us Judge Effectively Decriminalizes Polygamy in Utah

[HawkMan]

Even IF he was right (he isn't), it's irrelevant anyway. It's still nobody's business except those involved in the relationship.

 

True, especially since the majority of marriages, without and especially within religion isn't about love anyway, but convenience and tradition (not easterns cultures aren't the only ones doing arranged marriages, they just do it more openly), so it not being about love would be completely irrelevant. 

[DocM]

Speak for yourself.

[Shiranui]

Does anyone know what the general oppositions to polygamy are?

Abuse of women.

[taim]

Abuse of women.

And we don't have abuse in any monogamous relationships?

[DocM]

And we don't have abuse in any monogamous relationships?

Due to having n>1 potential victim in one abode the victimizer has more opportunities to do his warped thing.

[FloatingFatMan]

Due to having n>1 potential victim in one abode the victimizer has more opportunities to do his warped thing.

 

You're presuming abuse just because of a non-conventional relationship.

 

One does not equal the other. You're just letting your prejudices show, and TBH... They're kinda ugly.

 

As long as no one is being hurt, and all involved are legally consenting adults, what business is it of anyone's how they arrange their personal lives?

[adrynalyne]

True, especially since the majority of marriages, without and especially within religion isn't about love anyway, but convenience and tradition (not easterns cultures aren't the only ones doing arranged marriages, they just do it more openly), so it not being about love would be completely irrelevant. 

Provide a source for this claim, please.  Otherwise it is another one of those awesome made up statistics we see so often on Neowin.

[FloatingFatMan]

True, especially since the majority of marriages, without and especially within religion isn't about love anyway, but convenience and tradition (not easterns cultures aren't the only ones doing arranged marriages, they just do it more openly), so it not being about love would be completely irrelevant. 

 

I married for love, my parents married for love, all the married couples I know, all married for love. ALL of them.

 

Maybe your folks didn't, or you didn't and that sucks for you, but please don't speak for the majority unless you can back it up with evidence.

 

The point is though, why can't polyamorous groups marry for love, too?

[taim]

I married for love, my parents married for love, all the married couples I know, all married for love. ALL of them.

 

Maybe your folks didn't, or you didn't and that sucks for you, but please don't speak for the majority unless you can back it up with evidence.

 

The point is though, why can't polyamorous groups marry for love, too?

My parents married for love but they've been separated for more than 20 years. They still love their three children and granddaughter. You don't need marriage to be happy as long as the family sticks together.

 

You don't need marriage if you're in love but I hope all the people that can't get married with the one they love are able to in the future.

[Andre S. Veteran]

a religious promise to stay together under the wrath of god, you know since... we invented religion thousands of years ago when we started thinking and people became afraid that their pathetic lives are all there is and other peopel took advantage of this by creating religion to control them. Of course at the time religion also helped mankind survive since they could ban things they over generations found out was dangerous in religious rules.

This is just hand-waving in the direction of commonly accepted ideas, there's nothing historical or concrete in your words. What do you even mean by "religion"? Judaism? Christianity? In what epoch? If we look at marriage in the Mosaic Law of the Old Testament, most of what's being said there is essentially civic rights, duties and regulations, although these differ from those of other societies and times. It's very difficult to try to look at Christianity as a whole since it has covered millenia and widely different societies, but if you look at marriage in any particular Christian society at any point in time you will see that while the sacramental aspect is somewhat of a constant, it's relatively secondary (in scope, at least) compared with the civic aspect of it: transmission of property, guardianship of children, etc. (although again, the exact implementation details vary widely). That's where the real meat is.

 

The idea of marriage as a purely "religious" idea simply isn't found anywhere in History.

[HawkMan]

I married for love, my parents married for love, all the married couples I know, all married for love. ALL of them.

 

Maybe your folks didn't, or you didn't and that sucks for you, but please don't speak for the majority unless you can back it up with evidence.

 

The point is though, why can't polyamorous groups marry for love, too?

 

If people truly married for love then the divorce rates wouldn't be what they are, but yes, majority was a bit of an exaggeration. but you can't deny that there's a large percentage of marriages especially in the more religious areas who happen with no or very little love. and this is more and more likely the higher up you go in the "classes", even if we're supposed to be a classless society. I'm engaged out of love myself, I have no particular need to marry and neither does she, and doing it won't mean our love is more or less. 

[DocM]

You're presuming abuse just because of a non-conventional relationship.

One does not equal the other. You're just letting your prejudices show, and TBH... They're kinda ugly.

As long as no one is being hurt, and all involved are legally consenting adults, what business is it of anyone's how they arrange their personal lives?

Just reflecting the science, and the societal influences polygamy has if it becomes widespread. This study isn't the only one showing similar results.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2011.0290

>

By increasing the relatedness within households, normative monogamy reduces intra-household conflict, leading to lower rates of child neglect, abuse, accidental death and homicide. These predictions are tested using converging lines of evidence from across the human sciences.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120124093142.htm

Monogamy reduces major social problems of polygamist cultures

University of British Columbia

Summary:

In cultures that permit men to take multiple wives, the intra-sexual competition that occurs causes greater levels of crime, violence, poverty and gender inequality than in societies that institutionalize and practice monogamous marriage. That is a key finding of a new study that explores the global rise of monogamous marriage as a dominant cultural institution. The study suggests that institutionalized monogamous marriage is rapidly replacing polygamy because it has lower levels of inherent social problems.

>

Considered the most comprehensive study of polygamy and the institution of marriage, the study finds significantly higher levels rape, kidnapping, murder, assault, robbery and fraud in polygynous cultures. According to Henrich and his research team, which included Profs. Robert Boyd (UCLA) and Peter Richerson (UC Davis), these crimes are caused primarily by pools of unmarried men, which result when other men take multiple wives.

>

[FloatingFatMan]

these crimes are caused primarily by pools of unmarried men, which result when other men take multiple wives.

 

So, not directly caused by polygamy itself, but by single men turning to crime and blaming it on polygamy.

[HawkMan]

Firstly, it's unlikely to ever become "widespread", and you're comparing tribal violence from polygami with voluntary polygami with free modern women that are allowed to make decisions of their own...

 

 

Now your bias is really going off the deep end.  Or are you saying that someone else marrying multiple women is such a threat to your manhood it would push you over the edge and challenge him to a man to man pistol duel ?... 

[DocM]

So, not directly caused by polygamy itself, but by single men turning to crime and blaming it on polygamy.

The societal effects on outside the home violence are what you just quoted, ignoring the last paragraph of the actual study abstract.

>

By increasing the relatedness within households, normative monogamy reduces intra-household [inside the home] conflict, leading to lower rates of child neglect, abuse, accidental death and homicide. These predictions are tested using converging lines of evidence from across the human sciences.

Both matter, and this pertains to my original comment which you mistakenly atribbuted to a religious objection. Wrong. I don't care who you bang, but alternative social structures are not necessary for that.

[mudslag]

It's legal implications is a fairly recent thing as far as the history of marriage goes... so... always...

 

 

In terms of history, some form of governing position has always had a link to marriage. Be it form of family to town/village elders, the church or local government and all the way up to higher forms of government. There has always been someone there to deal with the disputes and "legal" aspects from problems that arise. I use legal in a loose sense due to ancient times legal was just what ever rules were in place by whoever held the power. While the forms of government have changed over time, the basic concept was still the same. Someone with power be it local or higher had to deal with potential issues. During older times, marriages often were results of prearranged agreements with families and often included trade of goods, property, assets, power, security or anything else deemed important at the time. Marriages weren't just the joining of two people but families. You can still find examples of that even today in parts of the world. 

 

Government, no matter how big or small in some form has always played a part in marriage.

[mudslag]

If people truly married for love then the divorce rates wouldn't be what they are, but yes, majority was a bit of an exaggeration. but you can't deny that there's a large percentage of marriages especially in the more religious areas who happen with no or very little love. and this is more and more likely the higher up you go in the "classes", even if we're supposed to be a classless society. I'm engaged out of love myself, I have no particular need to marry and neither does she, and doing it won't mean our love is more or less. 

 

 

How can you presume to speak on the behalf of anyone other then yourself? Marrying for love does not magically make love last or two people not grow apart over time. People divorce for all sorts of reasons, love or lack of love may or may not have anything to do with it. 

[MorganX]

I both agree and disagree with this.

 

For one, I don't think it's anyone's business who or how many people you marry anyway, BUT, as there is a law in place making polygamy illegal, your religion should not be allowed to trump that law.  No religion should be given an exception to any law.  If you do, the law is no longer equal to all.

 

If a law limits your freedom to do something, then you get lobby to get the law changed. You don't just ignore it because you feel like it.

 

And if the law is that you have the right to freedom of religion and laws can't be passed that violate that right?

[FloatingFatMan]

And if the law is that you have the right to freedom of religion and laws can't be passed that violate that right?

 

Freedom of religion doesn't equal special treatment under the law. It just means you're free to practice your religion, but that shouldn't mean you get special dispensations for laws.

 

Laws are there for everyone.  If your religion says you can do something that's against the law, then tough.  

[blank]

Scary. Makes me wonder what the limitations are for things that could be considered "freedom of religion". There are some really messed up religions out there, and since they are ALL made up, anyone could use this freedom ideal, and do pretty much anything.

[DocM]

Freedom of religion doesn't equal special treatment under the law. It just means you're free to practice your religion, but that shouldn't mean you get special dispensations for laws.

Free Exercise Clause

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

Laws are there for everyone. If your religion says you can do something that's against the law, then tough.

Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, passed by a Democrat Congress and signed by Bill Clinton - not Republicans.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedom_Restoration_Act

>

In the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Congress states in its findings that a religiously neutral law can burden a religion just as much as one that was intended to interfere with religion; therefore the Act states that the ?Government shall not substantially burden a person?s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability."

>

In other words, the law of unintended consequences.

[FloatingFatMan]

Free Exercise Clause

Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, passed by a Democrat Congress and signed by Bill Clinton - not Republicans.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedom_Restoration_Act

In other words, the law of unintended consequences.

 

Like I said, remove the stupid "exceptions" BS, and then everyone is treated equally under the law.  Right now, because that act allows religious people to do things other cannot, the law is not applied equally.

[IntegralDerivative]

I think polygamy is bad because guys will just one-up each other on how many women they have(like they do now on *en*s sizes), and they dont really even love those women that they have. Also, they likely wont be able to financially support their families. having dozens of children is enough of a problem, now imagine dozens of wives with dozens of children PER WIFE, that sounds crazy hard, but plausible given that some guys just cant last a month without doing it.

[FloatingFatMan]

I think polygamy is bad because guys will just one-up each other on how many women they have(like they do now on *en*s sizes), and they dont really even love those women that they have. Also, they likely wont be able to financially support their families. having dozens of children is enough of a problem, now imagine dozens of wives with dozens of children PER WIFE, that sounds crazy hard, but plausible given that some guys just cant last a month without doing it.

 

Yeeeeaaahhh... You DO realise that women get rather a large say in this too, right?

 

Why do people assume polygamy means 1 man many women?

[DocM]

Like I said, remove the stupid "exceptions" BS, and then everyone is treated equally under the law. Right now, because that act allows religious people to do things other cannot, the law is not applied equally.

The RFRA only codified what is in the Constitution, and since it takes 3/4 of the states to amend the Constitution it isn't changing soon.

It's only been amended 27 times in 227 years, and just 17 times since the Bill of Rights package in 1788. One was a repeal (Prohibition.) The 27th amendment took 202 years for enough states to ratify it.

Not only that, but with the Free Exercise Clause being part of the Bill of Rights (first 10 amendments) there is a much, much higher resistance to changing it.