The Jeffs Trial (and polygamy in general)

[Jae Onasi]

Jeffs was convicted of rape-by-proxy

yesterday. There are a ton of issues raised in this case--age of consent for sex, polygamy as an acceptable or not acceptable practice, how this group in general functions, and so forth. Because it touches on sex-related issues, please remember to keep things PG-13/rated Teen.

[Achilles]

There are a ton of issues raised in this case--age of consent for sex

For which state? (assuming you meant the U.S. specifically).

 

polygamy as an acceptable or not acceptable practice

I think it's acceptable. I think it's unwise, but I think it should be permitted.

 

how this group in general functions

Not sure that I know enough about how the group functions to speak intelligently about it. If the charges he was convicted of are true, then I think it's obvious that he acted inappropriately.

[tk102]

I think [polygamy is] acceptable. I think it's unwise, but I think it should be permitted.

I'm curious how far would you go with this thought. Do you mean that you find it acceptable on a personal level only? Or would you go so far to say that the state and national governments should recognize multiple spouses when it comes to benefits for income taxes, military service, insurance claims, retirement benefits, social security, etc?

[Achilles]

I'm curious how far would you go with this thought. Do you mean that you find it acceptable on a personal level only? Or would you go so far to say that the state and national governments should recognize multiple spouses when it comes to benefits for income taxes, military service, insurance claims, retirement benefits, social security, etc?

I cannot think of a moral argument against allowing polygamy, although I can think of moral arguments against forbidding it. Doesn't mean that I find the practice appealing, but I don't think that should be the basis for preventing other consenting adults from doing so.

 

As for the repercussions on various government entities, I would have to say that that's something we'd have to figure out together (i.e. citizens working with their elected representatives).

 

As a postscript, I'd like to point out that just because I can't think of a moral argument against it doesn't mean that one doesn't exist. If anyone has a compelling argument that shoots mine out of the water, I would very much like to hear it. Thanks in advance.

[mimartin]

age of consent for sex[/Quote]This is a really tough topic. How can you have one age that is acceptable for everyone within jurisdiction of that law? We are all individuals and mature at different rate. The average age of consent according to Avert is 16 years old. Is this too young, again I believe it depends on the adolescent in question.

 

I actually like the Austrian law attempt to take into consideration the actual maturity level of the victim, but I would personally like it better if they change 16 to 18

Although the Austrian age of consent is basically 14, it is illegal to have sex with someone under 16 by "exploiting their lack of maturity".[/Quote]

(I’m not posting a link to Avert, it is easy enough to find, but although it is AIDS charity, I believe some of the language and descriptions would not be appropriate.)

 

If we are taking about a child of mine then I believe 35 year old or the day after I die would be the appropriate age of consent.

polygamy as an acceptable or not acceptable practice[/Quote] I don’t have moral argument for or against it. My arguments against it are more financial and legal and are covered by tk102 question.

 

how this group in general functions, and so forth

Can’t say much about the group outside the article and a few news cast I’ve seen. But if arrange non-consensual marriages with young adolescents relatives are the norm, then I do not think very much of them.

[tk102]

Imagine collecting a variety of benefits from being in married in multiple households. Just as an example you could be a standard deduction on every "Married Filing Jointly" tax form since you as a spouse you always get a 1 in that box (whereas there are definitions for what qualifies as a dependent child). Quite lucrative at the cost of other monogamist tax payers.

 

Imagine also the fun in divorce court. Child custody. Alimony.

 

But aside the variety of bureaucracies that have been built around the idea of monogamist marriages, how stable can these relationships be to raise a family in? Given the general divorce rate, it seems divorce would be that much more likely in a polygamist household. You've got more marriages, so that much more chance for one of them to fail. If there is love in the polygamist marriage, there is going to be jealousy too. You can't split love without causing jealousy (or I'm clueless).

 

At what point does it even make sense to call something a marriage if your relationship is a spiderweb across multiple partners, households, and children?

 

I don't have a problem with three or more people wanting to share love with each other. I do have a problem if they are reaping financial benefits from my government in doing so.

 

I also personally believe that such relationships an inherently unstable and therefore detrimental to the raising of children. I would rather see a child raised in a homosexual monogamist marriage than in a polygamist one. Marriage as an institution should increase the overall stability of a society, not destabilize it. That's why the bureaucracies provide the benefits in the first place.

[Achilles]

Imagine collecting a variety of benefits from being in married in multiple households. Just as an example you could be a standard deduction on every "Married Filing Jointly" tax form since you as a spouse you always get a 1 in that box (whereas there are definitions for what qualifies as a dependent child). Quite lucrative at the cost of other monogamist tax payers.

 

Imagine also the fun in divorce court. Child custody. Alimony.

These are great legal arguments. They don't convince me that the practice is immoral, only inconvenient in our current legal system.

 

But aside the variety of bureaucracies that have been built around the idea of monogamist marriages, how stable can these relationships be to raise a family in? Given the general divorce rate, it seems divorce would be that much more likely in a polygamist household. You've got more marriages, so that much more chance for one of them to fail. If there is love in the polygamist marriage, there is going to be jealousy too. You can't split love without causing jealousy (or I'm clueless).

Acknowledging that this is largely supposition, I'm still not seeing a moral argument. FWIW, I think your reasoning is sound in the context provided.

 

At what point does it even make sense to call something a marriage if your relationship is a spiderweb across multiple partners, households, and children?

An excellent question. I know some people would like to operationally define "marriage" as a union between one man and one woman. Similarly there are people that don't agree with the definition. How would you operationally define "marriage" and why?

 

I don't have a problem with three or more people wanting to share love with each other. I do have a problem if they are reaping financial benefits from my government in doing so.

Hmmm. Is it unreasonable to expect our government to consider/close any loopholes that might arise from the legalization of polygamy? If a man is the head of household in a single-income family, how do we currently distinguish between 3 dependents if they are a wife and two children vs a wife, one child, and one elderly parent? Should this be fundamentally different if it is two wives and one child?

 

I also personally believe that such relationships an inherently unstable and therefore detrimental to the raising of children.

I would tend to agree with this thinking, hence why I've repeatedly stated that it's not something I would particularly want to participate in. And even though I'm sure we could probably dig up statistics that support such an argument, I'm still not convinced that we would have a moral argument against polygamy.

 

I would rather see a child raised in a homosexual monogamist marriage than in a polygamist one.

Ooo...a juicy peek at teekay's prejudices?

 

What if the homosexual couple were verbally abusive to one another and one of the them had a substance abuse problem?

 

Marriage as an institution should increase the overall stability of a society, not destabilize it.

1) I'm not convinced that marriage serves any utility in society (nor should it be burdened with any), and 2) even if I were convinced that it did, I'm not convinced that polygamy is inherently unstable (at least not any moreso than monogamy).

 

That's why the bureaucracies provide the benefits in the first place.

I'm not sure that I'd be willing to jump to the same conclusion. Companies have no ethical obligation to their employees outside of a living wage. "Benefits" are generally offered at the mandate of governmental regulation and/or as a means of remaining competitive in a market of skilled workers.

[Jae Onasi]

I think marriage does serve a utility--it binds two people together legally, financially, emotionally, and for those of us who are religious, spiritually. In those households where the couple is not married but is just co-habitating, the level of commitment tends to be lower and the break-up rate tends to be a little higher. When kids are involved, the father tends not to be as committed to being involved in their lives, especially if the couple is no longer together (by no means is this always the case, to be sure).

 

If the point of marriage is to bind a couple together to allow greater commitment to each other and to raising a family, then anything that interferes with that is going to harm the couple and family relationship, or at least not serve any benefit. In the case of polygamy, it's nothing more than a quasi-adulterous relationship. It is frequently harmful to the women and children in the relationship, which is what makes it immoral. In the case of the women, they get less time with the man and have a far more shallow relationship. Often, competition develops among the women for his attention, and that competition can get vicious. If they drag the children into it, and it would be difficult for everyone to show the kind of self-restraint required not to do that, it hurts the children as well. The children have only a part-time father since his attention is divided among multiple households, and their financial situation is usually far less stable since his finances are equally divided. It's not unusual for polygamist families to be living below the poverty level. If he shows favoritism to a wife or the children of one wife (and it's nearly impossible not to), it's detrimental to the other wives and their children who don't receive favor. The only benefit to the man is he almost always has a wife who's able to meet his sexual needs whenever he wants, but the disadvantages are many to him and more often to everyone else he's in a pseudo-relationship with.

[Web Rider]

I don't mind polygamy, it raises some legal questions, but so long as all the unions are done by WELL REGULATED persons, ie: so we can't have guys like Jeffs doing as they please, and they are consensual between two persons of acceptable in context age(ie: since AOC varies from state to state, and younger people can get parental permission).

 

But I agree with the ruling, the boy in this case, was not a minor, the girl, was a minor, and also did not want to be married, or have sex. So by coercing her into doing so by threat of eternal damnation, which for the very religious is little different than putting a gun to ones head, to have sex with some guy she didn't want to, Jeffs is indeed an accomplice to a rape.

 

Even though you can't technically rape your wife, it still qualifies at least as sexual abuse. However, I think rape is still an adequet term here because of the age of the persons, and the age difference between them, and because she did not want to marry the guy.

[tk102]

These are great legal arguments. They don't convince me that the practice is immoral, only inconvenient in our current legal system.... .

 

Yes quite. It would be morally wrong to provide benefits for polygamist relationships in the current social framework, both private and public, without making adjustments. The basis for spousal benefits in every context assumes one spouse. The amount of "loophole closing" involved in both the public and private sectors to accommodate legalized polygamy would be considerable and I'm not certain what it gains.

 

 

Acknowledging that this is largely supposition, I'm still not seeing a moral argument. FWIW, I think your reasoning is sound in the context provided

Yes it is largely supposition that polygamy would lead to more divorce. Divorce causes an emotional toll on all involved as well as financial and legal frustrations that echo for years. It affects friends, it affects banks and creditors, it affects children. For those reasons it is undesirable and governments should not encourage inherently unstable relationships from entering into marriage.

 

With the rising divorce rates, you could argue governments perhaps should offer no incentive for anyone to get married, let alone to more than one partner. And likewise, if marriage was not even legally recognized, all individuals and their relationships would be on equal footing.

 

So why should marriage be recognized legally at all? I'd say because it provides stability and a naturally cohesive family unit, the presence of which is more beneficial to society than its absence.

 

 

 

An excellent question. I know some people would like to operationally define "marriage" as a union between one man and one woman. Similarly there are people that don't agree with the definition. How would you operationally define "marriage" and why?

Operationally? I would define it as a domestic partnership between two people with purpose of being semi-permanent which shall be recognized by the public. The financial responsibilities will be shared by both individuals. Couples with children likewise will share custody and both must adhere to all laws for providing for the wellness of the children.

 

Something like that. Operationally defined. I see no reason to bar homosexuals from marrying therefore.

 

 

Hmmm. Is it unreasonable to expect our government to consider/close any loopholes that might arise from the legalization of polygamy?

 

Is it unreasonable to not legalize polygamy in the first place? What do we gain from doing so other than an increase in confusion? Operationally speaking, the government should not be forced to recognize more than one marriage at anytime.

 

Here's a more subtle scenario: Say a couple gets married and it is legally recognized. Then the couple decides they want to be polygamists. They take in another person and make their own vows in private. Between three consenting adults I would say that's a liberty that should be allowed. Likewise the government should not have to recognize these weirdos as being married. Sorry that's just so fringe of behavior.

 

Now in the case of the Jeffs trial, if the spouses are underage, or are married against their will, or are first cousins... that's crossing the law.

 

If children are being raised in a polygamist household that is otherwise healthy and happy well that's a bit more gray. If such a case was brought before the court I would hope it find the environment destructive and order the separation of parties. There's another juicy peek at my prejudices.

 

1) I'm not convinced that marriage serves any utility in society (nor should it be burdened with any),

 

Raising children in a married home vs. raising children as a single parent...

 

If you believe that in general two parents working together under the same roof is better than one for the well-being of the child, doesn't marriage serve a bit of utility in this simple way? After all society is made of its citizens including its children.

 

and 2) even if I were convinced that it did, I'm not convinced that polygamy is inherently unstable (at least not any moreso than monogamy).

I thought you said my reasoning was sound in the context I provided. If the probability of divorce between two people is 1 in 6, I can roll a die. If there two marriages, I can roll two dice. The odds of rolling a 6 just went up by a factor of 2. The chain that holds people together is only as strong as the weakest link. More links = more weak links = more chance of breaking up.

 

 

I'm not sure that I'd be willing to jump to the same conclusion. Companies have no ethical obligation to their employees outside of a living wage. "Benefits" are generally offered at the mandate of governmental regulation and/or as a means of remaining competitive in a market of skilled workers.

Financial stability for the company based on social stability of the workers. Benefits for spouses adds to family stability which decreases the rate of employee turnover and leads to a more experienced workforce. You could say the motive of the company is based on economics rather than ethics, but the effect of creating stability is the same.

 

Am I going off topic? click click there... thread title fixed

[Achilles]

I think marriage does serve a utility--it binds two people together legally, financially, emotionally, and for those of us who are religious, spiritually.

I take offense to the insinuation that spiritual union is limited only to the religious. Outside of that, I acknowledge that this is your opinion. My opinion is that the "benefits" you've listed are not limited to marriage.

 

In those households where the couple is not married but is just co-habitating, the level of commitment tends to be lower and the break-up rate tends to be a little higher.

Source and evidence for a causal relationship please?

 

When kids are involved, the father tends not to be as committed to being involved in their lives, especially if the couple is no longer together (by no means is this always the case, to be sure).

Same for this please.

 

If the point of marriage is to bind a couple together to allow greater commitment to each other and to raising a family, then anything that interferes with that is going to harm the couple and family relationship, or at least not serve any benefit.

Greater commitment than what? No commitment at all? I always viewed commitment as a "true/false", "yes/no", "do or do not, there is no 'try'" type of thing.

 

In the case of polygamy, it's nothing more than a quasi-adulterous relationship.

Is this supposition on your part or do you have sources? Perhaps next you'd like to argue that homosexual men aren't really gay, they just use it as an excuse to get laid more.

 

It is frequently harmful to the women and children in the relationship, which is what makes it immoral.

Ok, sure. And since monogamy and marriage are sometimes harmful to women and children, then it is similarly immoral. You can't have it both ways.

 

In the case of the women, they get less time with the man and have a far more shallow relationship.

Compared to a monogamous couple where the husband is married to the job? What about the support system that the women form with each other?

 

Often, competition develops among the women for his attention, and that competition can get vicious.

Well, I'm going to have to ask for a source but I want to share the funny visual I got of you replying with a link to a clip from the Jerry Springer show

 

If they drag the children into it, and it would be difficult for everyone to show the kind of self-restraint required not to do that, it hurts the children as well.

Again, present in monogamous relationships, so not applicable.

 

The children have only a part-time father since his attention is divided among multiple households, and their financial situation is usually far less stable since his finances are equally divided.

Huh? Does the "monday family" live in the basement while the "tuesday family", "wednesday family", etc all get their turn and so on?

 

It's not unusual for polygamist families to be living below the poverty level.

Neither is it uncommon for poor families to live below the poverty level. Is being poor immoral too?

 

If he shows favoritism to a wife or the children of one wife (and it's nearly impossible not to), it's detrimental to the other wives and their children who don't receive favor.

Source?

 

The only benefit to the man is he almost always has a wife who's able to meet his sexual needs whenever he wants, but the disadvantages are many to him and more often to everyone else he's in a pseudo-relationship with.

Not sure I follow on this one. Sorry.

 

Yes quite. It would be morally wrong to provide benefits for polygamist relationships in the current social framework, both private and public, without making adjustments. The basis for spousal benefits in every context assumes one spouse. The amount of "loophole closing" involved in both the public and private sectors to accommodate legalized polygamy would be considerable and I'm not certain what it gains.

You'll have to help me with this one. I'm probably getting stuck on this one thing and not seeing what you are, but here it goes:

 

Come tax time, when he files as "married", it doesn't ask for number of spouses and multiply his benefit accordingly. So for tax purposes, I'm not seeing what benefit he would have outside of some extra dependents. But how is that different from having a lot of kids.

 

As far as employer benefits (at least where I work in the state of arizona), you have two options for healthcare: Single or family. The family option doesn't care whether "family" equals a spouse or a bunch of kids; it's the same deduction. So again, I'm not seeing how he's getting a benefit in the current system.

 

Yes it is largely supposition that polygamy would lead to more divorce. Divorce causes an emotional toll on all involved as well as financial and legal frustrations that echo for years. It affects friends, it affects banks and creditors, it affects children. For those reasons it is undesirable and governments should not encourage inherently unstable relationships from entering into marriage.

You say this like you didn't know that I've been there too, my friend

 

Regarding the last sentence, I'm wondering how many other myriads of relationship we can arbitrarily apply the "inherently unstable relationship" label to as justification for limiting the decisions of consenting adults. Couples under the age of 25? Bi-racial marriages? Marriages between a southerner and a westerner? Marriages between two people where one or both have parents with a history of depression?

 

With the rising divorce rates, you could argue governments perhaps should offer no incentive for anyone to get married, let alone to more than one partner. And likewise, if marriage was not even legally recognized, all individuals and their relationships would be on equal footing.

Indeed I could and might

 

So why should marriage be recognized legally at all? I'd say because it provides stability and a naturally cohesive family unit, the presence of which is more beneficial to society than its absence.

I acknowledge that this is your opinion. In my opinion, being married to someone does not magically make the relationship more impervious to the wrecking ball. It would seem to me that the relationship is only as strong as the commitment between two (or more ) people and a pretty dress and some rice is nothing more than a pretty bow on a box.

 

If a ceremony really helps someone to believe that their relationship is somehow more stable, then I say more power to them. The magic feather clearly worked for Dumbo. However, I am going to need convincing.

 

Operationally? I would define it as a domestic partnership between two people with purpose of being semi-permanent which shall be recognized by the public.

And how would this differ from "going steady"?

 

The financial responsibilities will be shared by both individuals.

...and this sounds like "living together"

 

Couples with children likewise will share custody and both must adhere to all laws for providing for the wellness of the children.

...and this sounds like the terms of my divorce

 

Something like that. Operationally defined. I see no reason to bar homosexuals from marrying therefore.

That's good

 

Is it unreasonable to not legalize polygamy in the first place? What do we gain from doing so other than an increase in confusion?

Should it be a universal law that consenting adults that wish to be married to one another should not be permitted to do so? If the answer is no, then there is no moral basis for preventing marriage between consenting adults, whether it be one man and one woman, two men, two women, or a man and two women, etc.

 

Therefore if (I'm still open to dissenting arguments here), there is no moral basis for prohibiting polygamy, then yes, it is unreasonable not to legalize polygamy. What we gain is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...even for those ways of life for which we find no appeal ourselves.

 

Operationally speaking, the government should not be forced to recognize more than one marriage at anytime.

Could you expand on this please?

 

Here's a more subtle scenario: Say a couple gets married and it is legally recognized. Then the couple decides they want to be polygamists. They take in another person and make their own vows in private. Between three consenting adults I would say that's a liberty that should be allowed. Likewise the government should not have to recognize these weirdos as being married. Sorry that's just so fringe of behavior.

That sounds like a values judgement rather than a moral argument. I appreciate that it doesn't jive with your values. On the face of it, it doesn't jive with mine either, but this is a moral question therefore us finding it "icky", "gross", or "weird" is really quite beside the point.

 

Now in the case of the Jeffs trial, if the spouses are underage, or are married against their will, or are first cousins... that's crossing the law.

Indeed. You'll get no argument from me (aside from the fact that I don't see a moral argument against first cousins either).

 

If children are being raised in a polygamist household that is otherwise healthy and happy well that's a bit more gray. If such a case was brought before the court I would hope it find the environment destructive and order the separation of parties. There's another juicy peek at my prejudices.

Nice. Kudos on your humanness

 

Raising children in a married home vs. raising children as a single parent...

Whoops. Afraid I wasn't very clear. It wasn't an argument for married home vs. single parent. I intended to make an argument for married family vs. common law family...unless of course this is just a red herring and I'm interrupting

 

If you believe that in general two parents working together under the same roof is better than one for the well-being of the child, doesn't marriage serve a bit of utility in this simple way? After all society is made of its citizens including its children.

I agree that having a mother and a father living under the same roof is clearly beneficial for children. Whether or not those parents are married really has no significance for me.

 

I thought you said my reasoning was sound in the context I provided.

Indeed. What I was trying to be too polite to say was that I thought your context was crap (love you, man).

 

If the probability of divorce between two people is 1 in 6, I can roll a die. If there two marriages, I can roll two dice. The odds of rolling a 6 just went up by a factor of 2. The chain that holds people together is only as strong as the weakest link. More links = more weak links = more chance of breaking up.

All things being equal, you might be right. However I'm not convinced that all things are equal. I'm still quasi-persuaded by interviews I've seen/read with women in polygamous relationships that say that the bond they form with with the other women is just as powerful and enriching as the bond they form with their husband. That they feel as though they have a 24/7 support network. That they value the "me" time they get from occationally being able to let one of their co-parents take over with the kids.

 

Financial stability for the company based on social stability of the workers. Benefits for spouses adds to family stability which decreases the rate of employee turnover and leads to a more experienced workforce. You could say the motive of the company is based on economics rather than ethics, but the effect of creating stability is the same.

I'm not going to disagree with you that it's smart business. I think most of your argument here is directly related to my comment regarding "remaining competitive in a market of skilled workers". I apologize for taking your original comment out of context and veering us off-topic.

 

Thanks for your reply.

[tk102]

I must get back to NWN2! Curses to me for getting sucked in!

I take offense to the insinuation that spiritual union is limited only to the religious.

Really? I did a double-take on that. Cool. I admit I'm curious to how an atheist defines spiritual union but that's so off topic.

Come tax time, when he files as "married", it doesn't ask for number of spouses and multiply his benefit accordingly. So for tax purposes, I'm not seeing what benefit he would have outside of some extra dependents. But how is that different from having a lot of kids.

It's not different from having a lot of kids, but I suppose Mr. Man would have both. Plus the fact that there is no restriction on what qualifies as a "dependent" spouse. You could be more than one person's spouse so you could be more than one person's deduction. I'm sure that'd be the first loophole to get closed so this is kind of a tangent. But it illustrates that things would have to change.

As far as employer benefits (at least where I work in the state of arizona), you have two options for healthcare: Single or family. The family option doesn't care whether "family" equals a spouse or a bunch of kids; it's the same deduction. So again, I'm not seeing how he's getting a benefit in the current system.

Sounds like another downside to an already ailing system of health care coverage. More people piggy backing on a single plan hurts everybody else who see their rates go up. And yes, I don't have any sympathy towards people with a whole lot of kids that get the same benefit.

 

So okay, yes it's my personal beef and I can't claim it comes from a morality based on pure logic. I'd be on the short end of the stick since I'm a non-polygamist and I have only child. It's just like my personal issue with SUV drivers. They have the right to drive whatever they want. It won't stop me from voting for tougher regulations on gas emissions or higher gas taxes if the time comes.

 

 

You say this like you didn't know that I've been there too, my friend

Yeah.

Regarding the last sentence, I'm wondering how many other myriads of relationship we can arbitrarily apply the "inherently unstable relationship" label to as justification for limiting the decisions of consenting adults. Couples under the age of 25? Bi-racial marriages? Marriages between a southerner and a westerner? Marriages between two people where one or both have parents with a history of depression?

True, but this is such an easy line to draw where all those others are not. 2 people in a marriage! Sorry that's the limit, that's all you get. In fact, it's the status quo! We don't have to do a damn thing. *kicks back and lets the polygamists suck it*

 

 

I acknowledge that this is your opinion. In my opinion, being married to someone does not magically make the relationship more impervious to the wrecking ball. It would seem to me that the relationship is only as strong as the commitment between two (or more ) people and a pretty dress and some rice is nothing more than a pretty bow on a box.

If a ceremony really helps someone to believe that their relationship is somehow more stable, then I say more power to them. The magic feather clearly worked for Dumbo. However, I am going to need convincing.

If you're going steady, the government isn't involved. If you get married, you are inviting legal recognition of the marriage and you agree to deal with the crap if things fall apart. There is more crap. Way more. That itself is a big deterrent, hence even if there is no spiritual or religious stigma to divorce, you will give your marriage much more chance to repair itself than you would someone you're dating.

 

Should it be a universal law that consenting adults that wish to be married to one another should not be permitted to do so? If the answer is no, then there is no moral basis for preventing marriage between consenting adults, whether it be one man and one woman, two men, two women, or a man and two women, etc.

It's all a matter of definitions then. Marriage by definition in my book (and the government's) is between two people on only two people. You're saying it's not morally right to define it that way. This is where we diverge and I fall back to the idea that love in a marriage isn't divisible. Hence the reason my own divorce. *end of juice*

 

 

Could you expand on this please?

Nah. It's just my opinion. My last post was interrupted so many times I couldn't keep a consistent train of thought. If there enough of a majority to pass a law that allows for polygamy I can't really say that. So let them try. If however the courts somehow interpret prosecution of polygamy as unconstitutional, then I will be writing to Congress.

 

That sounds like a values judgement rather than a moral argument. I appreciate that it doesn't jive with your values. On the face of it, it doesn't jive with mine either, but this is a moral question therefore us finding it "icky", "gross", or "weird" is really quite beside the point.

Yeah it is a difficult thing to argue from a purely moral standpoint. So are you fighting with your own value judgment on this because of that? I'm really not. I guess I'm not as moral as I could be, but I can't rationalize polygamy as much more than a quasi-adulterous relationship as Jae called it, so I guess that's my own shortcoming. I'm in my mid-30s and I can start acting like a stubborn old man if I damn well please. kthxbye.

(aside from the fact that I don't see a moral argument against first cosins either)

?? Regardless of the centuries of knowledge that such a union has a high likelihood of producing birth defects in its offspring? No way is it immoral to say "no" to the kissing cousins. Saying "yes" is immoral.

 

Whoops. Afraid I wasn't very clear. It wasn't an argument for married home vs. single parent. I intended to make an argument for married family vs. common law family...unless of course this is just a red herring and I'm interrupting

You mentioned that you didn't see marraige as having any utility. I feel it helps keep the couple together if for no other reason than then fact that divorce is a deterrent. Add to that religious and familial traditions/pressures. And since being together is beneficial for the child, it's a good thing and has utility. But if you like, we can call it a red herring and move on. Again I'll blame the interruptions from earlier for confusing my post.

 

I agree that having a mother and a father living under the same roof is clearly beneficial for children. Whether or not those parents are married really has no significance for me.

Is that because you believe marriage does not increase the likelihood of staying together for the long haul? Since I think it does (sorry no sources) I'd say the marriage is significant since it may encourage that one extra chance to work things out during difficult times.

 

Indeed. What I was trying to be too polite to say was that I thought your context was crap (love you, man).

All things being equal, you might be right. However I'm not convinced that all things are equal. I'm still quasi-persuaded by interviews I've seen/read with women in polygamous relationships that say that the bond they form with with the other women is just as powerful and enriching as the bond they form with their husband.

I suppose that's just as valid of conjecture as mine.

 

Have a good one.

[Totenkopf]

Really? I did a double-take on that. Cool. I admit I'm curious to how an atheist defines spiritual union but that's so off topic.

 

That one didn't get by me either. "Could you expand on this, please".

[Achilles]

Really? I did a double-take on that. Cool. I admit I'm curious to how an atheist defines spiritual union but that's so off topic.

Really? I thought we covered that ad nauseam via PM, but perhaps not in that context. I don't think I've ever denied that there is a spiritual nature to our existence, only that I don't attribute it to a supernatural source. I think I sent you a Sam Harris article once that articulated the sentiment much better than I could.

 

It's not different from having a lot of kids, but I suppose Mr. Man would have both. Plus the fact that there is no restriction on what qualifies as a "dependent" spouse. You could be more than one person's spouse so you could be more than one person's deduction. I'm sure that'd be the first loophole to get closed so this is kind of a tangent. But it illustrates that things would have to change.

As you yourself point out, it would be the same as a lot of kids (which was my point). I'm don't think a few more thousand pages of tax code will really make that much difference

 

Sounds like another downside to an already ailing system of health care coverage. More people piggy backing on a single plan hurts everybody else who see their rates go up. And yes, I don't have any sympathy towards people with a whole lot of kids that get the same benefit.

I see your point, but it's still not a moral argument

If I really wanted to be froggy, I'd spin this into an argument for socialized health care

 

So okay, yes it's my personal beef and I can't claim it comes from a morality based on pure logic. I'd be on the short end of the stick since I'm a non-polygamist and I have only child. It's just like my personal issue with SUV drivers. They have the right to drive whatever they want. It won't stop me from voting for tougher regulations on gas emissions or higher gas taxes if the time comes.

Fair enough

 

True, but this is such an easy line to draw where all those others are not. 2 people in a marriage! Sorry that's the limit, that's all you get. In fact, it's the status quo! We don't have to do a damn thing. *kicks back and lets the polygamists suck it*

I think those other suggestions were pretty easy. They were certainly just as objective. And you don't honestly expect me to be pursuaded by a status quo argument do you?

 

If you're going steady, the government isn't involved. If you get married, you are inviting legal recognition of the marriage and you agree to deal with the crap if things fall apart. There is more crap. Way more. That itself is a big deterrent, hence even if there is no spiritual or religious stigma to divorce, you will give your marriage much more chance to repair itself than you would someone you're dating.

You're not giving me much to work with here. The construct is still entirely artifical. Yes, there is a chance that a married couple might feel more compelled to work through an issue than a dating couple, however that chance is not inherent to marriage itself. A non-married couple might be more willing to work through their issues if they have a child together than a married couple with no children. Therefore we cannot draw a causal relationship between marriage and commitment.

 

But all that aside, my intent was to point out that our operational definition of marriage has flaws.

 

It's all a matter of definitions then. Marriage by definition in my book (and the government's) is between two people on only two people.

Seems arbitrary.

 

You're saying it's not morally right to define it that way. This is where we diverge and I fall back to the idea that love in a marriage isn't divisible.

So you can't love your spouse and a child? Two children? A friend? As a rule I never apply scarcity models to intangible things, but that's just my own thing.

 

If it helps, remember that I don't believe that we're built for long-term monogamy anyway.

 

Nah. It's just my opinion. My last post was interrupted so many times I couldn't keep a consistent train of thought. If there enough of a majority to pass a law that allows for polygamy I can't really say that. So let them try. If however the courts somehow interpret prosecution of polygamy as unconstitutional, then I will be writing to Congress.

Wow. You'd attempt to infringe on someone else's rights because of your own prejudices? I'm seeing a whole new side of you

 

Yeah it is a difficult thing to argue from a purely moral standpoint.

Actually, it seems rather easy from over here

 

So are you fighting with your own value judgment on this because of that?

Not really. I don't foresee ever entering into a polygamous relationship, so I don't see how this will ever affect me personally. I do think that if ever ends up being left to the voters though, they deserve to have people on their side (ala civil rights, gay rights, etc).

 

?? Regardless of the centuries of knowledge that such a union has a high likelihood of producing birth defects in its offspring? No way is it immoral to say "no" to the kissing cousins. Saying "yes" is immoral.

*shrugs* and high risk of birth defects is limited to these couples how? Do we infringe on the reproductive rights of any other at-risk demographics now? Should we?

 

You mentioned that you didn't see marraige as having any utility. I feel it helps keep the couple together if for no other reason than then fact that divorce is a deterrent.

There are lots of deterrents. Divorce is simply one of them. I know I sound flippant. Sorry.

 

Add to that religious and familial traditions/pressures.

Which, as I'm sure you can guess, don't carry much weight with me.

 

And since being together is beneficial for the child, it's a good thing and has utility.

Indeed, but is not limited to marriage.

 

Is that because you believe marriage does not increase the likelihood of staying together for the long haul?

Yep. Pretty much. I think commitment is commitment and you either have it or you don't. If you don't have it, then "marriage" isn't going to make it magically appear. I'll use my own divorce as an example

 

I suppose that's just as valid of conjecture as mine.

If you consider testimony from the horse's mouth conjecture, then yes. By no means do I believe that one groups experiences acurately reflect those of all polygamist families, but monogamous couples are still allowed to get married without passing an Ozzie and Harriet test, so...

 

Have a good one.

You do the same. Enjoy your game!

[PoiuyWired]

Well, I have no problem with people having "officialized Polygamy Relationships" I think the problem lies in how the legal system would deal with such cases, and the possability of people grouping together just to reap benefits, amongst other things, like the huge legal issues with divorce (or guild splits if you will) If normal divorce is nasty, think about one between 5+ people...

 

Calling it Marriage or not is not the real issue here, we can call it "CongoBongo" for all i care. Its how the system should(or should not) be tweaked to accept such structures and the possable issues that comes with it. Its about what legal rights should be granted to the individuals in such relationships, kids related issues, child support, etc...

 

Personally I am currently happy with this one <3 and, nope, not likely to change anytime soon if ever. But yeah I do think a polygamy system can work out.

[Jae Onasi]

The spiritual comment--actually, I was trying not to offend you, Achilles, by associating you as an atheist with anything spiritual.

 

The reasons first cousins should not marry are not related to morals, it's related to the higher risk of inheritable genetic diseases (as opposed to genetic diseases that develop spontaneously) and Down's syndrome. The closer the relationship (first cousins, aunt/uncle with nephew/niece, parent and child, brother-sister, and so forth), the higher the risk for genetic diseases to develop. We need some diversity in our gene pool.

 

You wanted sources, Achilles, you got them--abstracts mostly of the science/medical journal articles because I'm not buying the articles at 40 bucks a pop for you all. This is no where near exhaustive. The Canadian articles are the most detailed. The third link I wish I had access to because it's quoted by a number of other studies, so it's developed an importance all its own in the academic community.

 

Site on polygamy in Jeffs' group

One of the stories of the women and men who left the group--Check out all the other stories.

 

Women from Polygamous and Monogamous Marriages in an Out-Patient Psychiatric ClinicGreater risk of low self esteem, poor relationship with husband, and loneliness, greater risk of low self-esteem for daughters of a polygamous family.

 

Problems in France--Some describe life in a polygamous household.

 

Polygamy contributes to increased rates of STDs in Sub-Saharan Africa

 

Polygamy is a complementary factor in the spread of HIV in Sub-Saharan Africa

 

I didn't know about the incest risk so I'll pass that on too. Note there is frank discussion of incest here. A Father Marries his Daughters: A Case of Incestuous Polygamy

 

abstract showing polygamy is painful to wives, even in well-functioning polygamist relationships

 

Polygamy affects socio-economic factors and health status

 

collection of Canadian policy reports on the harm of polygamy to women and children

 

And another policy paper based on a variety of studies. Full text of policy is here.

 

And more on women in polygamy, part of this paper

 

Statement that polygamy has been identified as a risk factor for psychological distress

 

Polygamy as a significant risk factor for substance abuse

 

What is it about polygamy that makes the roots so deep and destructive? Some suggest that the economics of one man trying to provide for so many families inevitably leads to poverty and crime. (Welfare fraud is rampant in polygamous communities, with as much as 50 percent of the population relying on public assistance.)

 

Others say the jealousy generated by plural marriages corrodes families and individuals. Or that the dissolution of individual identity in such communities simply leads to a lack of respect for other human beings.

 

Whatever the case, polygamy is not an activity whose effects are restricted to the bedroom and consenting adults. Rather, it seems to corrupt civil society as a whole, destroying education, individual rights and the rule of law - in other words, the foundations of democratic governance. Just as with slavery, to which polygamy was compared in the presidential election of 1856, even a single instance can fundamentally alter a society.

article here.

 

Saathi research on negative effects on women

 

Increased risk of Hepatitis B during pregnancy--polygamy is a risk factor

 

See slide 7 and on.

 

Polygamy as a risk-factor for depression and anxiety in late pregnancy

 

Polygamy is a barrier to health care in the UAE

 

Turkish study showing polygamy increases rates of depression among women

 

Polygamy contributes to HIV transmission in a signficant way in Mayotte

 

Polygamy contributes to post-partum depression

 

Poverty, abuse, and polygamy

 

Polygamy cited as a cause of poverty

 

Contribution of polygamy to women's oppression and impoverishment

 

Tapestry's list of abuses brought about by polygamy

 

Study on hazardous alcohol use among Nigerian male freshmen shows coming from a polygamous household is a significant risk factor.

 

The other stuff I'll deal with later. It's 4am for this insomniac and if I try to put too many more quote tags and urls in here, this won't post.

[Rogue Warrior]

I have seen this sort of thing before and the results can be devastating. Warren Jeffs will hopefully serve as an example.

[Achilles]

The spiritual comment--actually, I was trying not to offend you, Achilles, by associating you as an atheist with anything spiritual.

Heh Nope, spiritual is fine.

 

The reasons first cousins should not marry are not related to morals, it's related to the higher risk of inheritable genetic diseases (as opposed to genetic diseases that develop spontaneously) and Down's syndrome. The closer the relationship (first cousins, aunt/uncle with nephew/niece, parent and child, brother-sister, and so forth), the higher the risk for genetic diseases to develop. We need some diversity in our gene pool.

Indeed we do! Inbreeding would seem to add more diversity via more random mutations. Hence how small, non-adapted species can quickly evolve into expansive, well-adapted species in some situations. Evolution is fascinating, isn't it?

 

I'm not going to argue against health considerations that I happen to agree with, however I will point out that this is not a moral argument.

 

You wanted sources, Achilles, you got them--abstracts mostly of the science/medical journal articles because I'm not buying the articles at 40 bucks a pop for you all.

Fair enough.

Would you prefer that deconstruct them all one-by-one or would you prefer that I skip the part where I point out that none of these would appear to argue a moral point against polygamy? Let me know. And thanks for the links!

[Jae Onasi]

If doing that which hurts someone is immoral (excepting things such as surgery and dentistry where the ultimate benefits are obvious), and polygamy hurts women and children as noted in numerous studies, then is not polygamy therefore immoral?

 

I never said I didn't agree with evolution, btw.

[Achilles]

If doing that which hurts someone is immoral (excepting things such as surgery and dentistry where the ultimate benefits are obvious), and polygamy hurts women and children as noted in numerous studies, then is not polygamy therefore immoral?

No moreso than monogamous relationships that frequently run the same risks.

[Jae Onasi]

However, polygamy runs the risk overall (as noted in the studies above) of causing significantly greater problems, particularly for women/children, than monogamous relationships, and thus becomes an immoral choice. Why would we as a society and individually choose to acknowledge and encourage (or at least turn a blind eye to) a mode of relationship that causes substantially greater problems?

[Achilles]

However, polygamy runs the risk overall (as noted in the studies above) of causing significantly greater problems, particularly for women/children, than monogamous relationships, and thus becomes an immoral choice.

Not sure I follow that reasoning. Something is either immoral or it is not. If there are risks inherent to both monogamous and polygamous relationships, then you can't say one is immoral without painting the other with that same brush.

 

FWIW, I'm perfectly ok going down that path, so long as we recognize that we need to look at each relationship on a case-by-case basis and cease with the generalizations.

 

Why would we as a society and individually choose to acknowledge and encourage (or at least turn a blind eye to) a mode of relationship that causes substantially greater problems?

Dunno. We can consider that question when there is evidence that your presumption is true.

[Jae Onasi]

What other evidence do you need besides the 28-odd studies/sites listed above that polygamy is more harmful than monogamy? The several hundred more citations available? Polygamy causes significantly greater problems than monogamy. The only way you can deny that is if you deny the mountain of research done on the issue.

 

No relationship is ever going to be free of pain since we're all human and screw up on a rather regular basis. There are going to be problems in every single relationship. Since that's the case, we have to then look at the statistics regarding types, amounts, and causes of problems and whether one mode embraces or encourages immoral behaviors more than another mode. Monogamy in general discourages child sexual abuse from underage marriage, and discourages by definition multiple partners. Do people violate that? Sure, rather regularly, unfortunately for the kids and the unsuspecting spouses and sometimes even the perpetrator. However, incest and adultery are not supposed to be the default position in monogamy, and are not encouraged. Polygamy, however, embraces child marriage and multiple partners. We know from the studies above that having multiple partners in a polygamist relationship increases risk for HIV and other STDs, depression, poverty, drug abuse among the children, and so forth, and yet polygamists still willingly get involved in a more risky form of relationship. This benefits no one and hurts a lot of people, and those problems generated by polygamy spill over into society. Do you consider allowing a mode of relationship that you know is going to cause statistically significantly greater problems for women, children, some men, and society as a whole to be moral?

[tk102]

I think the gist of Achilles' point was that we can't know polygamy is going to cause pain to anyone so restricting the rights of people to engage in it is itself immoral.

 

But you could apply the argument to someone punching another person in the face. I don't know it will cause pain, but I have a reasonable idea that it might. And that's good enough for me to say that it's immoral to punch someone in the face.

 

I guess I wouldn't qualify as a libertarian, but I think there's enough evidence to support keeping the status quo in regards to laws regarding marraige (including the part about not allowing first cousins to marry).

[Achilles]

What other evidence do you need besides the 28-odd studies/sites listed above that polygamy is more harmful than monogamy?

A single causal relationship should be sufficient...for each argument that you would like to raise against polygamy.

 

The several hundred more citations available?

Not if they are only going to parrot the points that you've already raised. I wouldn't dare presume to waste your time.

 

Polygamy causes significantly greater problems than monogamy.

Source? (You saw that coming, right?)

 

The only way you can deny that is if you deny the mountain of research done on the issue.

I'd much prefer we use the word "question". Yes, I question your sources. I question their biases and I question their methodologies. But how much I question them is really quite irrelevant, because as I have already stated, none of them appear to offer a moral argument against polygamy.

 

No relationship is ever going to be free of pain since we're all human and screw up on a rather regular basis. There are going to be problems in every single relationship. Since that's the case, we have to then look at the statistics regarding types, amounts, and causes of problems and whether one mode embraces or encourages immoral behaviors more than another mode.

I think we're dangerously close to circular reasoning here.

 

Polygamy is immoral because it encourages immoral behavior.

Which immoral behavior?

Polygamy.

 

Monogamy in general discourages child sexual abuse from underage marriage, and discourages by definition multiple partners.

Really? Souce please.

 

Do people violate that? Sure, rather regularly, unfortunately for the kids and the unsuspecting spouses and sometimes even the perpetrator.

Oh, ok. So there isn't a causal relationship between polygamy and child sexual abuse? Fair enough.

 

However, incest and adultery are not supposed to be the default position in monogamy, and are not encouraged.

And they are in polygamy? Source please.

 

Polygamy, however, embraces child marriage and multiple partners.

Regarding child marriage: polygamy does or some polygamist do? Multiple partners I won't contest because it's central to polygamy so long as we aren't confusing it with open marriage or adultery which are entirely different things.

 

We know from the studies above that having multiple partners in a polygamist relationship increases risk for HIV and other STDs, depression, poverty, drug abuse among the children, and so forth, and yet polygamists still willingly get involved in a more risky form of relationship.

As opposed to anyone else that has multiple partners how? Should we put serial monogamy on trial while we're at it?

 

This benefits no one and hurts a lot of people, and those problems generated by polygamy spill over into society.

The same can be said for many practices. The question is whether or not it is moral to infringe on someone else's right because it what they do might have a negative impact on others. Do we want to declare driving immoral because automobile accidents cause thousands of deaths and injuries every day and impact society via traffic jams, lost productivity, smog, etc.

 

Like I said, we can use whatever brush you'd like to, so long as we're prepared to paint everything.

 

Do you consider allowing a mode of relationship that you know is going to cause statistically significantly greater problems for women, children, some men, and society as a whole to be moral?

Think very carefully about the current divorce rate before you decide whether or not you really want for me to answer this question.

 

Thanks for your post, Jae. I am enjoying our conversation.

 

I think the gist of Achilles' point was that we can't know polygamy is going to cause pain to anyone so restricting the rights of people to engage in it is itself immoral.

Correct.

 

But you could apply the argument to someone punching another person in the face. I don't know it will cause pain, but I have a reasonable idea that it might. And that's good enough for me to say that it's immoral to punch someone in the face.

I would argue that the intent behind punching someone in the face is to cause pain. Would you agree? I'm not sure the analogy is applicable.

 

I guess I wouldn't qualify as a libertarian, but I think there's enough evidence to support keeping the status quo in regards to laws regarding marraige (including the part about not allowing first cousins to marry).

But I thought you said earlier that you would support gay marriage? That's not status quo.