Why is polygamy illegal?

[Cranky]

The other night, I was watching this program about polygamist and how the government is going after them. Okay, they marry 14 year olds. That's bad, no argument there. But....what if they married 18 year olds and older? Why is that illegal? One can marry and divorce at infinitum but two wives or husband at the same time is illegal? If polygamy is a "sin" and "justifiably" illegal then why is two gay man sodomizing each other legal? Now they can even marry?

This is a bit tongue in cheek but nevertheless, am I the only who has a problem with this morality of convinience?

[Skilly]

habsaddict said:

The other night, I was watching this program about polygamist and how the government is going after them. Okay, they marry 14 year olds. That's bad, no argument there. But....what if they married 18 year olds and older? Why is that illegal? One can marry and divorce at infinitum but two wives or husband at the same time is illegal? If polygamy is a "sin" and "justifiably" illegal then why is two gay man sodomizing each other legal? Now they can even marry?

This is a bit tongue in cheek but nevertheless, am I the only who has a problem with this morality of convinience?

ctually it is not against the law, in Canada, to marry 14 yr olds. Not yet. Harper is trying to raise the age of sexual consent to 16, but it is currently at 14 and with a parent's consent the 14 yr old can marry.

[franko]

habsaddict said:

One can marry and divorce at infinitum but two wives or husband at the same time is illegal?

Serial monogamy is legal. So is sex between consenting adults. Easy out: just don't marry; share living quarters instead.

If polygamy is a "sin" and "justifiably" illegal

Two separate issues. The government doesn't care about "sin"; just legality.

then why . . . two gay man . . . marry?

Those on the pro-traditional marriage side of the fence suggested that polygamy would be the next frontier to be challenged.

As to why is it illegal, the Bible has the answer -- it is for the male's sake. no man can serve two masters

[Cranky]

franko said:

As to why is it illegal, the Bible has the answer -- it is for the male's sake. no man can serve two masters

LOL!

I was watching the program that spawned this question. Half way through the program, I turned to my wife and asked her the simple question "tell me why it's immoral for man to have two wives". Her reaction cracked me up. First, she was taken aback by trying to find a moral reasoning, 20 seconds later, she just launched into "males just want more wives for sex. We are not slaves". Forget the erudite "discussion". When I repeated the question, she came back with "go ahead, don't forget that I make your food".

Amazing how woman can end a conversation with "powerful statement" like....food.

[jkr]

Can someone tell me why it's always men that want polygamy? You never hear about women that want multiple husbands.

I see your wife's point HA. I think it has a lot to do with sex. I just can't see any other reason why a middle aged man would want to marry a teenager.

BTW, HBO is producing a drama series about this subject with Bill Pullman called Big Love. I haven't seen it & it's now into the second season.

[Cranky]

jkr said:

I see your wife's point HA. I think it has a lot to do with sex. I just can't see any other reason why a middle aged man would want to marry a teenager.

.

It is probably true that it is about the sex BUT to me it was about moral values of society. I will never get my head around the fact that being gay is okay but marrying two woman is illegal.

Sheesh....when you don't get answers from a book or a pulpit, evil athiest actually need to think about what is "right and wrong".

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

Marriage should be like the Hab's training camp.
Every year you can bring in a fresh crop of rookies and play the ones that try hardest and work the best or fill whatever holes you think need filling.
(Please don't show this post to my wife)

[franko]

jkr said:

Can someone tell me why it's always men that want polygamy?

It's because polygamy is defined as a man marrying two or more women.

You never hear about women that want multiple husbands.

Actually, in some cultures you do -- it's called polyandry. Just not as popular with men.

[franko]

habsaddict said:

jkr said:

I see your wife's point HA. I think it has a lot to do with sex. I just can't see any other reason why a middle aged man would want to marry a teenager.

.

It is probably true that it is about the sex BUT to me it was about moral values of society. I will never get my head around the fact that being gay is okay but marrying two woman is illegal.

Sheesh....when you don't get answers from a book or a pulpit, evil athiest actually need to think about what is "right and wrong".

Think? Atheists think? totally unwarranted. My apologies. Still annoyed with Dawkins, who's too smarmy by half

Oops . . . sorry.

I agree with you, by the way: it is either "family morality"or open sexuality.

The Bible implies/shows that polygamy was societally-accepted at one time (three in a bed is warmer on those cold winter nights, I guess); however, it eventually became a forbidden taboo when the early "social scientists" [read: religious leaders] deemed it a threat to stable families; so too homosexuality.

[Disgruntled70sHab]

franko said:

As to why is it illegal, the Bible has the answer -- it is for the male's sake. no man can serve two masters

MRS DIS!!! COME SEE THIS!!!

LOLO!!! Phew! That was a good one ... may I use this later here at work?

I never knew this until I went to Syria, but under Islamic law a man is permitted a maximum of four wives. In the words of Sheik Ilderim (Ben Hur):

One God, that I can understand, but one wife, that is not civilized. It is not generous!

(Something I never figured out until I was a teenager)

But in reality, having more than one wife is more "generous" than it seems. Islamic law dictates that a man having multiple wives must treat each one equally. For instance, if he buys one a gold ring with stones for one, he'll have to buy the exact same one for his remaining wives; weight, stones ... all identical. A new outfit? One for each of his wives too. If he brings one out for supper ... in other words, a man can have a favourite wife, so long as he doesn't show it.

It's an interesting topic, HA. I think it comes down to our society allowing for personal choices. While same-sex marriages and orgainzied religion have come to that now, polygamy remains against our traditions and beliefs.

A contradiction in values? Sure, as far as making individual choices go. But other countries who are years ahead of us in thinking, mostly European countries, still don't allow polygamy. I guess there is a limit ... but give it time ... who knows.

Cheers.

[franko]

disgruntled70shab said:

Though I didn't say very articulately this is where I wanted to go with the topic. It comes down an individual's rights to choice. And if they go by the letter of the constitution I can't see how polygamy can be denied.

Yup -- you've got it.

Recently, a lesbian couple fought to have the male father of their child on the child's birth certificate, and won: a family of three. Natural extension: that a male could have two wives -- or a wife could have two husbands. Or more.

This is a significant precedence for the rights of the individual. In this case the winner is the child.

I'm not so sure that the winner is the child, Dis. I think it is going to work out like divorce has -- with a whole bunch of confused kids, caught in the middle of parental infighting. I hate to think that way, but I've seen enough cases where it isn't the child's welfare that is most important -- in fact, the child is used as a bargaining chip more than anything else. I fear the same for three or four or however many parent "families". Add child support to the mix . . . a generation from now the "traditional family" will look good!

[Disgruntled70sHab]

franko said:

disgruntled70shab said:

Though I didn't say very articulately this is where I wanted to go with the topic. It comes down an individual's rights to choice. And if they go by the letter of the constitution I can't see how polygamy can be denied.

Yup -- you've got it.

This is a significant precedence for the rights of the individual. In this case the winner is the child.

I'm not so sure that the winner is the child, Dis. I think it is going to work out like divorce has -- with a whole bunch of confused kids, caught in the middle of parental infighting. I hate to think that way, but I've seen enough cases where it isn't the child's welfare that is most important -- in fact, the child is used as a bargaining chip more than anything else. I fear the same for three or four or however many parent "families". Add child support to the mix . . . a generation from now the "traditional family" will look good!

Well, I had a post all pounded out but it went by the wayside for some reason (shrugs shoulders in typically apathetic Canadian form).

Where people tend to get nervous, flinch, or outright lash out, is when confronted to change. You and I are living in very interesting times. We've experienced the conservative 60's, the rebellious 70's, the yuppie 80's and the "what's-in-it-for-me" 90's.

And all through those decades we saw change; slight changes to some, radical to others. Today is no different. But, what we're also seeing are a loss of traditions and in many cases traditional values. This alone will cause people, those wanting the change and those trying to prevent it, varying levels of stress. In some cases, it will be overloading stress ... in the other extreme, apathy (which causes stress in others don't you know).

Instutions like the church (generalization for organized religions) have carried our traditions for centuries and that is of comfort to a great many. Conversely, there are many who feel stifled by those same institutions.

Another very traditional institution is the Freemasons. I have several friends who are practicing Masons and I was approached about two years ago by one of them to join their lodge (some well-directed conversation that led me to ask actually). I declined back then but I do regret it in a way. What I noticed since is that they all have one thing in common. They're good, upright people with strong family values who champion the truth above all else. And while these values are prevelant in their craft, a lot of these same values are missing from our society today.

Nowadays, traditions are waning to individual rights and freedoms. This is hard for me because I'm a tradtionalist in many ways; I faith in God and a belief in the Monarchy here in Canada just to name two. But, I also want what is due for my wife and son.

This used to be a quandary for me. And one of the things that made is that way, was/is the perception of others on how our constitution is defined. Sometimes it's like others feel the constitution to be a guideline instead of a hard document. Hence we will continue to see others "try this" and "try that" because the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, allows them to do so (within the law).

And as more rights and freedoms are granted, the more we'll see what we know as Canadian traditions swept away. Some will argue that we are now establishing new traditions in our country. Well, for me that's a very hard thing depending on the issue. And for me, Polygamy destroys traditional family values I hold close.

Cheers.

[Doc Holliday]

skilly said:

ctually it is not against the law, in Canada, to marry 14 yr olds. Not yet. Harper is trying to raise the age of sexual consent to 16, but it is currently at 14 and with a parent's consent the 14 yr old can marry.

...this is vastly a cultural issue at this point. In many societies when a girl hits puberty she is a women and can be married. I don't know about ROC but less than a hundred years ago this was how things were done in Quebec too.

...but now it is seen as wrong to raise girls to become mother and housewife in North America...

...Once you're ready to accept homosexual unions as a reasonable family model than in my book you've reduced an institution that is a building block of any society, to being simply a sexual habit... Once there, the floodgates are open and no arguments really stand against polygamy.

[Disgruntled70sHab]

franko said:

I'm not so sure that the winner is the child, Dis. I think it is going to work out like divorce has -- with a whole bunch of confused kids, caught in the middle of parental infighting. I hate to think that way, but I've seen enough cases where it isn't the child's welfare that is most important -- in fact, the child is used as a bargaining chip more than anything else. I fear the same for three or four or however many parent "families". Add child support to the mix . . . a generation from now the "traditional family" will look good!

This is a very good point, Franko. Unfortunately, kids are often used as leverage by one side against another.

Where I feel a child would be the winner, though, is knowing who their biological father is from the beginning instead of having to accept they are the result of a "donor."

Cheers.

[Skilly]

docholliday said:

...this is vastly a cultural issue at this point. In many societies when a girl hits puberty she is a women and can be married. I don't know about ROC but less than a hundred years ago this was how things were done in Quebec too.

I got to believe it was almost everywhere Doc ... Women here in Newfoundland were getting married at a very young age in the 1800 and early 1900's. And if anyone ever watch the show "Little House on the Prairie", well it was all about good Christian values ... Laura Ingalls was courted by Alonzo Wilder when she was 14-15 and married him at the age of 18.

...but now it is seen as wrong to raise girls to become mother and housewife in North America...

Doesn't pay the bills in today's overpriced lifestyles. But it is an honest and rewarded vocation IMO.

...Once you're ready to accept homosexual unions as a reasonable family model than in my book you've reduced an institution that is a building block of any society, to being simply a sexual habit... Once there, the floodgates are open and no arguments really stand against polygamy.

I consider myself pretty open-minded ... but I still can't wrap my head around why we just can't call it something other than Marriage. If Marriage is defined as the holy-union of a man and a woman ..... why can't "homo-marriage" (I dont know call it whatever) be the holy-union (if the church decides they want to bless it) of two homosexuals. I agree it should never be looked upon as a family model (my biggest beef with it is adoption rules) but I had no problem with the marriage aspect as long as it was distinguished from traditional marriages.