Some time back I was involved in a discussion here with Darth J in which I stated that the issues of gay (and lesbian) marriage and polygamy were linked. Darth J countered with the assertion that the reasons gay rights advocates said gay marriage should be legal were entirely different from the reasons polygamy advocates said polygamy should be legal. I didn't dispute that one bit. I just pointed out that the reasons gay marriage opponents gave for why gay marriage shouldn't be legal were fundamentally the same reasons polygamy opponents give for why polygamy shouldn't be legal.

I guess I'd like to just get out in the open what precisely the reasons are why polygamy shouldn't be legal. Darth J said it shouldn't be legal because polygamy would've necessity be considerably more complicated than monogamy, and gave his opinion that divorcing one's sole spouse, for example, was significantly easier than divorcing when more than two spouses are involved. That might be true, but if so, how complicated does something have to be before it's deemed to complicated to be legal? If you have three adults who come together and are willing to work out in detail before their desired marriage what should happen in cases of divorce or other problemsome areas of a three-way marriage, then why should the government stand in the way of them obtaining that three-way marriage?

Darth J quoted someone who said that polygamy led to the patriarchal principle, or patriarchal system, or something like that. My impression of the patriarchal whatever-it-was was that in a polygamous triple with one husband and two wives, that one husband would dominate. But when I asked Darth J what it was inherently in polygamy that led to the patriarchal whatever, he never gave me an answer.

In a similar vein, he said that with a marriage of one man and two women there was an unspoken assertion that the one man equaled the two women. I replied by asking why Darth J divided the triple on gender boundaries.

There is a real problem in at least the United States right now of married couples with children that are unable to live on the salary of just one working parent, so much so that both parents end up having to work to make ends meet, and I think studies have indicated that children who come home from school and don't find a parent present end up not doing as well in many measures as children who do have a stay-at-home parent.

This is one case where a polygamous triple might be better suited for today's economy than a monogamous couple. Two thirds of the adults working would bring in more money per capita than one half; two of the adults could work and the third adult could stay home and take care of the children.

It certainly seems to me that the big reason people oppose polygamy is simply because it makes their skin crawl. The thought of one man having sex with two women in the same house just goes against their most basic beliefs about what should be natural. But that's precisely the same reason many people oppose gay and lesbian sex. It's prejudice, pure and simple. Is that so hard to see?

Note that I'm not arguing for polygamous groups of more than three participants, and I also think the law should prohibit polygamy where any participant is a minor.

I'm fine with polygamy being legal as long as polyandry is legal, too.

Maybe even garner a larger intake of food stamps too, of course that is probably something for the practical rather than theoretical side of the discussion.

No, that is not what I said. I did not say that I personally am opposed to either decriminalizing or legalizing polygamy (there is a difference, but you still don't understand what it is). I said that "same-sex marriage, therefore polygamy" is a non sequitur because there is a rational basis for not recognizing polygamy that is not present with monogamous same-sex marriage.

You still don't understand what the issue is, nor the difference between equal protection of law and a political value judgment. And yes, I very much explained, ad nauseum, how opponents of legalized polygamy believe that polygamy oppresses women. For real, Kevin, are you being deliberately obtuse?

That sounds like a great idea, Kevin. So in this legally-sanctioned menage-a-trois you have been contemplating, how do you intend to enforce this? Will the deal be that one of the three spouses is legally required to be a perpetual domestic servant?

What if one or more spouses doesn't want kids? What if all three want a career? What if two of the three want to be stay at home Lucky Pierres? You're making a policy argument now, so how do you intend to legally carry out this policy?

Kevin, Straw Man called and asked me to tell you that he wishes you would stop beating him up all the time.

This woman has an interesting take on plural marriage. I think I posted this here back in November:



She gives answers to these direct questions in the article:



http://www.7dvt.com/2012love-plus

As I already mentioned in my discussion with Darth J on the other thread, the law I would favor would make it legal for two or three adults of any gender combination to get married. So, yes, polyandry would be legal too.

What would be the difference between lascivious sex with multiple partners and polygyny/polyandry?

I thought that marriage was, sort of as implied in Jacob, to be the raising of seed, in a stable environment.

It would depend on how these relationships were handled. I could actually see some positives to a group marriage situation. Multiple incomes, for one.

So, what's the difference between polygamy and adultery? The "godhead" commanding it or the little head commanding it?

Keep in mind, JSJr did not move all 33 of these women into his home, to take care of them and live with them. (I think he confused the godhead with his little head.)

Don't most men?

Kevin, here is your previous Prophet answering your question:

Most of us take instructions from little head, but not many of us claim to be taking instructions directly from godhead, particularly to appease little head. To that end, JSJr seemed particularly skilled and persuasive with others.

True.

I'm sorry I misstated you.


I would hazard a guess that legalizing polygamy makes polygamy legal while decriminalizing it keeps it illegal but keeps police officers from arresting people who participate. Is that wrong? If so, then what is the difference? It makes no sense to criticize me for not understanding the difference unless someone explains to me what the difference is.

I'm glad to hear you're not opposed to legalizing polygamy.


What is that "rational basis for not recognizing polygamy"?


I understand perfectly well the difference "between equal protection of law and a political value judgment"! Granted I didn't understand it at all when first we discussed it, but since then you've educated me. How many times do I have to say it? This has nothing to do with the difference between equal protection and a political value judgment. The reasons advocates of legalizing marriage for the two alternate sexual lifestyles give for their causes are indeed equal protection of law (for gay marriage) and a pollitical value judgment (for polygamy). We're not talking about the reasons given for the two proposed legalizations; we're talking about the reasons given against legalizing them. Now Darth J, maybe you have a point in saying that there are reasons against legalizing polygamy that don't have anything to do with legalizing gay marriage. If so, let's hear what those reasons are, and we can evaluate them. But the difference between equal protection of law and a political value judgment have absolutely nothing to do with our discussion.


They may believe that polygamy oppresses women, but is there any inherent reason why people who participate in polygamy have to oppress women? I will agree that polygamists have oppressed women in the past; why does that mean polygamists must oppress women in the future? What is it about a polygamist marriage that necessitates oppression of women?

The same way that one parent not working is enforced in monogamous marriages, namely not at all. Obviously a polygamist triple can arrange their job-holder/stay-at-home-parent ratio however they want it. I'm just saying a polygamous triple has options with that ratio that monogamous couples don't have.

You could be right, Darth J. It is certainly possible that I constructed a straw man that was easy to tear down, and then tore him down. But in order to demonstrate that you would have to give us some reason to believe that it isn't prejudice that has most polygamy opponents arguing against it.

There are a lot of things that are not doctrinal that are in fact legal. For example, worshipping the Hindu deity Vishnu is definitely not something Gordon Hinckley would call doctrinal, and yet I suspect he would agree completely with a Hindu's right to worship Vishnu.

True that.

You know those contests where you win a prize if you guess how many jelly beans are in a jar?

Similarly, who wants to guess---without doing a search---how many times KevinSim has posted these exact same questions, had the answers explained to him, but then displayed willful ignorance in asking "But why?" over and over again like a three year-old says "Why?" to things that have already been answered?

I'm not sure yet what the prize will be for the closest guess.