Questions of Sexuality

[WasE61]

So, I thought I'd toss this out as and see what happens.

 

We all know the official position of BSA regarding those engaged in same-sex relationships.

 

Given the huge influence the churches on BSA, this is not particularly surprising.

 

But what about polygamy? Original LDS (the largest supporter of BSA) teachings embraced plural marriage, which was not altered until pressured by the government. Even today the FLDS practices polygamy and I personally know of plenty of LDS members who not-so-secretly support the doctrine of plural marriage although they to not practice it.

 

I suspect that BSA simply ignores this issue...

 

 

[Beavah]

Nah, I expect if it came up the person would be removed by their Chartered Organization or the BSA.

 

But it does raise da societal question, eh? If yeh are in favor of gay marriage, why not polygamy (gay or straight)?

 

Beavah

[BS-87]

Men with plural wives probably face more ridicule in today's society than men with a husband.

 

A lot of arguments against same-sex marriage break down once you bring in the polygamy issue. If you're saying that a species survives through procreation and the purpose of marriage is rearing the offspring, then you cannot convince me that Natural Selection would not favor polygamy to monogamy. A family that lives as a pack or herd will be much better suited to survival based on their sharing the genes of a superior male and communal resources/gathering making life easier due to economies of scale. Of course there's something to be said for monogamy and the value of genetic variation. However, I don't feel that case is as strong.

 

Anyway, it's much easier to endorse plural marriage than same-sex marriage if your argument is biologically based. In that case, it seems strange that same-sex marriage is becoming more socially acceptable while plural marriage remains an acceptable subject of ridicule.

[Basementdweller]

Life with one is tough enough.....why in the world would a fellow want more.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

I have no problem with legal polygamy (all parties have to agree, of course, since they are all married to each other).

 

To be consistent, legal polygamy requires legal same-sex marriage, for the simple fact that having one member of the marriage die does not remove the marriage relationship for the remaining members, even if the only remaining members are the same sex.

 

Natural selection hasn't made polygyny common in humans, though; in every primate species where polygyny is the rule, the males are always much larger than the females (because only large males get to reproduce).

[Peregrinator]

To be consistent, legal polygamy requires legal same-sex marriage, for the simple fact that having one member of the marriage die does not remove the marriage relationship for the remaining members, even if the only remaining members are the same sex.

 

You are wrong about that. Lia and Rachel were not married to one another; each was married to Jacob.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

You'll note that polygamy that I would agree with requires consent of all parties, not just the man, and I added "to be consistent". I'm well aware that consistency is not usually a feature of laws.

[NealOnWheels]

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy

 

Merlyn, I think you would approve of what wikipedia calls a group marriage and not with polygamy or polyandry.

[Peregrinator]

You'll note that polygamy that I would agree with requires consent of all parties, not just the man, and I added "to be consistent".

 

I don't see what is logically inconsistent with polygyny. I reject it on moral grounds but that doesn't mean that it is logically inconsistent.

 

I figured you had some Heinleinian group marriage in mind.

[BS-87]

Yeah Merlyn, the group marriage really differs from polygamy.

 

Forgot the other downside to polygyny as well and was reminded when you asked what happens when the patriarch dies. In the wild that means that the females that are old enough to mate are added to the harem, the juvenile males are driven out, typically to die on their own or form a small group of roving males (gang), and those not old enough to mate or escape are killed by the new patriarch. This is probably why polygynous humans just won't find a new male to fill the role if there's a tragic death.

 

Of course, all of these assertions of mine are only backed up by referencing the knowledge gained from watching TLC or Animal Planet shows like Sister Wives and Meerkat Manor.

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

You'll note that polygamy that I would agree with requires consent of all parties, not just the man, and I added "to be consistent".

 

I don't see what is logically inconsistent with polygyny.

 

You'll note I wrote "polygamy" there, not polygyny.

 

"Polygamy" means more than one spouse, and that's how I use the word, whether it means multiple wives, husbands, or both. If, legally, you're going to allow multiple spouses, I see no good reason to limit either sex, so that means 1 man 2 women, 1 woman 2 men, 2 women 2 men, et cetera. And I would require consent of all parties, since they are all married to each other. You know, like multiple spouses, like the word "polygamy" means.

 

I used "polygyny" later to refer only to one male, multiple females as there are actual examples in primates (including Lucy), and the males are always quite large in living species (which is why I conclude it was not the common family model in humans, at least not recently in evolutionary timescales).

[SeattlePioneer]

>

 

 

I don't think that follows at all. After all, if two people "love" each other, don't you want the government to permit them to marry?

 

I do predict the rise of a new polygamy ethic, which after all has a long tradition in human societies. The politics of gay marriage and the sexual liberation movement shows how this will be revived in society.

 

Longer term, I expect a corporate model to prevail, with people getting a share in the family they marry into.

 

One wonders how many shares a popular movies star would be able to disitribute through plural marriage?

[BS-87]

But human polygyny is much different from primate polgyny because the measure of power for primates is size, whereas the measure of power for modern humans is intellect and wealth. This is because the needs of modern humans are higher on the hierarchy of needs. Few humans require a mate that provides them more physical security from outside threats, and so size is an irrelevant measure for modern era humans.

 

I'm sure your assertions are applicable to Neanderthals and Cro-magnans, but once ingenuity enabled men to best other men of much larger size, Humans began breeding for intellect. You can definitely make the case that ever since the dawn of laws, wealth has been even more important than intellect in the mating game.

[Peregrinator]

You'll note I wrote "polygamy" there, not polygyny.

 

"Polygyny" is one form of polygamy. You can substitute "polyandry" if you like. So to state that polygamy requires same-sex unions is to state that all the various forms of polygamy require them.

 

"Polygamy" means more than one spouse, and that's how I use the word, whether it means multiple wives, husbands, or both. If, legally, you're going to allow multiple spouses, I see no good reason to limit either sex, so that means 1 man 2 women, 1 woman 2 men, 2 women 2 men, et cetera. And I would require consent of all parties, since they are all married to each other. You know, like multiple spouses, like the word "polygamy" means.

 

I think if one is going to use a word in a manner inconsistent with its traditional meaning, one ought to state that up front.

[CalicoPenn]

I'll bite but first a definition of terms - I'm going to use the word polygamy rather than the terms polygyny or polyandry or group marriage. The term polygamy actually encompasses all three (so no, polygamy does not differ from group marriage - polygamy includes group marriage as well as polygyny and polyandry).

 

I think the next thing we need to come to grips with is why is polygamy banned in the US. History reveals that it had nothing to do with morals and every thing to do with 19th century politics and bigotry against one specific religious sect. Do I need to mention that the particular religious sect is the Mormon Church? Arguments against polygamy to this day end to dwell less on morality and more on the notion that polygamy is a threat to social freedom and democracy. Even the Supreme Court that ruled on polygamy in 1878 said that marriage is about sustaining the conditions in which freedom can thrive and that polygamy threatened those conditions.

 

To answer Eng's question, I believe the Boy Scouts isn't even thinking about it because it's not on anyones radar. There is no political party using polygamy as a wedge issue, and there isn't a significant portion of the public questioning the illegality of it, unlike same-sex marriage.

 

To answer Beavah's question, I think the argument that polygamy is a danger to social strucures and freedom is utter hogwash and I really woudn't have a problem with it being legal, provided that every partner in such a situation consents to every other partner, whether it's a polygynist, polyandrist or group marriage situation, and is of legal age to consent (the most famous recent case captured people's attention because some of the "wives" were under 18 (and the public doesn't care that in 30 states the age of consent is 16 and in 9 it's 17, we get creeped out by 40 year-old marrying 16 year olds)).