Plural marriage versus gay marriage

[Heksefatter]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fable I think the discussion's really focusing on a single phenomenon that's really got two different natures, because it depends upon differing cultural traditions. First, there's religiously enshrined polygamy, with all the complexities, pro and con, that come from such things, and depend upon whether they're viewed by outsiders or insiders, and by those who buy into the concept or not. Then, there's what we might term "personal choice" polygamy: people who, in a culture that is not polygamous, nevertheless choose to live in such a lifestyle. This second type is not driven (usually) by a need to establish familial hierarchies, but by sexual preference. I think we can agree that these two types of polygamy have entirely different profiles, actors, and results. It might help if we don't confuse the two, but treat them as separate for the purposes of discussion.

True, but if the question is whether to legalize polygamy, you will have to consider them both. In my case, I got nothing against what you call "personal choice" polygamy (though I am quite certain it isn't for me), but I am strongly opposed to what you call religiously enshrined polygamy, for the reasons I gave above.

[fable]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heksefatter True, but if the question is whether to legalize polygamy, you will have to consider them both.

Why? Many laws distinguish between secular organizations and "sacred" ones. Why couldn't laws be used to regulate behavior in a religious sub-culture? Restrictions on the ages of all those to be married might help. For example, a friend of mine, a Craft high priest of a Welsh tradition, has two partners, a man and a woman; but they're all over the age of 40, and nobody else has been hurt by this. (Though his college age son is rather squicked by it all. ) Surely stating that polygamy isn't legal if any of the participants are under the age of X would help matters, true?

Quote:

polygamy (though I am quite certain it isn't for me),

No one's saying it should be. I'm not either, but who cares? The most amazing thing about the world is how different each of us is. You couldn't ask for a better learning experience.

[Tricky]

On 'legalizing polygamy', is there even an actual law prohibiting polygamy? What does that law argument?

[fable]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tricky On 'legalizing polygamy', is there even an actual law prohibiting polygamy? What does that law argument?

Google is your friend, but here you go. Especially note the first part:

MARRIAGE - A contract made in due form of law, by which a free man and a free woman reciprocally engage to live with each other during their joint lives, in the union which ought io exist between husband and wife. By the terms freeman and freewoman in this definition are meant, not only that they are free and not slaves, but also that they are clear of all bars to a lawful marriage.

[Tricky]

"idiots, lunatics, and infants.. etc"

Idiots, lol. I always thought you'd have to be rather stupid to get married in the first place.

In any case, I can think of a few contingencies that elaborate description doesn't cover. That bit about slavery is a bit scary though, why hasn't it been updated?

[Lady Dragonfly]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tricky On 'legalizing polygamy', is there even an actual law prohibiting polygamy? What does that law argument?

There is an answer:

The Law: Polygamy and Litigation

About goats, both young and old:

I predict that is going to be one of the next 'legalize-it' step downhill.

[Heksefatter]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fable Why? Many laws distinguish between secular organizations and "sacred" ones. Why couldn't laws be used to regulate behavior in a religious sub-culture? Restrictions on the ages of all those to be married might help. For example, a friend of mine, a Craft high priest of a Welsh tradition, has two partners, a man and a woman; but they're all over the age of 40, and nobody else has been hurt by this. (Though his college age son is rather squicked by it all. ) Surely stating that polygamy isn't legal if any of the participants are under the age of X would help matters, true?

Ok, let us suppose Denmark (my country) legalizes polygamy. There is only one religious group of any size where polygamy would be practised on a religious basis, that group being muslims. It would proably very rare among Danish muslims, but I do think it would happen in some smallish number.

Are we supposed to deal with that by giving all citizens, except muslims, the right to take multiple spouses? That would be an insult to Danish muslims. And what if a group of muslims who weren't from a conservative background wanted a polygamous marriage?

The age-proposal is politically untenable. If the law states that you have to be 40 years of age in order to enter a polygamous marriage, people 39 years of age could rightly complain. The age-clausule would eventually be watered down.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fable No one's saying it should be. I'm not either, but who cares? The most amazing thing about the world is how different each of us is. You couldn't ask for a better learning experience.

I beg to differ. People would stand a lot to gain from being more like me, especially the ones who are very different. Also, diversity gives me headache sometimes. These days, I hear there are even people around who use the word "classic" about NEW things!

[Silur]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heksefatter True, but if the question is whether to legalize polygamy, you will have to consider them both. In my case, I got nothing against what you call "personal choice" polygamy (though I am quite certain it isn't for me), but I am strongly opposed to what you call religiously enshrined polygamy, for the reasons I gave above.

There are any number of wrong doings being done behind closed doors in the name of religion, but I don't believe in maintaining laws limiting everybody's freedom for the sake of avoiding the possibilities of misuse. I could argue that martial law is a good way of keeping the streets safe at night, and that letting people walk freely encourages crime.

I think the basic thinking is not too different from the Burka law suggested in the Netherlands, except it's been embedded in our culture for so long nobody questions it. In my view, laws should aim at giving people protection from harm, abuse, deceit, fraud, and whatever else is apparently harmful, and make it possible to prosecute those who cause them. They should not be used as a unspecific protection against the unknown, the unusual or the unconventional - or inconvenient.

[fable]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heksefatter Are we supposed to deal with that by giving all citizens, except muslims, the right to take multiple spouses? That would be an insult to Danish muslims.

No, because your law wouldn't address Muslims, Christians, or any religion. It would simply impose an age requirement. If it was considered discriminatory, I assume Danish Muslims would take it to the EU for a ruling. But I don't see how this could be seen as attacking any religion, since its basis lies in the common practice of requiring contract signatories to be of an age of informed consent, and an age of reason.

Quote:

The age-proposal is politically untenable. If the law states that you have to be 40 years of age in order to enter a polygamous marriage, people 39 years of age could rightly complain. The age-clausule would eventually be watered down.

You mean, just like polygamists have now managed to get the law watered down to allow them to marry in Denmark (or any other EU nation), because they could complain that defining marriage as beteween two people discriminates against them?

[Heksefatter]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Silur There are any number of wrong doings being done behind closed doors in the name of religion, but I don't believe in maintaining laws limiting everybody's freedom for the sake of avoiding the possibilities of misuse. I could argue that martial law is a good way of keeping the streets safe at night, and that letting people walk freely encourages crime. I think the basic thinking is not too different from the Burka law suggested in the Netherlands, except it's been embedded in our culture for so long nobody questions it. In my view, laws should aim at giving people protection from harm, abuse, deceit, fraud, and whatever else is apparently harmful, and make it possible to prosecute those who cause them. They should not be used as a unspecific protection against the unknown, the unusual or the unconventional - or inconvenient.

Many laws exist to protect the weak or the social order, even though there is no direct assault on any one.

One law, which is an example of both is the Danish law against inciting ethnic hatred. It exists both to protect those who have little influence in public discourse and to prevent escalation of ethnic tensions.

In this way, freedom of expression has been balanced against protecting the weak and the public order. In many ways, it isn't a pretty sight from an ideological view. There really are no fundamental principles from which we can derive the particular result. Libertarian policies regarding freedom of speech, as well as police states are much more consistent, but that does not mean that they are preferable or even that they take human nature into a greater account.

You are right about your burka-example, but I think the main difference is that with regards to the burka-case, you remove a right, whereas in the question about polygamy, you add one. Thus, people do not end up feeling oppresed by current marriage laws.

[Heksefatter]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fable No, because your law wouldn't address Muslims, Christians, or any religion. It would simply impose an age requirement. If it was considered discriminatory, I assume Danish Muslims would take it to the EU for a ruling. But I don't see how this could be seen as attacking any religion, since its basis lies in the common practice of requiring contract signatories to be of an age of informed consent, and an age of reason.

Ok, then I misunderstood your example where you said: "Many laws distinguish between secular organizations and "sacred" ones. Why couldn't laws be used to regulate behavior in a religious sub-culture?" I read it as you proposing two ways of solving the problem of oppresive polygamous marriages, ie. seperate laws for different religious groups or a law restricting polygamous marriage to people over 40.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fable You mean, just like polygamists have now managed to get the law watered down to allow them to marry in Denmark (or any other EU nation), because they could complain that defining marriage as beteween two people discriminates against them?

Not at all. Just consider the fact that when you have already made polygamy legal and the age of majority is 18, it becomes extremely difficult to restrict the right of polygamy to people over 40. There is a basis for a quick and easy watering-down which is simply not present when you have not "conceded the point of polygamy".

[fable]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heksefatter Not at all. Just consider the fact that when you have already made polygamy legal and the age of majority is 18, it becomes extremely difficult to restrict the right of polygamy to people over 40. There is a basis for a quick and easy watering-down which is simply not present when you have not "conceded the point of polygamy".

I don't see this. Many laws have been on the books for centuries that set arbitrary age limits, without problems. Have people risen in huge numbers to change the voting age in your country? The driving age? The age of marriage? It's all what the majority will accept.

By the way, I don't have any problems with Muslim polygamy. But I was curious in pursuing this point of the discussion--the use of law as a method of allowing polygamy, while curbing its abuse--since you seemed to find it impossible.

[Silur]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heksefatter Are we supposed to deal with that by giving all citizens, except muslims, the right to take multiple spouses? That would be an insult to Danish muslims. And what if a group of muslims who weren't from a conservative background wanted a polygamous marriage?

Now, again there is a problem and the first notion is to outlaw the practice and ignore the core issue. I have no problem with muslims having multiple spouses, as long as they acknowledge equal rights. There are any number of laws being violated by some parts of the muslim community (same as parts of all other communities mind you!), and the one against polygamy is one just of them. Now, I would personally prefer if the legal hunt was on equality issues, oppressive practices and deprivation of freedom, and that resources be focused on educating and assisting those in a position to be taken advantage of, but pointing fingers is always so much easier and cheaper. Truth is, I'm doubtful my society really is interested in integrating anyone, considering there seem to be unknown conveniences in keeping immigrants in the outskirts of society.

[Silur]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heksefatter One law, which is an example of both is the Danish law against inciting ethnic hatred. It exists both to protect those who have little influence in public discourse and to prevent escalation of ethnic tensions.

How is this not included in my definition? Discrimination against people based on religion, creed, etc is actually made illegal by the declaration of human rights, and the law is simply an extension of that. I would also argue that discrimination is severely harmful...

[Heksefatter]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fable I don't see this. Many laws have been on the books for centuries that set arbitrary age limits, without problems. Have people risen in huge numbers to change the voting age in your country? The driving age? The age of marriage? It's all what the majority will accept.

Heh, for me it is the other way around: it is patently obvious that a situation where you enjoy every civil right when you reach 18, except the right to a polygamous marriage is untenable.

And in fact, there once were such difference in your rights according to age in Danish law. You recieved the right to vote to one of the parliamentary chambers at a much younger age than you did for the other one (21 vs. 35, if I recall correctly). Voting rights at muncipal election were obtained at 21. You were drafted and authorized to sign binding contracts at 18. It should come as no surprise that this did not survive modern society for a long time, culminating in people recieving all political and legal rights at 18. (The second chamber of parliament was abolished before the voting ages became identical, but had it survived, they would, without a doubt, be identical to each other today).

So the tendency has been to approach the different age of majority in different areas to each other.

And your proposal has other problems. You are introducing a legal age-restriction on after it has been near-universally agreed that people are being considered adults in all respects at 18. Secondly, whereas people below 18 has little clout in the political discourse, people under 40 do. It would be more difficult to deny the last group a legal right than doing the same to the first group.