry who they choose. Maybe if I had 10 husbands one would actually pick his underwear up off the floor. :ROTFLMAO:

[kijip]

And I'm wondering if you can tell us why the LDS church discontinued polygamy?

Throughout the 1880s, the federal government placed considerable pressure on Utah to bar the practice. They went so far as removing a large number of territory officials wholesale because of their support for polygamy. The church initially barred the practice in 1894 or 95 and Utah became a state not long after in 1896. While this was not the only reason and polygamy was not really as widespread as one might think, there was considerable legal and social pressure placed on the church to limit and end the practice. Some non-Mormon politicians considered polygamy to be akin to or as repugnant as slavery and would have blocked Utah's statehood by any means necessary.

[kijip]

I have no interest in polygamy, but to each their own. Consenting adults that don't harm others should be allowed to marry who they choose. Maybe if I had 10 husbands one would actually pick his underwear up off the floor. :ROTFLMAO:

Or there would just be 10 times as much underwear on the floor.

[BelleoftheBallFlagstaff]

Or there would just be 10 times as much underwear on the floor.

:hysterical: That would be my luck!

[daniele_ut]

They may not be recognized by the church, but the same way Catholicism is opposed to homosexuality and there are gay Catholics, there are polygamist LDS people.


Someone who is polygamist and shares the beliefs of the LDS church might call themselves LDS, but if a person is found to be practicing polygamy then that person is excommunicated and removed from the records of the church.


I will admit that I haven't watched the show because we don't have HBO. While there are families living in Utah who are practicing polygamy, I've lived here for 10 years and the only ones I've ever seen are the cult variety when we've driven through the area of their compound.

[BelleoftheBallFlagstaff]

Someone who is polygamist and shares the beliefs of the LDS church might call themselves LDS, but if a person is found to be practicing polygamy then that person is excommunicated and removed from the records of the church.


Like I said they are not recognized by the church, just as a gay person can call themselves Catholic, but the church doesn't accept their "way of life" as being acceptable. I never said that the LDS church condones polygamy.

[Sweetum]

I think the reasons that a lot of people mention here in support of polygamy are a benefit of what we call a "joint family" - with parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins - there are some that work outside the home, some at home, some take care of the kids, and they all have their own little families going on...IMHO you don't need to be married to several women or be part of that kind of a marriage for that benefit - get along with your siblings and or parents and all can live together!

The reason I'm uncomfortable with polygamy is because it'll boil down to a power struggle at some time. And tell me again, why is it that a man or a woman needs to have sex with a number of people, and not just one? As I see it, it's impossible for one person to be involved with the lives of so many people and be intimate with so many spouses. Can't do them all justice. So, does the "elder"/first wife bless he 2nd marriage, or does she pick the 2nd one...just doesn't work that way.

And yes, I'm too attached to DH...

-SunshineAndMe

[mommy111]

To get technical, polygamy is nearly always used for just multiple wives to 1 man. The technical term is polygyny, but that is nearly always replaced with the word polygamy. Polyandry technically and more commonly used for the far less common practice of multiple husbands to 1 wife. All sorts of names get applied to more than 1 wife/husband where the sexual relationships are not all heterosexual. Plural marriage, group marriage, polyamorous or just plain poly.

I tend to agree with Dan Savage on the subject:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP_hZBLlTtE

This. Since polygamy in its presently understood/practiced form essentially discriminates against women, that is why I do not support its legalization.


They may not be recognized by the church, but the same way Catholicism is opposed to homosexuality and there are gay Catholics, there are polygamist LDS people.

I have no interest in polygamy, but to each their own. Consenting adults that don't harm others should be allowed to marry who they choose. Maybe if I had 10 husbands one would actually pick his underwear up off the floor. :ROTFLMAO:
And even in the best case scenario, you would have 9 pairs of underwear on the floor.

[bigpassport]

If you are LDS, I hope you don't think this thread or anything in it has been respectful. I absolutely didn't intend for that to be the case and if it is, I"m sorry.

And I'm wondering if you can tell us why the LDS church discontinued polygamy?

I do think this thread has been respectful and thought-provoking. There was some loose terminology used, however, so I wanted to clarify (because there IS some public misconception) that Mormons do not practice polygamy. The LDS Church has stated to the media that the term used to describe polygamist sects as "fundamentalist Mormon" is incorrect.

As to why the LDS Church discontinued polygamy, this is from the LDS.org website:

"Influenced by rumors and exaggerated reports, the United States Congress, beginning in 1862, enacted a series of laws against polygamy that became increasingly harsh. By the 1880s many Latter-day Saint men were imprisoned or went into hiding.

In 1889 in the face of increasing hardships and the threat of government confiscation of Church property, including temples, Wilford Woodruff, President of the Church at the time, prayed for guidance. He was inspired to issue a document that officially ended the sanction of plural marriage by the Church. The document, called the Manifesto, was accepted by Church members in a general conference held in October 1890."

[StantonHyde]

I tend to agree with Mark Twain's argument against polygamy, "a man cannot serve 2 masters".

As for more info on why the LDS church discontinued polygamy. Basically, there was a ton of federal pressure (including an army fort on the hillside with its cannons pointed straight at Brigham Young's living quarters) to bring Utah into the union and to do that, they had to renounce polygamy. But that doesn't mean it stopped. There were officials in the church who had polygamous marriages into the early 1900s. When it was sanctioned, it was controlled. Only men who could afford multiple wives were allowed to have them and each wife had to provided with equal living situations. It was hard even then, though. There are some interesting biographies/autobiographies of plural wives who lived in that time. And as much as they believed in living the principal, it was still very, very hard.

I also agree that the whole benefits/insurance issue would be very difficult. But in our city, we have a domestic partner registry, where you can register as a family even if you are not a spouse--e.g. if I lived with and supported my elderly mother, I could put her on my insurance. I am not sure how many dependents you can claim, though.

I think its interesting that Daniele hasn't seen any polygamists except in their compounds. I have seen families at the zoo, hiking in the mountains, etc etc. They are easy to spot with the poofy hair, the dresses, and the zillion kids and women with very few men.

And I do think it could be applied to today's society. One wife could be a SAHM, one could work, etc etc. But, as someone mentioned, that is what extended families are for!!!! (except that I couldn't afford the amount of therapy I would need if I lived with my extended family :ROTFLMAO:)

[daniele_ut]

I think its interesting that Daniele hasn't seen any polygamists except in their compounds. I have seen families at the zoo, hiking in the mountains, etc etc. They are easy to spot with the poofy hair, the dresses, and the zillion kids and women with very few men.


I guess I have seen *those* types of polygamous in places like the zoo, but I've not noticed any of the more mainstream polygamous folk - the ones similar to those portrayed in the HBO show. I know they exist because I've had friends tell me they have neighbors who are polygamous. Now that I think of it, dh is convinced that one of the families who lives behind us is polygamous, but I've never seen anyone but the kids playing in their backyard, so I'm not sure.

[american_mama]

StillsplayswithBarbies makes a good point, that legal polygamy could lead to all sorts of plural marriages, not just one man with multiple wives. But the global evidence throughout time is that polygamy is far, far, far more common than polyandry (multiple husbands). So I think any support of polygamy has to recognize that the large majority of the time, you're talking about one husband and multiple wives.

Come on, will no one else take a stand and come up with some reasons against legal polygamy? Are there so many people here who really think it's a dandy idea? I'd love some more reasons against it.

More reasons against the legalization of polygamy:

This may not matter to some, but if you legalize polygamy, you would have to legalize same sex marriage. Because what if the husband died, divorced or abandoned the family, then the wives would remain married to each other. If they weren't married, who would own communal property, inherit stuff, get benefits, have custody of the children?

In the TV version of polygamy, Bill falls in love with his wives and they with him. The other wives get to vote if the wife should be allowed in, and in the show, the wives frequently tell each other that they love each other (despite sometimes weak evidence for it). But the wives did not initiate the search for another woman, and they didn't seek out or choose that person. They only approved it. And the sexual element of marital love is, we assume, absent between wives in a polygamous relationship. So, again, if the husband is dead/divorced/abandoned, what holds the wives together? They are married legally in our fantasy world, but they never really choose each other. Surely some - Barb in the show, for instance - would say that without the husband as the glue, they want out of this marriage. In fact, the same thing could happen even if the husband stuck around - a wife could just decide she wants out. And that would lead to a lot of societal instability, legal backlog, and trouble for children, with the sheer number of wives/mothers meaning that they might come and go at a greater clip than in a two-person marriage.

I don't deny that I can see benefits to polygamy, mostly in terms of sharing the work of a family and, conceivably, in calling adults to strive for the highest standards of patience, tolerance, generosity, fairness, etc. You'd need those traits for an amicable plural marriage. But, I suppose you could say the same about slavery. It sure would make the workload easier. That doesn't make it right.

[StantonHyde]

oh, believe me, I could go on and on about the abuses it engenders and why I think it is a bad idea. Check out any of the recent books written by ex-wives and it just boggles the mind.

But I don't judge relationships between consenting adults. I firmly believe that same sex unions should be legal.

The issues with polygamy are often that the women are not adults. And can it really be consenting if you have been raised to believe that not living as part of the clan would bring eternal damnation; that the outside world is a terrible, terrible place where people will hurt you; and you have no education or job skills; and if you wanted to leave the marriage, you would be taking your 6 kids with you...

[wellyes]

I find polygamy distasteful and troublesome but I can't think of a good reason for it to be *illegal*.

I do have a negative view of FLDS (Fundamentalist LDS) -- which is a cult IMO and is defintely not part of mainstream LDS. The bulk of polygamists in the US are FLDS but the polygamy isn't what bothers me. Wiki article about FLDS leader / "Prophet" Warren Jeffs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Jeffs).

[crl]

Well, I'm in favor of same sex marriage. And, honestly, I'm not sure I see a whole lot to object to in polygamy either, assuming, of course, consenting adults. I think there would be some legal challenges to figure out (benefits, custody of children, inheritance, etc, etc). But I think the legal system should serve us not the other way around, so that's no reason to prohibit it. All of this is a political point of view.

Personally, no, I would not participate in polygamy. I don't have the energy it would take to maintain that many emotionally complicated relationships. And it would not be consistent with my religious beliefs.

Catherine

[gatorsmom]

That doesn't make it right.

But I guess my original question was- what specifically makes it wrong? There are some good arguments for and many good ones against it. But those are all based on our opinions and beliefs. But really, is it right to push off our beliefs of what is right and wrong on others (as long as it's consenting adults)? If Bill and his 3 wives who are successfully supporting their family and contributing to society in a positive way, who are we to point fingers and say that their way is wrong? I guess I"m having a hard time understanding how those in our society who say that we can't push off our beliefs on others as a reason for supporting gay marriage (and other topics) then go ahead and judge others who want to enter into a different kind of marriage. It seems to me that the same argument could be applied to both.

And honestly, from what you've said here about the manifesto, I'm surprised the LDS continues to support it. It kind of looks to me to be a matter of the Federal Government's beliefs vs. Joseph Smith's beliefs. I'm surprised that the LDS is still taking the stance of the Federal Governement instead of supporting the belief's of it's founder. There's probably a lot more to that whole issue but from my ignorant outsider's viewpoint, that's how it looks.

[Tracey]

My primary objections to polygamy are that it lends itself to abuse/neglect of women and children, weakens the family unit, and burdens the welfare system. Also, I think this arrangement is just not beneficial to our society as a whole. If we were in a society where there were few men, high infant mortality, short life expectancies, and an economic system of subsistence farming or hunting and gathering, then I would see a benefit for polygamy. The species needs to survive. There would still be problems (those men in the Old Testament were always having trouble out of the wives and handmaidens), but the members would benefit more than they would be harmed. In our modern society we are not focused on survival in the same way. I can’t see this as being a win-win situation for many people.

[bigpassport]

And honestly, from what you've said here about the manifesto, I'm surprised the LDS continues to support it. It kind of looks to me to be a matter of the Federal Government's beliefs vs. Joseph Smith's beliefs. I'm surprised that the LDS is still taking the stance of the Federal Governement instead of supporting the belief's of it's founder. There's probably a lot more to that whole issue but from my ignorant outsider's viewpoint, that's how it looks.

Yeah...that's a little simplistic. Let's not go there.

[sariana]

And honestly, from what you've said here about the manifesto, I'm surprised the LDS continues to support it. It kind of looks to me to be a matter of the Federal Government's beliefs vs. Joseph Smith's beliefs. I'm surprised that the LDS is still taking the stance of the Federal Governement instead of supporting the belief's of it's founder. There's probably a lot more to that whole issue but from my ignorant outsider's viewpoint, that's how it looks.

There was a real, political reason that the church changed its stance. I don't remember what it was (so why am I bothering to post about it?), but I do remember thinking that the church did not have much of a choice. It might have had something to do with Utah's statehood; I'm not sure. But someone had something real to lose by not changing the policy to comply with the government's wishes.

[StantonHyde]

If you want more info on polygamy as practiced in Utah, check out this link. It has recent info on all the trials in the last year, if you check out some of the middle of the page links, it has good background info. This is from the local Salt Lake City paper.

http://www.sltrib.com/polygamy

[gatorsmom]

Thanks for the info. I've found this discussion very, very interesting and informative.

[american_mama]

>> But I guess my original question was- what specifically makes it wrong? ..... is it right to push off our beliefs of what is right and wrong on others (as long as it's consenting adults)?

I have tried to be specific. I numbered four reasons why polygamy should remain illegal in my first post and two in separate paragraphs in my second post. Those reasons are fundamental to polygamy even if it is two consenting adults.

Essentially, the same reasons why I think it should be illegal are why I think it is wrong, although it is an interesting argument that someone else made that the justice system (and perhaps all of our systems) should serve us and not the other way around.

Our laws are based on society's ideas of what is right and wrong, so I think it is intrinsic to a judicial system - judicial is, after all, based in the word "judge" - and in fact the purpose of the legal system to establish and uphold certain standards of right and wrong. Would anyone here say the legal system should be silent if one adult asks another adult to shoot her in the head, and he complies? It's just two consenting adults, right? Obviously, no. I am not the most eloquent in saying this, but we believe in certain things in our society - the equal worth of men and women, defined familial roles, protection of children, individual actions not hurting larger society - and I think polygamy weakens those things.

In general, I do agree it's an interesting question about when it's ok to try and force my views, or many people's views, of what is right on others. The basic question applies to many so-called "victimless" crimes - legalization of drugs, especially "soft" drugs, prostitution. I think there are well-thought answers to that question of whose standards apply, because it's got to be as old as time, but I am not a philosophy or legal scholar.

[mommy111]

Lisa, to answer your question, I being someone who supports legalization of gay marriage but not necessarily polygamy:
-It seems to me that the conventionally accepted model of polygamy is much more susceptible to abuse of women and abusive relationships. This may be because in a societal context, we have seen it happen in situations where underage girls are forced into marriage, marriage to much older men etc. Also, we see it almost exclusively in situations of men married to multiple women....the conventional argument against women being married to multiple men being that of kids and who do ou decide who the child 'belongs' to etc.
-To me, polygamy is distasteful. That is probably a totally socially conditioned response, and probably because my exposure to polygamy has been in the context above, either in our travels to tribal africa (doesn't South Africa's current president have multiple wives?) or on TV raids of cult compounds. But I also recognize that distasteful for me should not mean illegal. Which brings up another issue...
-Noone 'owns' the issue, which is probably why it is still not legal in the US. If, for example, the Church of the LDS would say that it was part of their religious practice, I would back off completely because I don't believe in interfering with anyone's religion (or anyone's secular rights if it was not a church or a religious institution) as long as we, legally, ensure enough protections for people in this situation.
-And finally, it leaves questions in my mind about consent....what if, for example, my (theoretical) husband met a woman somewhere, told her he was single and married her and did not tell me. If polygamy was legal, that would be perfectly legal, right? What recourse would she or I have in that situation? What would my insurance status etc be? What would hers be? I think as a society, we are not legally set up for polygamy and we would need to sit down and talk long and hard about these issues before we could legalize polygamy (just as Katie pointed out in her post)

I hope that answers some of your questions on how someone who supports gay marriage can be opposed to polygamy. Not that either would work for me :)

[sste]

I think one missing perspective here is that it took a LONG time to work out traditional M-F marriage to its current state in our legal system. For a long period of our history traditional marriage was a terrible exploiter of women - - women weren't allowed to own property for example. They could be beaten by their husbands lawfully. I could go on for paragraphs here but you get my drift.

We gave traditional marriage in the U.S. hundreds of years to evolve to its comparatively egalitarian status. To expect polygamy/polyamory - - which has not been legally recognized in most of the nation, has been comparatively rare, and has not benefited from legal norms and regulation - - to achieve that same state immediately is unrealistic. The real question is if after two hundreds years plus of legal regulation and recognition across the United States will polygamous relationships still have the same level of women exploitation/consent issues. I suspect those problems would become less pronounced over time if the history of traditioanl heterosexual marriage is any guide.

[BelleoftheBallFlagstaff]

I think one missing perspective here is that it took a LONG time to work out traditional M-F marriage to its current state in our legal system. For a long period of our history traditional marriage was a terrible exploiter of women - - women weren't allowed to own property for example. They could be beaten by their husbands lawfully. I could go on for paragraphs here but you get my drift.

We gave traditional marriage in the U.S. hundreds of years to evolve to its comparatively egalitarian status. To expect polygamy/polyamory - - which has not been legally recognized in most of the nation, has been comparatively rare, and has not benefited from legal norms and regulation - - to achieve that same state immediately is unrealistic. The real question is if after two hundreds years plus of legal regulation and recognition across the United States will polygamous relationships still have the same level of women exploitation/consent issues. I suspect those problems would become less pronounced over time if the history of traditioanl heterosexual marriage is any guide.

:applause: Very good point!

[gatorsmom]

Lisa, to answer your question, I being someone who supports legalization of gay marriage but not necessarily polygamy:
-It seems to me that the conventionally accepted model of polygamy is much more susceptible to abuse of women and abusive relationships. This may be because in a societal context, we have seen it happen in situations where underage girls are forced into marriage, marriage to much older men etc. Also, we see it almost exclusively in situations of men married to multiple women....the conventional argument against women being married to multiple men being that of kids and who do ou decide who the child 'belongs' to etc.
-To me, polygamy is distasteful. That is probably a totally socially conditioned response, and probably because my exposure to polygamy has been in the context above, either in our travels to tribal africa (doesn't South Africa's current president have multiple wives?) or on TV raids of cult compounds. But I also recognize that distasteful for me should not mean illegal. Which brings up another issue...
-Noone 'owns' the issue, which is probably why it is still not legal in the US. If, for example, the Church of the LDS would say that it was part of their religious practice, I would back off completely because I don't believe in interfering with anyone's religion (or anyone's secular rights if it was not a church or a religious institution) as long as we, legally, ensure enough protections for people in this situation.
-And finally, it leaves questions in my mind about consent....what if, for example, my (theoretical) husband met a woman somewhere, told her he was single and married her and did not tell me. If polygamy was legal, that would be perfectly legal, right? What recourse would she or I have in that situation? What would my insurance status etc be? What would hers be? I think as a society, we are not legally set up for polygamy and we would need to sit down and talk long and hard about these issues before we could legalize polygamy (just as Katie pointed out in her post)

I hope that answers some of your questions on how someone who supports gay marriage can be opposed to polygamy. Not that either would work for me :)

You raise some good points. Everyone here has raised good points. Let me see if I understand this. Now, in your first paragraph above you are essentially saying that polygamy as you understand it and probably most of our American society understands it is susceptible to abuses. However, I'd argue that any relationship is susceptible to abuses. As sste points out, even M-F relationships for a long time were terribly unequal. And because society believes it won't work for some doesn't mean it won't work for others. Again it seems that the beliefs of some are imposing on the beliefs of others.

And your last point kind of boils down to how would this work? Could your husband legally marry other women without you knowing? What would your recourse be? What about insurance? Well, I think those things are all valid questions that would no doubt have to be resolved if polygamy were ever to be legal.

[egoldber]

For a long period of our history traditional marriage was a terrible exploiter of women - - women weren't allowed to own property for example.

I was thinking the same thing. In fact, there are many people who do still believe that traditional marriage is exploitative of women. And in many parts of the world, it is still very true and married women have few to no rights. So I don't think there is anything inherently superior about two married partners vs multiple married partners, from an exploitation of women standpoint.

I think that allowing plural marriages is something that our society is simply not set up for. Whereas it is very easy to simply transfer all the same rights of male-female marriage to same sex marriage. But plural marriage would involve a great deal of re-writing of the laws and regulations regarding marriage, divorce, children's right, custody, health insurance, inheritance, etc. I just don't see that as a realistic.

[bluestarfish18]

Coming in on this one really late.

I come from a polygamous family. It's not a religios choice, but rather a social norm back then. My mom's side is from Hong Kong, and her father had 3 wives at once. One in Hong Kong (my grandmother), with 7 kids; and two in Mainland China, with 3 kids each. I believe it's now frowned upon in China to have so multiple wives, but back in th eearly 20th century, it was seen as status.

IMO, I think polygamy is so disrespectful of women on so many levels. Same goes for men if the situation was reversed.

[mommy111]

I think one missing perspective here is that it took a LONG time to work out traditional M-F marriage to its current state in our legal system. For a long period of our history traditional marriage was a terrible exploiter of women - - women weren't allowed to own property for example. They could be beaten by their husbands lawfully. I could go on for paragraphs here but you get my drift.

We gave traditional marriage in the U.S. hundreds of years to evolve to its comparatively egalitarian status. To expect polygamy/polyamory - - which has not been legally recognized in most of the nation, has been comparatively rare, and has not benefited from legal norms and regulation - - to achieve that same state immediately is unrealistic. The real question is if after two hundreds years plus of legal regulation and recognition across the United States will polygamous relationships still have the same level of women exploitation/consent issues. I suspect those problems would become less pronounced over time if the history of traditioanl heterosexual marriage is any guide.
Great point and completely agree...are we willing then, to forgo those rights for 200 plus years (or 100 or 50 or 10, the number is relatively irrelevant) so that we can get this recognized as a legal right? Because, to my mind, legalizing polygamy, unlike legalizing gay marriage, affects all of us and not just the people who select this pathway for themselves. And it may well be that we think that we or our spouses would never choose polygamy because of cultural/religious/whatever reasons. But legalizing it means all of us are willing to relegate ourselves to a situation that is potentially exploitative until such time (?200yrs) when the legal kinks are worked out.
Not saying that this should necessarily be a barrier to legalization, just that this is a serious conversation that needs to be had before I can support such a provision. Until such a time and until such a conversation is had, I would not support legalization because it does mean backpeddeling on many of the rights that women have struggled long and hard to achieve.

[wellyes]

Because, to my mind, legalizing polygamy, unlike legalizing gay marriage, affects all of us and not just the people who select this pathway for themselves. And it may well be that we think that we or our spouses would never choose polygamy because of cultural/religious/whatever reasons. But legalizing it means all of us are willing to relegate ourselves to a situation that is potentially exploitative until such time (?200yrs) when the legal kinks are worked out.
Not saying that this should necessarily be a barrier to legalization, just that this is a serious conversation that needs to be had before I can support such a provision.

Ah, but, keeping it illegal prevents progress - the kinks that would need to get worked out with the legal system, insurance carriers, etc won't even start to be discussed until it's legal. Like prostitution, keeping it in the "black market" means there is very limited recourse for those being exploited aside from escaping the situation entirely.

[wishfire]

Hi,

I found this thread via Google Alerts so am a newbie to your community and in all honesty, my not be long lived here. I have been researching, for lack of a better description, the fall of America and I have included families as a topic. Family is very important to me and having been witness to enough government deception, I set off to find some "truth" for myself. This post uses the Bible for perspective. If that's not your thing, no harm intended but that is still where the primary view of marriage originates.

Our current view of traditional marriage on the surface appears to originate from Christianity as being one man to one woman. I think most would agree with that statement but please seriously consider for a minute how this is presented to you and how you have accepted it and its impact on your beliefs. Thus this entire conversation right?

Now, polygyny was clearly practiced in the Bible with 40 Bible verified polygamist with more verified using books that are considered not to be Canon. Know also that in neither the OT or NT does God or Jesus condeme polygamy. The only statement close is that a church leader may only marry one wife, but I haven't found a strong statement for the population at large. So how do we get from point A (biblical polygyny) to point B (today)?

Our current view of marriage wasn't presented as some type of defacto standard for marriage until Christianity moved into Rome. It was adopted there to encourage the Romans to convert. Essentially they claimed monogamy and wouldn't move over unless Christianity did as well. So what you think as the sacred marriage covenant was just another political manuever designed to get more members. Let me restate that: your "traditional marriage" beliefs very simply originate from an orchestrated plan to gain converts. There was nothing "Godly" about it!

And wow, the entire 1890 LDS decree situation forced upon them from the government! Don't dismiss this because it didn't happen to you or because it happened over 100 years ago. Look at it from a longer term historical perspective and ask yourself why did this happen. Because the government has your families best interest right? Wrong!

Regards,

TC

[wishfire]

Test reply. My first reply was there and then it was gone. Was it deleted?

Rds,

TC