The polygamy slippery slope

I agree that the one implies the other.

However, it seems to me that polygamy is on much sounder "traditional" ground.

Heck, since we're all about preserving religious liberty and traditional family arrangements around here, what's wrong with endorsing marriage arrangements that have been common in the Middle East for centuries and endorsed by a major world religion?

Oh that's right...it's not really about religious liberty or traditionalism is it? It's about supremacy of a particular form of Christianity.

Indeed : The law Commission of Canada recommended polygamy back when they recommended same-sex “marriage”.. (and equating co-habitation & marriage as legally equivalent)

The family diversity movement means “anything but traditional marriage”.

My entire family law department was made up of three lesbian “polyamorists”. (Polyamory - It means multiple-loves and is probably a better term than polygamy with its religious and patriarchal overtones)

Most people don’t know it but the ALI (American Law Institute) an extremely influencial group of lawyers and judges issues its “Principles of family Dissolution” shortly after Lawrence was decided (but before Goodridge) This also recommends polyamory and such group configurations

Main stream television legal personalities like Jonathan Turley (of Georgetown) have written approvingly of recognizing polyamorist relationships.

There is NO slippery sloooooooooooooooo……………………………………THUD!

The family diversity movement means “anything but traditional marriage”.

Sorry, Fitz, but since you just broke my BS meter, I'm sending the repair bill to you.

I'm also guessing that you didn't get to know those lesbians very well.

There may be some decent arguments against or for polygamy, but I haven't seen either side address it in a serious manner, yet. The US impulse to ban polygamy was tied to the bigotry against the LDS by more traditional religions and social changes over time. As was mentioned, the Bible has no problem with polygamy (though Paul things that polygamists shouldn't be bishops), nor does the Q'ran.

It appears that women have suffered second-class status in traditional societies that tolerate or encourage polygamy. Would they be better off in a modern Western society in a legally sanctioned group marriage? Probably. Would it work well? Given how hard it is for two people to stay married, I wouldn't assume that having half a dozen in such a relationship would be a predictor of success.

It is interesting that the right-wingers are are so worried about "SSM leads to polygamy" The polygamists are the reddest of the red staters, the most conservative of the conservative Christians. I would like to see Rod address that. I would also like to have a polyamorous relationship with Hallie Berry and Jessica Biel. I wonder which will happen?

I have lived in Vermont for 35 years and went through the civil unions stuff and now this. It really DID NOT go through democratically. This was never put out to the voters, it was left in our legislators hands, who did not vote the will of the majority of constituents.

Yaargghh! Those unelected, black robed tyrants legislating without...uh, oh, where was I?

Oh, yeah.

We need the black robed tyrant judges to bring the tyrant legislators back into line and strike down (!)...blah blah blah.

Reprinted from the Vermont thread.

Since you want to snitty about it, Rod (and are back to deleting posts for no discernable reason), how about I take a crack at it.

If you find the time, please explain how, in your view, same-sex coupling is morally licit and ought to be privileged in marriage law, but mutually consenting polyamorous relationships should not be.

First, you are wrong to use the word 'privileged'. Marriages come with rights that are recognized. Continuing...SS relationships are inherently equal, or as equal as can be humanly possible. Moreover, we can mostly agree that humans are particularly adapted to, and usually desire, pair bonding and intimacy with another individual. Polygamy in past cultures, and in LDS sects today, is about establishing patriarchal power and indulging male sexual supremacy. There is nothing about it that actually can be claimed to lead to stability, equality or the accumulation of financial security.

Quite the opposite.

Hildale -- Welfare is often how polygamist communities like Hildale in Utah and Colorado City in Arizona substantially support themselves. Polygamists often use food stamps to feed their families. Former polygamist Benjamin Bisline said, "If it wasn't for government subsidies, these people couldn't survive. There are people here with 15 wives on welfare.'' Bisline still lives in a polygamist town.

http://www.rickross.com/reference/polygamy/polygamy5.html

I am not going to claim that polygamy is absolutely not going to happen if and when SSM comes to pass universally. I won't even claim that it should be illegal. But, we don't let 15 year old girls cut themselves with razorblades, and I feel much the same way about women who have been systematically brainwashed, denied proper education and then married off into these arangements that are demonstrably harmful to their interests, and all so a select few men get their sexual fantasies fulfilled.

Anyone trying to legalize this should explain this as well...

ST. GEORGE, Utah -- Abandoned by his family, faith, and community, Gideon Barlow arrived here an orphan from another world.

The freckle-faced 17-year-old said he was left to fend for himself last year after being forced out of Colorado City, Ariz., just over the state line.

''I couldn't see how my mom would let them do what they did to me," he said.

When he tried to visit her on Mother's Day, he said, she told him to stay away. When he begged to give her a present, she said she wanted nothing. ''I am dead to her now," he said.

Gideon is one of the ''Lost Boys," a group of more than 400 teenagers -- some as young as 13 -- who authorities in Utah and Arizona say have fled or been driven out of the polygamous enclaves of Hildale, Utah, and Colorado City over the last four years.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/06/19/polygamys_lost_boys_expelled_from_only_life_they_knew/

You want a practice that is demonstrably unethical, abusive, controlling and destroys families, Rod?

It is not same sex marriage.

Polygamy sure looks like a possibility...

Exactly, algore trout. As others have pointed out, this arrangement is in fact very traditional, and supported by various "traditional, conservative religions that otherwise "disapprove" of homosexuality as well. So yeah, the fact that people like Rod gleefully use this to further the slippery slope theory, really give me a chuckle as the irony is immense.

" The polygamists are the reddest of the red staters, the most conservative of the conservative Christians."

Complete and utter nonsense.

Judging by the lukewarm response in the comments, I'd say Rod it about right. It's only a matter of time before such a barbaric practice is not only tolerated, but forced upon us.

Franklin Evans,

Don't be dumb. The arguments of 'gender studies' 'scholars' aside, polygamy will never be practiced on a gender-neutral basis, for the simple reason that women do not typically want multiple partners. The desire for multiple concurrent sex partners is almost an exclusively male vice, with deep roots in evolutionary biology. That is why polygamy, prostitution, and pornography are almost exclusively male vices, all across the globe and all throughout history. Polygamy in whatever form it begins, will inevitably end up with Turkish Harems.

I realize this violates the conception of some feminists that gender is socially constructed and there aren't any significant differences between men and women. But I would hope that all of us here are intelligent enough to know that those are lies, and particularly pernicious ones.

Jim,

Don't be silly. Solomon's polygamous lifestyle did not exactly end well, did it?

"Then did Solomon build an high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, in the hill that is before Jerusalem, and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon. And likewise did he for all his strange wives, which burnt incense and sacrificed unto their gods."

I am far from a literalist as regards the OT, but the Bible makes very clear that Solomon began by having many wives, and ended by having many gods. And not surprisingly so. If sex and marriage are intended to be physical reflections of a spiritual meaning, and if the love of a man and a woman (or, OK, a homosexual and his male partner) is intended to reflect the love of Christ and the Church, then it should be expected that polygamy will eventually lead to idolatry. And so it happened.

But you don't get it! There will now be unknown numbers of unattached men who can't find wives, and this will wreak havoc on the social order because there will be no gentle being in their life to civilize them.

Denton, could you show me where Abraham, Jacob, David, and Solomon were judged for having multiple wives. I know all of those stories and I don't recall any such judgments. Ishmael got treated rottenly, but that was by Abraham. Jacob had two wives because his father-in-law played a trick on him. Leah got to have almost all of the boys because Jacob liked Rachel better, the one he wanted to marry in the first place. David? Had some minor problems because he made sure Uriah, his top general, died so he could take his general's wife away, no real punishment, after all, Uriah wasn't an Israelite. No punishment is related to it. Solomon? Not that I can tell.

I dunno about polygamy, but don't miss the slippery slope of DC recognition of gay marriages performed elsewhere today!

Kyrie eleison.

To echo Celtic Dragon, polygamy is seen in pretty much the most backward societies for a good reason.

Society clearly does not benefit from having young men denied an opportunity to ever marry - hence the "Lost Boys" Celtic referenced. If some 70 year old cult leader is going to have 10 sixteen year old wives, well, that means nine young men will have to do without.

From what I've heard of polygamist clans, incest and child rape are part and parcel of the deal...those old geezers with the harem didn't find those girls at the local mall - the girls parents (father) traded them for other girls.

I simply don't see the connection between this and two 30 year old men in S.F. getting married

Rod,

The slippery slope began decades ago with easy access to "no-fault" divorce. Now "everybody's" doing it. Including Christians. We have nobody to blame but ourselves, for all of our shouts of "traditional marriage" are watered down at best, but mostly just plain hypocritical because we speak from a position more than 50% of us longer hold. Serial monogamy DOES NOT EQUAL traditional marriage. Perhaps a physiologically natural relationship, yes, but NOT traditional marriage.

This is just another example of why the "conservative movement" in this country is dead. I've used the analogy before of a dried up well and the farmer pointing to it saying he's going to conserve water. Well, that's nice, but there's not any water left to conserve. You can only conserve that which you already have. It is impossible to conserve traditional marriage because we've already allowed it to be corrupted with legalized serial monagomy.

I would suspect that legalized polygamy is well on its way.

-Matthew

Hello, the reason women enjoy the equality we now have is BECAUSE we aren't lost in some harem.

And on the next episode of Cruncy Con, you'll get to hear the "If you're not my brand of Christianity slippery slope", which will cover all of these topics and much more. Stay tuned.

quote: "Continuing...SS relationships are inherently equal, or as equal as can be humanly possible. Moreover, we can mostly agree that humans are particularly adapted to, and usually desire, pair bonding and intimacy with another individual. Polygamy in past cultures, and in LDS sects today, is about establishing patriarchal power and indulging male sexual supremacy. There is nothing about it that actually can be claimed to lead to stability, equality or the accumulation of financial security."

All of the above is completely irrelevant if the parties involved in a plural marriage are all consenting adults. Whether a marriage is about "patriarchal power" or is "unequal" or some sort is a value judgment. And if religious traditionalists can't enforce their values on others with respect to SSM, then you sure as heck shouldn't be able to force your values on others. There are some radical feminists who would say that my marriage to my wife is wrong because all marriages between men and women are "unequal" and "patriarchal." Of course, my wife and I both find radical feminists to be nuts and don't care what they say about our marriage. Thankfully, they also have no right to impose their values on us.

If women want to be a plural marriages, well, they are adults. Let them make their own decisions. They don't need you forcing your own values, religious, secular, or otherwise on them through the law.

rr

Rod, it's been real, and sometimes it's even been fun. Glad to hear you still have a job, and I hope it stays that way. Enjoy the video. God bless, and keep your skis together.

sex always contained the risk of a divine command to live outside yourself and to sacrifice yourself for another life. This is something gays cannot experience and therefore cannot really understand

Bite your tongue, "Your Name." Out of the gay couples that I know, I can think of two right off where one of the partners nursed the other through a long, tragic final illness--in one case, AIDS, in the other, brain cancer. No, wait, another lesbian friend also nursed her partner through sickness and death from cancer. And then she raised her partner's son as her own, while grieving her own loss, and getting no support from anyone. These were people who had not even made any wedding vows, because they weren't allowed to. They acted out of pure love and commitment, unaided by any church community or social support systems. When you don't know what you're talking about, maybe you need to stop talking. Or pray God to forgive you for uncharitable, mean-spirited slander.

If gay marriage sets the stage for polygamy, religious liberty paves the road and drives the car. As the Canada example points out, the pressure for polygamy comes from traditional cultures (aborigines and Africa) and religion (polygamy, Muslims, Africa). If polygamy arrives in the U.S.--and don't hold your breath because there is no current organized effort to push for, or even consider, legalizing polygamy--the effort is going to be led by traditionalists, orthodox religious believers, and those who say that religious liberty demands that people be allowed to circumvent public policy.

Hi, Sig.

I did not say that gays cannot sacrifice for others. In this respect they are no different than straights. However, no gay person is ever going to risk the creation of a life and the responsibilities attending that by engaging in a sex act. And that's the whole point. Whereas, even with birth control, straights take that risk all the time. And you obviously don't get it. But you certainly know what your feelings are.

Razib Khan - "Monogamy: bucking the trend"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2008/nov/20/animalbehaviour-evolution
"Since 1970 the gains in income have gone mostly to the elites, as they did before 1800. A positive vision of a society characterised by a modicum of social and economic equality has given way to the liberal individualist ethos, where personal choice is supreme. Perhaps western societies will revert to the "normal" human type, and accept the inevitability of both radical inequality of marriage and income, becoming Saudis in cloudy climes."

I don't really understand the advocates of polygamy here. Are you guys not aware of how rare, and precious an achievement of Christian civilisation this is, the idea that one man should be bound to one woman? Is there anything more pro-woman than this idea? Lots of men in Africa and the Muslim world jeer at monogamous Christian men as being effete and unmanly. Are we going to give in to their jeers? Or are we going to stand up for one of the signal achievements of the last two millennia of Christian civilization.

Make no mistake- sexual nihilism will not strengthen us to stand up against a resurgent Caliphate.

quote: "If polygamy arrives in the U.S.--and don't hold your breath because there is no current organized effort to push for, or even consider, legalizing polygamy--the effort is going to be led by traditionalists, orthodox religious believers, and those who say that religious liberty demands that people be allowed to circumvent public policy."

And as you have repeatedly shown on this board, the opposition to polygamy will come from the left. The same people who trumpet the idea that "consenting adults" should have the "right" to marry. Except of course when said consenting adults run afoul of leftist ideas about "equality" in marriage and "patriarchy" or some such. Then we get bogus excuses about the legal situation being "too complicated" for them to exercise their "marriage rights." Funny how that works. Leftists aren't interested in imposing their values on everyone else. It's only those fundamentalists. Yeah, right.

rr

I'm old enough to remember when homosexuality itself was stigmatized. I'm old enough, at the edges of my memory, to remember Anita Bryant, etc. Society acquiesced. Let consenting adults do what they want. Then, go figure, in cities with large gay populations, with no social constraints, something happened. AIDS. It was preceded by a lot of other VD (as we called them them) amongst gays. But this was worse.

Go figure. A lot of men, promiscuous sex of a particularly dangerous type. You'd have thought this would have been a warning, instead it was a public relations coup. But supposedly gays have learned to moderate their behavior , although spikes in HIV say otherwise. Well, maybe accepting the polygamist community will help deal with their particular 'pathologies' -- if that's what they be. The young men will learn to wait their turn. Not being stigmatized, polygamists will be able to find better jobs and not rely on welfare. Its a win-win.

Re: it seems unlikely that the Israelites at the time the text was actually written saw it that way.

Turmarion,

Of course they didn't see it that way. They didn't see Isaiah 53 or the book of Jonah as prophecies of Christ either, but they were. The whole premise behind Christian typological interpretation of the OT is that there was a hidden message there that the Jews didn't see when they wrote it. So it goes with monogamy as well.

First Kings 11 clearly _implies_ that Solomon's polygamy led him into idolatry. And the logical step is clear. If love between a man and a woman is an image of the love of God for the Church (which is an old, old, old Christian idea- patristic, medieval and modern) then polygamy is a physical figure of spiritual polytheism. One would predict that polygamy would pave the way for idolatry, and this is exactly what happened in Solomon's case. It's also no accident that Solomon came to worship the destroyer of children, Molech- as we know now, polygamy is terrible for children.

Federal marriage doesn't have anything to do with religious marriage. Churches can still choose not to marry people. The mormon church won't even let certain non-convert family members attend interfaith religious marriages.

Gays just want the same federal rights to tax breaks, hospital visitations rights, funerary-decision making rights that their childless, monogamous, heterosexual counterparts have. They can already legally have sex, which is where the moral debate really lies. The marriage question is just a matter of treating tax paying citizens as tax paying citizens.

The polygamy debate doesn't have to do with the gay debate. The polygamy debate compromises the tax issues because it involves more than 2 people receiving tax benefits.

AK, "always" is a lie. Many heterosexual couples' sex will never lead to a child, short of what you may like to call a "miracle" - something that can also theoretically happen for a same-sex couple. But I doubt you worry about those heterosexuals . Secondly, you're silly if you think having a child forces people to be responsible or sacrifice. No they will have to choose such. At the very most, a woman will have to sacrifice her body unwillingly, but a man doesn't even have that worry.

"I suspect your real feeling is that women need to submit to men"

Ah, "have you stopped beating your wife yet?" AK messed up your righteous rebuke with a reasonable, measured answer that demonstrated you clearly mistook what he said, and instead of apologizing you just want to put him on the defensive by insults that have no basis in anything AK has said.

"Or pray God to forgive you for uncharitable, mean-spirited slander."

How about you take your own advice?

I'm curious: How come polygamy always seems to mean "one man and several or however many", um, wives and not the other way around: One woman and several husbands? Just askin'! Sounds sexist and patriarchial to simple me!

"In particular, a woman sacrificing 20-30 years of her life to raise children, yes, I would say that's about the noblest thing a human being can do".

Well that's one opinion. Everyone has one.

"As far as controlling the sex drive, tell me first, why is it there"?

Sorry, this is not what the statement was about. You seemed to say that discipline has no place anywhere, if people don't procreate from sex, and that is just ludicrous. I'm not about to entertain your theories about the "purpose" of sexual desire. You may think that you stated a biological perspective, but you didn't. By necessity, it's just as faith-based as a claim about the "purpose" of human existence itself.

How come polygamy always seems to mean "one man and several or however many", um, wives and not the other way around: One woman and several husbands? Just askin'! Sounds sexist and patriarchial to simple me!

Because it IS sexist and patriarchial, which is why it is favored by traditionalists and not by progressives. It's an oppressive relationship, which is why modern societies have rejected the traditional support for it.

Don't you just love these people who don't do their research, but who solemnly declare that because Canada legalized same-sex marriage, polygamy must follow, espcially since it's a religious practice? This regardless of the fact that same sex marriage bears no resemblance to polygamy. Same sex marriage still only involves two consenting adults, whereas polygamy involves one man and as many concubines as he can pay for. As well, on May 19, 1976, Canada ratified, and is legally obligated to uphold,the protocol on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which states that everyone has the right to practise their religion, BUT ONLY TO THAT POINT WHERE THOSE PRACTICES START TO CONTRAVENE THE RIGHTS OF ANOTHER. And in 1982, Canada brought in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which states that women have equality with men. Canada also ratified the protocol, and is legally obligated to uphold,the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, which states that polygamy contravenes women's equality rights and also harms their children. Result: women's equality rights 3, polygamists 0. No harems and concubines in Canada, thank you! The year is 2009 AD, not 2009 BC.

Hector, I'm not disagreeing with you. All I'm saying is

1. Denton was incorrect in his assertions of the "judgment" of the patriarchs for polygamy, based on Scripture.

2. It is only retrospectively, in light of the teaching of the Church (for Christians) or the Talmud and the decisions of the rabbis (for modern Judaism) that the Old Testament can be read as endorsing monogamy. Strictly speaking, Judaism never abolished polygamy at all, in fact--it had just become rare in the Greco-Roman world, and in the Middle Ages the rabbis finally banned it since it was rare and would have stirred up frictions with the Gentiles. Jews in Islamic countries practiced occasional polygamy until nearly modern times, since it was not forbidden explicitly by the Tanakh, and was the norm of Gentiles in those societies.

So, while I agree with your interpretation of the Old Testament, it cannot be made except in light of church tradition, which further means it can't really hold water in any church that is fully consistent about sola scriptura. Luther argued that polygamy was permissible in some cases since it wasn't explicitly forbidden in Scripture, and it's no coincidence that some non-Mormon Fundamentalists have begun preaching polygamy on the grounds that it is not forbidden in so many words. Google "Christian polygamy" to see what I mean.

Once more, I am not endorsing polygamy, Christian or otherwise. I'm just saying that we can't argue against it from Scripture to people who don't already share our outlook, and that a sola scriptura approach will definitely not work. We can't just say that "[w]e reject polygamy because of our inherited Christian morality" without explaining the history and origin of that morality, and explaining the way that it developed in post-Scriptural times. We must find other ways to make our case.

"I'm curious: How come polygamy always seems to mean "one man and several or however many", um, wives and not the other way around: One woman and several husbands?"

Because that's what polygamy means. The word for one woman and several husbands is polyandry.

Hector, Christian morality allowed polygamy to flourish until modern society rejected if because it was oppressive. In Africa, for instance, Christian polygamists are not uncommon. Charles Taylor and Jacob Zuma are both polygamists. Polygamy persists among Christians in South Africa, Nigeria, Zambia, etc.

"Because it IS sexist and patriarchial, which is why it is favored by traditionalists and not by progressives."

Daniel, would that include some of your best friends? *snicker*

Turmarion,

Interesting, I didn't know about that 'Christian polygamy' business. Though I have lived in Africa, and was aware that a lot of African Christian churches do tolerate polygamy. Apparently you're right, Luther did allow a polygamous dispensation for a German prince to take a second wife. The comments at the link below are interesting.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/debates/african_debates/2348341.stm

Daniel, with due respect, that's nonsense. Polygamy was condemned as far back as the Apostles and the Church Fathers, and consistently throughout the middle ages. Read what Aquinas had to say on the matter. These African churches are, in my view, deviating seriously from scripture, tradition and reason.

Numbers Chapter 12. Moses, already arried to Zipporah, decides to take another wife - an Ethiopian no less. Aaron his priest and Miriam his sister get all het up about it and criticisez him. The LORD appears to the three of them and rebukes Aaron and Miriam, cursing her with leporacy for 7 days.

Thus we see that the priest can't help but assert their own self-righteousness, even on the prophet. Sure society may not like polygamy, but I think the LORD must have very good reasons for allowing it.

I see the need for divorce, since people are not perfect, however I can't see how a society that promotes illicit sex all over the place can possibly criticize polygamy. Hypocritical.

Federal marriage doesn't have anything to do with religious marriage. Churches can still choose not to marry people. The mormon church won't even let certain non-convert family members attend interfaith religious marriages.

Gays just want the same federal rights to tax breaks, hospital visitations rights, funerary-decision making rights that their childless, monogamous, heterosexual counterparts have. They can already legally have sex, which is where the moral debate really lies. The marriage question is just a matter of treating tax paying citizens as tax paying citizens.

The polygamy debate doesn't have to do with the gay debate. The polygamy debate compromises the tax issues because it involves more than 2 people receiving tax benefits.

(no one apparently got and/or read it the first time I was right, so I'll post if for all you idiot extreme right-wingers again)

Roger27: Because that's what polygamy means. The word for one woman and several husbands is polyandry.

Just to be linguistically fussy: polygamy indeed means multiple spouses of either or both sorts: poly-, "many", gamos, marriage. Multiple wives is polygyny (gyne, "woman" or "wife"); and multiple husbands is indeed polyandry (andr-, "man" or "husband"). Since almost all societies that practice polygamy are in fact polygynous, polygamy and polygyny are nearly synonymous, but they do not technically mean the same thing.

I actually wrote a paper on the polyandrous Jaunsari peoples of Northern India way back when I was undergrad. They, pre-Chinese-invasion Tibetans, and some Eskimo tribes are among the very, very few peoples that practice multiple husbands. In all cases, there are common factors. One, harsh environments in which many men cannot afford the resources for a wife. Two, strict requirements as to the multiple husbands: For the Jaunsari and Tibetans, it was usually one woman who married all the brothers of a household. For the Eskimos, travelers were allowed to cohabit with married women.

In the first case, since all the husbands were brothers, they all had a genetic relationship to any children, who addressed all the men as "father". It really was all in the family. Among the Eskimos, the practice was not institutional (the visitors didn't stay long-term), but it helped bring genetic diversity to otherwise isolated tribes.

Women always know themselves to be their children's mother; men are never completely sure. I imagine that there is some biological hard-wiring here. It would be to a man's disadvantage to be one of multiple husbands, since there would be a high chance of his putting resources into someone not carrying his genes; the exception being if the child was a brother's offspring, in which case it would share at least 25% of his genes. On the other hand, with one man and multiple wives, everyone rests assured as to who is whose kid. I imagine that these subconscious, biological drives explain the extreme rarity of polyandry, as well as explaining why when it does exist, it is a trade-off. Better for a Jaunsari to raise a nephew than a genetic stranger or none at all. Better for the Eskimo tribe to bring in fresh blood and avoid debilitating genetic illness than to be strictly monoandrous.

Anyway, true polyandry--woman may marry more than one husband of her choosing, and everyone is equal--has never existed in any known society. One may argue that we moderns should try to escape the tyranny of biology; but it doesn't do well to argue that certain "hardwired" imperatives don't exist, as many these days do.

Lord Karth is one of the few who has spoken any sense on this thread.

To make dismantling traditional marriage and traditional sexual noms the burning issue of the day -- the burning issue of *this* particular day (of *all* days) -- is not even fiddling while Rome burns.

It's listening on an iPod to someone else fiddling while Rome burns.

And probably chewing bubble-gum while one listens.

Mike,

Actually what's 'hypocritical' is being OK with divorce while critical of other forms of 'sexual immorality'. While the New Testament verses taken to refer to homosexuality, and to sex between unmarried people, are at least somewhat ambiguous, the verses mentioning divorce are not really ambiguous at all. On logical grounds, the act of breaking up a marriage seems to be a bigger threat to marriage than what unmarried people or gays may be doing.

I do agree with you that there's a lot of sexual immorality in America, though, and that we do look somewhat hypocritical going after polygamy and not, say, pornography or swingers' clubs.

As Society continues to break down, as predicted, I wonder whats next? After all is torn down, what will the liberal have left to attack? The President, Chuckles the Clown, has now declared us as not a Christian Nation, but a Nation of people doing whatever we want. Let me be the first to say the Constitution will come under attack as outdated and those wearing black robes are the new order, if not already. The new Constitution, Article I, "If it feels good do it." Anarchy will ensue. Just maybe Orson Wells was a Prophet.

Hector, where in my post was I being anything but civil? But let's try this: don't expect others to do your thinking for you. You went off on a diatribe about feminism as if that were some boogey... well, person that would answer all questions and solve all dilemmas.

You answered nothing. Should I assume that women as chattel is going to be normative for all "non-traditional" forms of marriage, is that the point you are making? If so, you have a very skewed view of "traditional" marriage, Christian or other.

Just one historically recent example: no man could be arrested for beating his wife. It's not that all men did that, or that men who did it were popular with men who didn't do it, but the holdover on that was that no woman could be forced to testify against her husband. And in that historical record, every marriage was Christian first and secular as an afterthought.

Here's a thought for you: I suggested using "plural marriage" as a deliberate attempt to discuss this topic beyond the pejorative connotations on which you got stuck and by subsequent posts are still stuck. Try thinking beyond the historic usages of men's power over women, and take a lesson from one of feminism's core principles: women are people. Premise: if plural marriage were legal, coereced marraige in belief systems like LDS would still be illegal.

Turmarion: "Just to be linguistically fussy: polygamy indeed means multiple spouses of either or both sorts: poly-, "many", gamos, marriage."

Not fussy at all. You are right. I was confusing polygamy with polygyny.

Hector, you seem to feel you have the authority to be "offended" that I dare bring up any subjects you don't consider relevant, yet at the same time, you feel free to lecture me about what is relevant to feminism . . . and the irony of this seems to escape you. To Rod and Hector both, I can only say that, like the great Nero Wolfe, I don't answer questions that contain two or more unsupported assumptions. Before we could have a worthwhile discussion, you would have to unpack some of those assumptions for me.

Hector speaks of "the basic facts of evolutionary biology." Rod says "there is something intrinsic to the nature of masculinity and femininity that informs the institution of traditional marriage." Why don't the two of you get together and let us know exactly what that is? Don't beat around the bush. Be specific, and clear. And try to use simple English.

Franklin Evans,

It's not clear to me why I should start saying 'plural marriage' on your say so. Is it because you don't like the baggage around the word 'polygamy'? Tough. 'Polygamy' means 'plural marriage' in Greek.

I understand that human nature is weak, and there are always going to be men, and women, who feel that they need to take lovers outside the context or their marriage or main relationship. Those people need to be dealt with kindness and charity, and with mercy. But, it would be a dire mistake to sanction their multiple relationships by giving them the honor and approval of the state. There may be exceptional cases, as with Turmarion's Eskimos, where some form of polygamy becomes necessary or at least less immoral, but as the saying goes, 'hard cases make bad law'.

You appear to be under a misapprehension of what 'nature' as in 'natural law' means. Take a mathematical analogy. In nature, we see examples of roughly circular objects, and we induce from them the idea of perfect circles, from which all observable circles are defective copies, and we use mathematics to figure out the properties of those circles. Likewise, our observations of human sexual behavior, all of which is imperfect ("there is no man righteous, not one") help us induce the idea of a perfect standard of sexual behavior, of which all observable human sexual behavior is kind of an imperfect reflection. We then try to deduce what are the properties that make that sexual behavior good, i.e. what functions is it supposed to serve and what human virtues it expresses. And inasmuch as an actual sexual practice X fulfils or detracts from those purposes and virtues, we deem X to be moral or immoral.

All of which is to say, in a long-winded way, that just because, say, masturbation or polygamy are fairly common in human society, does not make them 'natural' in the requisite sense. I think mathematics, again, is a good analogy here- we call the natural exponential function 'natural' in spite of the fact that nowhere in nature can you physically locate 2.7 rocks, or 2.7 birds.

I notice that Canada is apparently attempting to ward off the polygamists by claiming plural marriage is "against Canadian values . . ." Well, good luck with THAT! If that argument doesn't work to stave off SSM today, way should ANYONE believe it will work to prevent legalized polygamy tommorrow?

Also, for those who are so blase about the imppact of plygamy. All I have to say is, how awful for young women looking to enter married life, how soul destroying, how destructive of one's peace of mind to know that the larger society would condone such a thing.

Okay, Hector. You categorically reject my attempt to approach this subject starting with a neutral term. I'll go back to using polygamy. In the meantime, I will suggest that you take me at my word: when I choose a word, I mean it for its most common meaning. I "suggested" to you that we use "plural marriage" etc.

Polygamy as it is used by LDS is explicitly demeaning to women. That women raised under LDS doctrine "accept" it is problematic. One cannot "save" a person from oppression unless that person agrees that she is oppressed.

Polygamy as an abstract rejects specific connotations. My desire is to debate it on that level. So long as you (specific and general) insist on reading that as including "as it is used by LDS", that abstract debate cannot take place. I invite you to that debate. That invitation is openended.

Human nature is the subject of scientific discipline. "Natural Law" does not enter into that so far as I am concerned. Your notion that I apparently confuse the two is incorrect.

Your analogy, as I read it, requires the use of an acceptance of Christian moral judgments of human nature. I can't respond to it on that level, because I expect you to see any dissent as an attack on Christian moral judgments.

So, fair or not, I put the onus on you. Cooperate in the semantic morass in which we find ourselves, in the hope that we can have a meaningful exchange of opinions and ideas, or insist on filtering the words of others through your assumptions. I intend and imply no other semblence of coercion towards you or anyone else.

In short, please refrain from concluding my thoughts for me. Ask me what my further thoughts are, or just say you disagree and we can move on to the next thing.

sigilaris: Hector speaks of "the basic facts of evolutionary biology." Rod says "there is something intrinsic to the nature of masculinity and femininity that informs the institution of traditional marriage." [L]et us know exactly what that is? Don't beat around the bush. Be specific, and clear.

Arguments for or against particular practices based on "nature" are notoriously slippery. Moreover, as I never get tired of pointing out, David Hume said, correctly, that one can never derive an "ought" from an "is". There are always underlying assumptions.

However, to be fair to Rod and Hector, I think one can give some very specific things in this matter:

1. Men in almost all societies seem to be more promiscuous than women.
2. Of known societies, the preferred norm for the vast majority is polygyny.
3. The most widely practiced form of marriage is monogamy (since even in polygynous cultures, most men can't afford more than one wife).
4. True polyandry is nonexistent, and the modified forms I mentioned a few posts back are vanishingly rare, and exist only in extreme or unusual conditions.
5. Though many societies had institutionalized roles for homosexual persons (e.g. the berdache of some Amerindian tribes, ancient Greek paiderastia, the Hindu "third sex", etc.), there has never been what we would call same-sex marriage in any known pre-modern culture.
6. Cross-cultural studies have shown that in all cultures studied, men rate women's attractiveness on how youthful they look, and women rate men's attractiveness on how powerful or economically secure they are.

Base upon which, one might posit:

1. It is biologically to a man's advantage to sleep with as many women as possible, since his investment is low; and the opposite is true for women (since they invest nine months and risk their lives). Hence the different sexual patterns.
2. Since a man's investment in sex is low, it is to his advantage to look for young, healthy, child-bearin' wimmin (to be colloquial and crude); and since a woman's investment is high, it is to her advantage to seek a man who controls resources that can help her and her child, and who will stay around. Thus the stereotype that men go for looks and women for money probably has some evolutionary biological basis.
3. The compromise between promiscuity (a man's optimal strategy) and monogamy (a woman's optimal strategy), by simple game theory, is polygyny. This, no surprise, is the commonest arrangement.
4. Since polyandry cuts against the optimal strategies of both sexes, it is, not surprisingly, rare, occurring only under unusual circumstances.
5. Homosexuality, in premodern societies, is usually directed at building class solidarity (as in ancient Greek and Medieval Japanese cultures) or at a quasi-religious role (e.g. the berdache).

Obviously, some of these hard-wired behaviors support so-called "traditional" patterns, and some undermine them. Also, I do not believe we are slaves to our biology. We are not mere meat puppets--we can chose our course. Finally, one cannot argue that because we are hardwired for X, we must do X--Hume again.

On the other hand, I think the evidence for some biological tendencies being innate, for "basic facts of evolutionary biology", are extremely strong. To my understanding, this is not at all controversial in the biological community. To say we are not slaves to our biology is one thing--to deny that we are shaped, formed, and given drives and tendencies by it which we may not even realize or understand is foolish and dangerous, in my opinion. People of good will may draw different conclusions--e.g., one may say polygamy is good because it is our nature, another may say we must transcend our nature to be monogamous. The point is that we mustn't deny we have a discrete nature. To do so makes clear debate and wise decisions impossible.

sigilaris: Hector speaks of "the basic facts of evolutionary biology." Rod says "there is something intrinsic to the nature of masculinity and femininity that informs the institution of traditional marriage." [L]et us know exactly what that is? Don't beat around the bush. Be specific, and clear.

Arguments for or against particular practices based on "nature" are notoriously slippery. Moreover, as I never get tired of pointing out, David Hume said, correctly, that one can never derive an "ought" from an "is". There are always underlying assumptions.

However, to be fair to Rod and Hector, I think one can give some very specific things in this matter:

1. Men in almost all societies seem to be more promiscuous than women.
2. Of known societies, the preferred norm for the vast majority is polygyny.
3. The most widely practiced form of marriage is monogamy (since even in polygynous cultures, most men can't afford more than one wife).
4. True polyandry is nonexistent, and the modified forms I mentioned a few posts back are vanishingly rare, and exist only in extreme or unusual conditions.
5. Though many societies had institutionalized roles for homosexual persons (e.g. the berdache of some Amerindian tribes, ancient Greek paiderastia, the Hindu "third sex", etc.), there has never been what we would call same-sex marriage in any known pre-modern culture.
6. Cross-cultural studies have shown that in all cultures studied, men rate women's attractiveness on how youthful they look, and women rate men's attractiveness on how powerful or economically secure they are.

Base upon which, one might posit:

1. It is biologically to a man's advantage to sleep with as many women as possible, since his investment is low; and the opposite is true for women (since they invest nine months and risk their lives). Hence the different sexual patterns.
2. Since a man's investment in sex is low, it is to his advantage to look for young, healthy, child-bearin' wimmin (to be colloquial and crude); and since a woman's investment is high, it is to her advantage to seek a man who controls resources that can help her and her child, and who will stay around. Thus the stereotype that men go for looks and women for money probably has some evolutionary biological basis.
3. The compromise between promiscuity (a man's optimal strategy) and monogamy (a woman's optimal strategy), by simple game theory, is polygyny. This, no surprise, is the commonest arrangement.
4. Since polyandry cuts against the optimal strategies of both sexes, it is, not surprisingly, rare, occurring only under unusual circumstances.
5. Homosexuality, in premodern societies, is usually directed at building class solidarity (as in ancient Greek and Medieval Japanese cultures) or at a quasi-religious role (e.g. the berdache).

Obviously, some of these hard-wired behaviors support so-called "traditional" patterns, and some undermine them. Also, I do not believe we are slaves to our biology. We are not mere meat puppets--we can chose our course. Finally, one cannot argue that because we are hardwired for X, we must do X--Hume again.

On the other hand, I think the evidence for some biological tendencies being innate, for "basic facts of evolutionary biology", are extremely strong. To my understanding, this is not at all controversial in the biological community. To say we are not slaves to our biology is one thing--to deny that we are shaped, formed, and given drives and tendencies by it which we may not even realize or understand is foolish and dangerous, in my opinion. People of good will may draw different conclusions--e.g., one may say polygamy is good because it is our nature, another may say we must transcend our nature to be monogamous. The point is that we mustn't deny we have a discrete nature. To do so makes clear debate and wise decisions impossible.

Hope this doesn't double-post!

Turmarion,

Great post. You sum up my thoughts, and the evolutionary biology literature, very well. I'm a biologist by training, though my area of study is plants not people, and my little exposure to behavioral biology in college persuaded me that human behavior does indeed have deep biological roots.

One quibble- it's dubious to say that polygyny is 'the most common' form of sexual behavior in human societies. That depends on how you define a human society. Does a promiscuous Melanesian civilization of less than 100,000 people have the same weight as the civilization of 'Christendom', which stretched from Spain to Armenia for over 1500 years. Further more, _most_ people even in polygamous societies, have only had one partner. The biologists say, based on the relatively minor sex differences in size and strength, that we are a 'mildly polygynous' species by nature, with powerful capaacities either for polygyny or monogamy, not an unqualifiedly polygynous one.

Gwyddion9
But polygamy does exist in the U.S., it's a progressive type...you marry and divorce, you marry and divorce, you marry and divorce, etc.

That's an amazingly insightful point I've never seen before.

Marrying a woman, having children with her, marrying another, probably younger woman when he's gotten farther in life and can afford a more attractive and expensive wife, having children with her while continuing to support the first woman and children.

Did I just describe polygamy or this society? Depends if there was a divorce in there, doesn't it?

Polygamy may, indeed, be the thing that destroys traditional marriage, but gay people aren't going to bring it about...straight people are 'going' to, and it will have happened decades ago, under another name.

Actual polygamy, like people are hypothesizing teh gays will bring, where three people enter into it willingly at once and know what's going on, seems actually much better than the bastardized version we have now.

Heck, even in traditional cultures, the first wife often had some say over additional wives, and continued to be in charge, and saw additional extra wives as, frankly, someone to keep their husband's bed warm and do domestic chores. Whereas now, first wives are thrown out on the street, and even if they get alimony and child support, have to raise their children without any other help they'd normally get from the other spouse, much less help of the other wives.

The joke, of course, is that divorce laws were liberalized to help women, namely, women trapped in abusive marriages.

"Your Name" at 12:43 is not the usual Your Name suspects, it was I.

Hector: There is a database of various cultures in socological literature somewhere--the exact title escapes me. I should perhaps rather have said "culture" than "society". "Culture" could be either a " Melanesian civilization of less than 100,000" or all of Medieval/Renaissance Christendom. If you look at the number of different cultures, about three-fourths of them approve of or allow polygyny. As you point out, though, a majority of cultures is not the same thing as a majority of people throughout history. It's probably true that by the numbers, more people have lived in monogamous societies (or at least societies that approved it, whether they consistently practiced it or not) than otherwise. Even in cultures that are theoretically polygynous, most people are in practice monogamous because of economic factors.

You are also right to point out that humans are "mildly polygynous", especially as compared with many other species of primates. Humans tend to be polygynous, but not that much. I think we are mainly in agreement, overall.

Your Name at 12:43 PM: I think you were speaking broadly about various posts, but let me point out something. You say, Finally, this entire argument by "nature" relies on the equality of "more of my DNA in the future gene pool" with "advantage". This is not a fact, it is an assumption. If you read what I said, I acknowledged this. To say that humans are "naturally" polygynous says nothing about whether we should practice polygyny. As I said, following Hume, no amount of "is" statements necessarily entail an "ought" statement. There are always, as you point out, underlying assumptions.

My point was that we need to be honest about our biological nature and upfront about our assumptions. If, e.g., I want to endorse monogamy, I should explicitly give my reasons for doing so (religious, sociological, or whatever); there should be no unspoken assumptions. I should also acknowledge that there is some biological tendency against monogamy and that this must be resisted, if I am to expect people to be monogamous.

If you want a non-sexual example: One might make a strong moral case for being a vegan, but the fact remains that humans have a need for quantities of protein and certain viatmins and minerals (e.g. B12 and iron) that are not easily obtained in sufficient quantity from plant-based sources. This is because, evolutionarily, humans did get a certain quantity (say, 6-10% or so) of their calories from meat. This doesn't mean that it is wrong (or right) to eschew animal-derived foods. One must make that decision on non-scientific grounds. It just means you have to be aware of making other arrangements for getting enough protein and vitamins, and to give clear, non-evolutionary reasons for not eating meat (unlike the type of vegan that says that meat is "unnatural" as a food). Does this make sense?

By the way, sorry for the double post above--my browser often doesn't properly refresh to display whether a post was accepted or not. Evil, evil software!

Protestant christianity started us on this slope by accepting no-fault-divorce.

quote: "I have mentioned this before and gotten not one response, if liberals are responsible for the demise of marriage - THEN HOW COME THE MOST LIBERAL STATES HAVE THE LOWEST RATES OF DIVORCE?"

I've answered this question on this site at sometime in the past, but will answer it again. It is true that "blue" states or the most liberal states have the lowest rates of divorce. But we need to look at the entire picture, not just the divorce numbers. More liberal states also have much higher rates of cohabitation. They also have low birth rates and higher abortion rates. So what does this tell us?

It tells us that people in "red" or more conservative states are overall making a greater effort to have what in our society is considered a more traditional family, hence the higher birth rates. Yet many of them struggle and even fail to do so, hence the higher divorce rates. But more people in liberal states have given up on the traditional family altogether, which explains the low birth rates and high cohabitation rate.

It's no wonder liberal states have low divorce rates. They have a lot more people who don't even bother with marriage any more. So it makes sense that those who are committed enough to actually get married in liberal states would tend to stay together. Of course, there are cultural and socio-economic factors at work in all this as well. But I think looking at the whole picture makes a lot more sense here. And when one looks at the whole picture as opposed to just the divorce statistics, liberal states don't come off that well.

rr

Re: Go Hector! But are you suggesting that there is something intrinsic to the nature of masculinity and femininity that informs the institution of traditional marriage, and that we can't make nature do what it wasn't designed to do without risking unanticipated consequences? Because if yes, I agree. This is how the same-sex marriage experiment is like a sci-fi novel.

Mr. Dreher,

In a word, yes. I think that there are compelling moral arguments against same-sex marriage, not least the fact that we don't know how such a step will change society. Ultimately, I think that such arguments are outweighed by the fact that 1) banning SSM would do harm to gay people and their relationships, including my gay friends, and 2) it's unfair to gay people to impose natural law understanding of marriage on them when we don't impose it on other people. Therefore, I favor SSM. I would think differently if we lived in a constitutively Christian nation like Poland or Argentina (which does, btw, have civil unions), and I don't think churches should perform gay marriages, but as for _civil_ marriages, that's a different story.

Thanks wellsy & public defender for bringing up the points about the legal issues. When the courts have declared that it legal to enter a marriage contract, have they already decided what will be recognized as legitimate reasons to terminate that contract? Also, it seems to be taken for granted that in polygamous relationships, the man is the breadwinner. There have been several cases documented in Utah where several of the wives are designated child care providers & others work outside the home to support the family. If one of those wives wants to opt out, what is her percentage of spousal/child support? Good luck on figuring out community property on that.

That answer ( higher cohabitation rates) may explain lower marriage rates but it does not explain why those who chose to marry in so called liberal states and dramatically more successful at marriage than those who choose to marry in so called red states.

First of all, the typical study on cohabitation claims that 50% of those people will marry, hence higher cohabitation would reflect in marriage rates.

Second, lets look at two states, red and blue. Alabama has a marriage rate of 6.5, NJ has a rate of 5.8. The difference is not that great. Yet 60% of all marriages in Alabama end in divorce. In NJ half that, 30% end in divorce. That is one serious difference.
Try a few other states - Kentucky versus Massuchusetts. Marriage rate in Ken 8.8, in Mass 6.5 Divorce rate in Ken is 58% in Mass it is 28%. Sorry but the differences in marriage rate does not remotely explain the wide disparity in divorce rates.

The question here is - why do marriages fail, especially in such alarming rates in some sections of the country yet other sections have divorce rates well below the national norm. Those states with low divorce rates are liberal, have higher median income, higher education attainment rates, higher age of marriage. These may not be a factor, it may be something else but given the data, there is no justification based on FACT to continue to claim that liberals are anti marriage or represent a threat to traditional family structures. They (liberals) clearly have a player in the trad marriage game and have every reason to continue to support marriage.
You want a bogeyman look someplace else.

@Your Name @7:50 PM: The reason you have such a higher divorce rate in the "redder" states and less in the blue is very simple. (This wasn't my idea; I read it most likely in the NY Times awhile back.) More people marry in the redder states; they marry younger; they marry rather than cohabit, and they marry more often than in the blue states for reasons of pregnancy. In the blue states, many wait until later in life to marry - or they don't marry at all. And there is not the same frequency of marrying in the event of pregnancy.

When more people marry, esp. in groups "high risk" for divorce, you are going to see more failed marriages. More cohabitation means less divorce, obviously.

It may well be that blue-staters are breaking up as much or more than red-staters, but because of this flaw in statistical reporting, you won't immediately see it. Cohabiting couples without children don't show up except every 10 years in the US Census - they won't register as a broken relationship.

I only throw this out there (again) as the most succinct and well articulated quote about the reasons for opposing same-sex “marriage”. The fact that the man is a Christian Reverend & civil rights leader is telling but not my point in posting it.

"Marriage is neither a conservative nor a liberal issue; it is a universal human institution, guaranteeing children fathers, and pointing men and women toward a special kind of socially as well as personally fruitful sexual relationship. Gay marriage is the final step down a long road America has already traveled toward deinstitutionalizing, denuding and privatizing marriage. It would set in legal stone some of the most destructive ideas of the sexual revolution: There are no differences between men and women that matter, marriage has nothing to do with procreation, children do not really need mothers and fathers, the diverse family forms adults choose are all equally good for children. What happens in my heart is that I know the difference. Don't confuse my people, who have been the victims of deliberate family destruction, by giving them another definition of marriage."

Walter Fauntroy - Former DC Delegate to Congress Founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus Coordinator for Martin Luther King, Jr.'s march on DC

Polygamy has ever been condemned in the Bible only allowed and actually written about in the Bible and accepted. Far be it from me to condemned something God has allowed and made provisions for. Ex 21:10 & Deu 21:10

Let me guess, the Saskatchewan Canada Polygamy case was decided in favor of a woman?
LOL.. its called Canadian Polyandry... get some balls Saskatchewan!