jasonpiao

What the heck does polygamy have to do with being underage? I'm pretty damn sure it happens with legal aged women too. Just a silly statement.

Derec

I do not see what the big deal with polygamy is, people should be allowed to have sex or marry other people as long as everyone involved is ok with that. The one man - one woman marriage is based on little more than judeo-christian tradition.

On the "underage" note, in many US states (and virually all western countries) 16 is legal, so he is basically prosecuted because of archaic age-of-consent laws in Utah.

Btw, I am wondering how long will it take for some of the more fundamentalist states (possibly aided by the radicl feminists) to raise the age of consent to 21.

brighid

UglyMan,

I wouldn’t have a problem with it if women were allowed the same “rights” of marriage and divorce under this system. Most polygamous systems do not allow women to take multiple husbands and many don’t have a choice with the second, third and subsequent wives coming in. It should all be of ones free will without the indoctrination, without the coercion and without the hell fire, brimstone and damnation if you don’t marry some man at the age of 16, or often times younger.

I personally don’t give too shits what consenting adults do with one another when the get it on, but the polygamous lifestyle is just completely sexist …

Babelfish,

You are right and I thought of that later when I recalled some of the stories I have read … sheeshhhhh… they have to deal with other wives and work to support their ever growing family … and 3 kids by age 20 for this girl … ugggghhhhh …

Brighid

Derec

Right. I do not defend the Mor(m)on (or middle eastern) practice of polygamy, I was just pointing out that the prohibition of any form of polygamy is as based on religion as is the practice of polygamy by the (Fundamentalist) Church of Latter Day Saints.

<strong> But if there were no anti-polygamy laws on the books than basically anything would go - as long as all the participants would agree.
That is not something I would necessarily want to practice but if it does work for some people I do not see why it is anybody else's business.

<strong> Right. Even 18-20 is too young in my book anyway.

<strong> In general: no.
As practiced by some LDS-folks: yes.

UMoC

[ October 16, 2002: Message edited by: UglyManOnCampus ]</p>

Animesh

I was thinking about this a bit ago. In Hindu mythology (in fact, in the Mahabharata), we have a woman named Draupadi having 5 husbands. Off the top of my head, I can't think of ANY major instance in the mythology of ANY other religion where a woman has had multiple husbands. Anyone know of any other cases of this?

GunnerJ

First, by definition, polygamous relationships don't allow multiple husbands. Polygamy means "many wives." A polyandrous situation would be a whole nother matter.

Second, the "systems" you are reffering to are mandated by a particular religious belief. There is nothing, theoretically, stopping two consenting adult men from marrying on consenting adult woman, it's simply uncommon because of the religious background of multiple-spouse systems.

Third, about not haveing a choice in the matter of new wives being added, they do have a choice: if a woman feels that the man she's married too cares so little about her not wanting to be in a polygamous relationship, she can "vote with her feet" and leave. It's no different, practically, from a woman leaving her husband if he's cheating on her.

I support the right of people to choose any sexual situation that all partners are comfortable with, and this includes polyandry and polygamy. Mentioning underaged girls being coerced into these arrangements is not an effective counter argument; if such a thing occurs, the man (and, in this case, woman) responsible should be charged with statutory rape; whether he's already married to an older woman is a separate issue, and oughtn't be a legal one, IMO.

[ October 16, 2002: Message edited by: Rimstalker ]</p>

galiel

According to my copy of the New Oxford American Dictionary, "Polygamy" means "the practice or custom of having more than one wife or husband at the same time". The roots means "often marrying". It is not restricted to a particular sex.

"Polyandry", on the other hand, means "polygamy in which a woman has more than one husband."

Technically, what some Mormons practice is "polygyny".

Sorry to be pedantic, I have a thing about accuracy in language

himynameisPwn

I don't understand the point of polygamy, do you really need to be married to more than one person? Sure, have sex with as many men or women as you want, but getting married to more than one just sounds silly to me. I'm all for polyamorous relationships, but polygamy seems silly.

Its like "Sure honey, im ready to make a commitment to you, and my five other wives." In my understanding, marriage is a commitment(albeit one I disagree with) to stay faithful. Wheres the commitment in marrying 5 women? Why can't you just love the numerous women, not get contractually married, and live together.

I don't understand, you can live with 5 women and have children, but you just can't get that binded by the state? Whats the states definition of polygamy, and why is it illegal to have more than one woman your bound by contract to, but not have more than one woman you love, live with, and have kids with(assuming the states definition is being married by a justice of the peace)?

A person who has sex with someone below the age of consent should just be treated as a stuatory rapist, why should polygamists suffer? Obviously they are indoctrinated, and used, but the same can be said for any fundy religion making women second class citizens to their husbands. There is no difference beyond the fact that the later is socially acceptable in more of the country.

galiel

Question: What about the concept of polygamy in general, or, more specifically, polyamory (not an "official" word, but the term most commonly used in the self-descriptive sense to mean loving (in the romantic sense, not the familial sense) more than one person at a time.)

Is monogamy natural nad instinctive for humans, whether male-female, male-male or female-female? Or is it merely an artificial prejudice imposed by wide-spread religious custom? If one rationally rejects religious dogma, shouldn't one also reject monogamy, let alone the religiously-based institution of marriage in the first place?

How does one reconcile the commonly accepted (both religiously and not) concept of one's infinite capacity for love with the concept of monogamy? If one can love more than one child, why not more than one partner?

More fundamentally, do you believe that humans are:
1) Inherently mono-amorous (i.e., capable of being truly romantically (whether physically or platonically) in love with only one person at a time;
2) inherently polyamorous;
3) Depends on the individual?

Derec

Why should, let's say a 19 year old having consensual sex with his/her 17 year old boy/girlfriend be treated as a rapist?

The whole statutory rape legislation is archaic and needs some serious reform, free of any feminist or religious ideology.

[ October 16, 2002: Message edited by: UglyManOnCampus ]</p>