A Supporter of Limited Polygyny

This writer appears to equate polygamy with polygyny.

Feminists stand strongly against it, supported by issues on gender equality, human rights and many more.

Some feminists support the freedom to polygamous marriage. Polygamy is more than patriarchal polygyny. There’s also group marriage (including same-sex) and polyandry. Furthermore, it is entirely possible for strong women to choose to share a husband, and thus choose polygyny. Some feminists rightly see denial of this freedom to marry as restricting a woman’s right to choose her marriage partners.

My concern is over the fact that in Islam a man can have more than one wife (sister wives) up to four wives on condition that he can treat his wives wisely.

Why is this concerning?

If God permits conditionally (in Islam), why do humans (just small creatures of God) try to stand against polygamy?

There are many Muslims in the world, but the majority of people in the world are not Muslims. Legally, full marriage equality should allow any adult their right to marry any consenting adult(s) they choose. Regardless of religion. Some people oppose adding any new freedom to marry into law because they want to control the lives of others. There are also some people who would support increasing the freedom to marry but would oppose full marriage equality; they have a lack of solidarity. For example, there are Muslims who would want the law to allow a man to have four wives, but would oppose allowing a man to have more than four, or oppose letting a man marry another man. With full marriage equality, a Muslim man (or any man) could marry four consenting women, but his neighbor would have also have the freedon to marry two men.

Bountiful Youth Provided Good Education

Contrary to antiequality-based attacks on Bountiful that are getting much press due to the Canadian poly trial, it turns out the education is good there.

But the bigots can’t handle the truth, so they attack the report.

The NDP were quick to seize on the Bountiful result to argue that the ratings, which have long been controversial, are not useful.

``Bountiful Elementary (Secondary) School sharing the top spot in this year's report - a finding that is at odds with information that has recently been provided in the (Supreme Court) - illustrates the problems with the methodology the Institute uses, and with the overall report,'' said a statement from NDP leadership candidate Adrian Dix.

Not true…

Peter Cowley of the Fraser Institute said the report's rankings are based only on the results of children taking the tests.

``This is a reasonable test of the curriculum expectations that the ministry set for these three subject areas in these two grades. You get the measure and let the chips fall where they may,'' said Cowley.

Cowley said Bountiful's position at the elementary grade was based on its academic performance, and not on its popularity.

This was also covered here.

Discredited, Invalid Arguments Against Full Marriage Equality

I have a added a page with the common arguments against marriage equality, and my responses. Almost always, bigots trying to justify their prejudice in denying full marriage equality use these arguments that have already been discredited, invalidated, and do not stand up in court.

Please feel free to cite this page and the argument number when dealing with those who want to deny full marriage equality. I plan to do that to save myself a lot of time.

If I have missed something, please tell me.

A Good Question

Stefan1991 asked “Why is Incest illegal in the UK?” He cites a mother and father of four children. This couple story of this is well known to people who follow news about consanguineous sex, as they were both jailed for loving each other as they are brother and sister.

Who has the right to say that a consensual relationship is wrong?

Glen_Nichols gave the standard, ignorant reply…

The kids will be mutants.

As has been pointed out many times before, most sex does not result in births, most children born to consanguineous parents are healthy, and, finally, we do not deny people their reproductive rights based on the likelihood of their offspring having birth defects or inherited diseases.

Lewroll had a strong reaction, but was unable to provide a logical argument to keep consanguineous sex criminalized…

Ok, thats it, I've had enough. This has gone too far!!

This attitude of let two consenting adults do whatever they want is fine...up to a point.

Incest is sick, and if it ever becomes legal....just the thought of it makes me want to be sick.

Then don’t do it. Don’t want such a relationship? Don’t have one.

How would you feel if your brother and sister came home one day and told you they had been having sex?

I’m happy for any consenting adults who have found love, or at least a good time, with each other, as long as they aren’t violating existing vows to another.

Stefan1991 returned to the discussion to expose what a weak argument Lewroll was using…

What would you do if your mum came home one day and said she had raunchy sex with your dad. Oh, would you feel sick then too? Better ban parental sex as well.

Exactly. Just because someone is turned off or disgusted does not mean everyone else should have to refrain.

The discussion goes on for many more messages.

What if you couldn't marry the person you love? Think about that.

If We Could Talk to the Animals

Jenny Block, who has written about open marriage, wrote that there are some interesting comparisons between humans and other animals when it comes to sexuality. How often have we heard that some relationship isn’t “natural?”

As she says, “Just because animals do certain things doesn’t prove that we necessarily do them too.” But sometimes humans can be compared to other animals, and the comparisons have weight. We might be able to get some good ideas from them.

She points out that animals flirt, they masturbate, they watch other animals express their sexuality, even through video.

They exhibit habits other than monogamy. They are polygamous and polygynous. And they are social monogamists as well as serial monogamists, even swans. Bonobos, for example, have multiple sexual partners at any given time in their life. And some species even engage in group sex. When red-sided garter snakes mate, the female is made the center of what is called a mating ball, where 100 males all attempt to mate with the female at the same time.

People exhibit habits other than monogamy. Although not always socially accepted, people partner in a variety of ways. Many of those ways have proved to be perfectly healthy.

Also,

They are homosexual as well as heterosexual. Marine birds, mammals, monkeys, great apes, dolphins, penguins, cattle, bonobos and rams are just a few of the many animal species in which scientists have observed homosexual behavior.

Humans are homosexual as well as heterosexual, obviously. And each is perfectly normal and absolutely biological. Once again, the only issue in human society is our lack of acceptance of both orientations.

She goes on to note that some animals have sex for pleasure, some will seek out additional sex partners if the current one is not interested in another session at that time, some over-indulge, and there are female initiators. And I’ll add that anyone who has had closely related hamsters can verify that some animals engage in consanguineous sex.

Consenting adults should have their rights to any of these things, without the law interfering.

More Allies, But Some Myths Persist

On Yahoo Answers, Kati touches on solidarity issues, having asked, “Why are some people who are for homosexual relationships against incestuous relationships?”

Only some people who are “for” homosexual relationships are against consanguineous sexual (incestuous) relationships. Other people recognize that neither homosexual nor consanguineous relationships should be illegal, nor should marriage equality be denied based on either factor. Whether a relationship is same-sex or heterosexual is a different category than whether a relationship is consanguineous or not. That is why some people who may support one may not support the other; they have prejudices against one but not the other. Lately, I’ve encountered people who strongly reject the freedom to polygamy, but are engaged in consanguineous sex. Different categories.

if two people love each other it shouldn't matter, right?

They don’t even need to love each other.

The asker makes it clear this is about consenting adults…

pedophilia has nothing to do with my question. pedophilia can't be compared with homosexual or incestuous relationships because it involves children that can't consent to sexual acts. while too homosexual adults and incestuous adults can consent. So im comparing the two.

There were a lot of allies speaking up. I quote from a few below.

SnuggleBum replied…

Honestly, if the two people in the incestuous relationship are both consenting adults, I don't really care.

Thank you!

Robted…

If it's two adults, I actually couldn't care less.

Thank you!

Thomas Jefferson…

If it's two consenting adults, then its none of my business or your business. Incest, like homosexuality, has been prevalent throughout history in all societies. I am not homosexual or incestuous, but who am I to say what is wrong?

Thank you!

Dianna…

Well, personally I feel both of them are wrong, but to answer your question an incestuous relationship is very wrong because people should not have sexual relations with family members.

Why not?

This is not the natural order of things because if it was then there wouldn't be a high rate of birth defects in children born in incestuous relationships.

Most sex doesn’t lead to births. Two, three, or four brothers could have sex for a lifetime and will never have any children. The same may also happen with a brother and a sister. Also, most children born to close relatives are healthy. We don’t bar other people with a higher-than-average risk from having children. And yet, this “reason” for denying this freedom to marry was cited by several people.

Jimmy Lee…

You've got a point. This is why I'm not against incest, though I personally find that the idea makes me shudder a bit. I don't have anything against people whose attracted to a relative of theirs. You are right, as long as the love is legitimate it shouldn't matter what these two people are. Whether it be heterosexuals, homosexuals, interracial couples, and even relatives. I'm in no position to judge.

Thank you!

Aoh Oah…

i think that as long as both people are consenting, i think it should be fine.

Thank you!

Duane…

Well, my opinion may have some holes in it. But what I think is that you are "born" into homosexuality then you can't control a gender you like. But you don't come out liking your cousin/brother/sister in that way, the relationship must be built.

There are people in consanguineous relationships who have what they consider an irresistible draw to each other. But either, this does not explain why there are laws against it. Actually, we don't tend to pass laws against things nobody wants to do. Some people enjoy these relationships, to the point of being prosecuted.

But I'm sure if the other person looked hard enough, they'd soon realize there are other people out there than just your cousin/brother/sister...

If someone in an interracial relationship looked hard enough, they could find someone to love who is of their own race. This does not justify keeping them from the person they want.

PurplePanda…

I am pro-gay but I just can't support incest. Homosexuals and incestuous relationships are two different things.

Yes, they are. So are interracial relationships and same-sex relationships. But they all involve consenting adults. Why should consenting adults be denied equality?

You should NOT being having sex with a family member.

Why not? PurplePanda doesn’t say why.

Stephen…

Well I am a part of the lgbt community and I think of myself as open minded. But incest is really gross why would anyone sleep with a relative I'm repulsed by my family

Some people are repulsed by the thought of two men having sex and can’t understand wanting to have gay sex. But so what? That shouldn’t deny anyone their rights to love, sex, and marriage. Thankfully, as we can see, more and more people recognize this.

A Bigot Speaks Against the Freedom to Marry

Rosie DiManno draws from the Canadian poly trial to make it clear that she doesn't want adults to have the freedom to marry and she doesn't think much of the FLDS religion, either. She also takes swipes at the polyamorous in general and  Muslims. I only quote some of the hate below.

Teenage girls transported over the border for the purpose of sex and breeding: That’s human trafficking.

Underage girls, below the age of consent, conscripted into conjugal relationships: That’s sexual assault.

Lifelong marriage is a little different than human trafficking for prostitution, wouldn't you say?

Adolescent boys driven from their homes by men middle-aged and older — fathers, church and community leaders — as perceived rivals in the competition for nubile mates: That’s societal engineering and a different kind of abuse.

I know of adolescent boys who have been "driven" from home because they wanted personal freedom, rather than familial or peer pressure to adhere to certain rules and expectations. In monogamous homes. Or because their "monogamous" parents divorced each other and married new spouses.

Sec. 293 of the Criminal Code is as clear as arch legalese will allow, forbidding conjugal union with more than one partner at the same time, “whether or not it is by law recognized as a binding form of marriage."

That law should be overturned in the interest of marriage equality.

But polygamous marriage within the rubric of religion — the coercion and sexual exploitation of girls, whether agreeable to those females or nor, and the trafficking required to sustain a polygamous community — is rightly a crime.

Prosecute child abuse. Don't prosecute people for consenting to marriage.

The law doesn’t force monogamy on married people. And the law does not render illegal the cohabitation of however many people choose to live as a family nor dictate their sleeping arrangements.

It can also be said that ten years ago, the law didn't force heterosexuality on anyone, but same-sex marriage was banned. It is time to increase the freedom to marry again and move towards full marriage equality.

Whether brainwashed or culturally kneaded to it, the obedient daughters of one daddy and multiple moms, their embracing of polygamy can’t possibly be used to justify a legal accommodation for plural marriages.

No, I guess nothing can match her bigotry, right?

This isn’t just about the individuals directly involved. It’s about all of us because we, too, have an ethical stake in acceptance or rejection of polygamy.

That's what the bigots said about interracial marriage and same-sex marriage, too.

The FLDS is not a benign religious sect, like the gentle Amish.

She makes it clear throughout this essay that she dislikes the FLDS and considers the religion invalid, as though they shouldn't even have the freedom of religion. I'm not FLDS or any kind of "LDS," but I respect the freedom of religion, and I stand for the rights of all adults to love, sex, and marriage. Prosecute domestic violence, kidnapping, rape, and molestation, but do not deny marriage equality.

Another Witness Defends Polygyny

This newspaper columnist seems skeptical of Canadian poly trial testimony from a wife living in Bountiful.

How benign, how egalitarian, the polygamous wife from Bountiful makes it all sound.

A place where the wishes of girls and women are respected, their input on desired husbands and time of marriage considered, their views on religious dogma weighed and obedience not strictly required.

To hear “Witness 2’’ tell it, there’s no coercion, no banishment of maturing boys by elder males covetous of nubile females, and only discretionary tithing — a word she refused to accept — such that the community can pay legal bills for associated members who’ve been charged, even convicted, of sexual assault against minors in the United States.

Maybe she’s telling the truth? How exactly would DiManno know differently?

She is in her mid-40s, shares a husband with a “sister-wife” — her biological sister is married to the same man and, as first in on the nuptials, technically his only “legal’’ spouse — and together they mother their combined 19 children. Nine of them were borne by Witness 2 and are aged 7 to 26.

Why is it that anti-equality commentators also seem to be against having more than two children? Which came first, their misanthropic fixation or their fixation on the marriages of other people?

By her own description, Witness 2 is not a typical Bountiful plural wife. She has some post-secondary education, occasionally left her babies in the care of her sister-wife to attend classes outside the secretive community, and has for many years been working as a midwife.

Wait, you mean they aren’t kept chained to beds or stoves?

“My children feel like if they say the wrong thing to a dentist or doctor, their father could go to jail,’’ she states in her affidavit.

It is sad that children can’t speak of their parents’ marriages without fear of police action in response.

Institute full marriage equality. If you see child abuse or domestic violence, prosecute that. Don’t procesute consenting spouses for marrying each other.

Which Is It?

In the context of the discussion around the Canadian poly trial, the Fall of Reynolds calls out an anti-equality bigot…

One more thing - Ms. Maschlitska has floated the rather novel idea that the two independent fundamentalist Mormon witnesses (at the BC trial this week) are actually "Alpha-Females". Does this mean that, rather than being subjugated, downtrodden, enslaved, beleaguered, marginalized, suppressed, demeaned and cowed, these two evidently sweet and beautiful women are empowered, capable, forthright, independent, self-assured, confident, free-thinking, emancipated and strong ??? - - - because, if Ms. Mischlockska is right, then this whole phony manufactured myth about all polygamous women being disenfranchised, human-rights victims is a big bucket of horse doo-doo. That's the thing - when you fall prey to the polygamy-hating-eradicating-delirium, it can sometimes get too hard to keep your story straight.

Those who want to deny the freedom to marry often have trouble being consistent. There are women who choose polygyny. There are women who very much enjoy polygyny. They do not deserve to be made criminals or ridiculed.

Polygamy = Polygyny Talk on Yahoo Answers

The question is, “Should men be allowed to be polygamous?”

The answer is yes, but only because all adults should have the freedom to marry more than one person. I’m for full marriage equality. Allowing polygyny, but not a group or polyandrous form for polygamy, would not be equality.

Here’s one discriminatory response…

We do not live in caves and throw spears anymore. We are civilised human beings and we are able to think logically and rationally and we are able to consider others. Sleeping with numerous women all at the same time is not very civilised or considerate.

Actually, there are highly civilized and considerate poly people. But she goes on to explain she is incapable of sharing…

I for one would not share my boyfriend with other women and if I found out I was that WOULD give me a real reason to terminate the relationship. My ex slept with another girl and I ended it with him. I wouldn't cheat on a man because I don't think it's right, even if there was no sex in the relationship.

That’s fine for her. But some people can mutally agree to other arrangements.

This person is an ally…

If everyone involved is cool with it, then yes. Why is it my business to tell people who they can marry? If a woman wants to have multiple husbands, and they are fine with it, then I think she should be able to. It is not my place to tell people how to live their lives, unless how they live is hurting me, which polygamy wouldn't do.

Someone else…

Poligamy can only work if you get rid of most men.

Not true. Assuming there would be more polygyny than polyandry, the fact is, not every person needs to or wants to get married.

Someone who has put a little more thought into it…

I am against the legalisation of polygamous marriage because women invariably have lower status in countries where this is allowed.

Does anyone believe that having this freedom to marry would lower the status of women in the US or Canada or Europe or Australia?

However, thre is nothing stopping a man living with more than one woman.

In some places there are. But there’s nothing stopping gay or lesbian couples from living together, either. Why should people have to be second class citizens and be denied marriage rights, though?

A man who 'spreads his seed' and fathers many children had better be prepared to support all those children.

Let them. This already happens, but many of the children don’t have the benefit of their parents being married.

He will also need to be prepared to satisfy all his wives and keep them happy all the time.

Wives and/or husbands.

He will have to be prepared for quarreling and jealousy among his many partners, women are often bitterly resentful of the other wives in polygamous marriages. Women don't really like sharing a man.

This person has a low opinion of women. Some women don’t want polygyny. Others do.

He will also have to be prepared to fend off competition.

Let him worry about that.

Another person is a little confused…

Even if polygamy wasn't wrong, even if your wife wasn't hurt by it at all, just being with other women for their body would fill you with lust, and you wouldn't be filled with the much more pure feeling of love anymore. I'm not sure if polygamy should be allowed, but I don't think there's a reason for it to be legal. Anyone who doesn't feel filled with love for their partner shouldn't be married in the first place.

It should be legal. Let those who choose to participate worry about the balance of love and lust. Give people full marriage equality, and let them decide for themselves.

False Assumptions About Poly People

It’s always nice to see the allies pop up in discussions prompted by questions like “How do you feel about polyamorous relationships?” More people participating take the attitude like this one…

I think you should be able to date as many people as you want as long as they're all aware and consenting of each other. I think it's just as wrong to hate someone for being gay, straight, pan-sexual, a-sexual, etc.

Tony D…

As long as you are up front and honest about what you are doing, people should be able to do as they we please. We are all consenting adults :D

But then there are attitudes like this one…

That COMPLETELY defies the reason for a relationship in the first place.

Ridiculous assertions like this are stated without any explanation. Many poly people have great relationships, so how can polyamory defy the reason for a relationship? Having more of something defeats the purpose?

Someone else wrote…

Plus, if you're not sexually nor emotionally satisfied with just one person, then I think it's perhaps time to re-evaluate what you want in a relationship to begin with.

It is insulting to assume poly people haven’t thought much about what they want in a relationship. Most have thought about it more than others.

Lynn…

I believe it is wrong and if you can't be happy with just one then you don't really love them.

So I guess Lynn will only be having one child? Other people wrote it wasn’t for them, but they understand it might be for others. But bigots will dismiss it outright and insist something is wrong with people who find happiness this way.

Not Complicated

Kirby Olson reports on a book by Martha Nussbaum, and is surprised that Nussbaum “accepts polygamy”…

"What is objectionable about polygamy is that it is often available only to males, and that it is typically connected with a legal and traditional regime under which women have unequal property rights and rights of mobility, association, and self-determination. But it is also the case that the reasons for opposing polygamy have often been very bad reasons, connected with fear and ignorance about a group whose practices are different. Thus, I believe that Mormon polygamy should have been permitted so long as the legal equality of women, and their freedom to leave the community should they wish to, were securely established and protected, and so long as the law extended similar opportunities to women who for some genuine religious reason wished, themselves, to contract polygamous marriages"

Although Nussbaum is rather reasonable throughout the volume, she sometimes skips over things. What, for instance, is a "genuine religious reason"?

It shouldn’t matter. People who want to marry under the law should not have to cite a religious justification for their marriage.

To return to the polygamy problem: Nussbaum has problems limiting marriage to one man and one woman and comes out in favor of polygamy so long as it can be practiced by women, too. If this is the case, I can't see why she wouldn't also allow group marriages composed of many different men and women, or even a whole city, as was the case with the French theorist Charles Fourier's phalansteries, which also claimed a bizarre religious rationale (he claimed to have had his notions dictated from God).

It is unlikely that many people will want to marry each other, but if they do, so what?

What happens to insurance if one partner in a group of 100,000 has a job that gives insurance to the spouses (the spice)? State Farm Insurance would rapidly go under if there is only one payment in, and hundreds of thousands of potential payments out.

Ah, again with the insurance issue. There are many simple ways to deal with this. It is dealt with when an employee has more kids than the next, isn't it? It is not a good reason to deny the freedom to marry. If only one spouse out of 100,000 has a job with insurance, there are larger problems to deal with, aren’t there?

When people talk about changing the marriage laws, I can foresee worst case scenarios where -- if you change the laws for one group, you have to accommodate all groups, including multiple partners, enormous communes full of people, as the polygamists and the others come in demanding their rights based on traditional religious rationale or some whimsical thing based on love.

“If you allow a man to marry a woman, soon he’ll be marrying little girls!” Let’s get real. It is very simple. Allow adults to marry the consenting peron or person(s) of their choosing. Most women will choose to marry one man to whom she is not closely related. But some women will marry more than one man, or a woman, or one woman and one man, or more, and one or more of them might be closely related to her. So what? Nobody would have to get married to someone they don’t want to marry, or get married at all.

Some Women Want Polygyny

In addition to women who want to be part of a group marriage or want multiple husbands (polyandry), there are women who want polygyny. Some people have denied this to be true, charging that women in polygynous marriages must have been forced or coerced into them.

Adam R asked some questions about polygamy in Islam, which of course would be limited polygyny, in which a man can be married to up to four wives.

-Can two Muslim wives live in the same house??
-Is it realistic for both wives to engage in a personal friendship relation?? (I suppose since they are living under the same roof, they can't just pretend that the other wife doesn't exist so they have to interact with each other)
-If there are any children, how do they get along with their step siblings??
-Is it common for Muslim women to approve themselves polygamy??
-In the Canadian Muslim community, is polygamy frowned-up??
-Is there any specific society within the Islamic world that is more lenient or that tends to approve more polygamy than others??

kool dude had some answers, which I have below with minor edits for clarity...

1. Yes, If a Husband has capacity to keep them in separate homes he can.. if not it's alright..

2. Yes, It's realistic.. Two wives can live like friends .. All three of them go to pilgrimage(Hajj) together.. .. But it all depends on Husband .. how he treats them both.. you have to be Strictly JUST. there are many examples.

3. You shouldn't put in the children's mind that they are your step siblings if they are not grown ups.. the word STEP has no significance in Islam..Its your seed. Step mom.Both are MOMS; they have to be respected equally.. by the siblings of both mothers..

4. Yes its frowned but They want to Adapt it because of Growing population of SINGLE MOMS.

5. All Muslim societies are knowledgeable today and are lenient towards polygamy.. But Muslim men seeing that many women are materialistic or other reason.... are happy with one.. Rich can always be polygamous.. But they have to be just

Saeed mujib Saadat…

In Islam if a man wants to marry another wife, his first wife MUST first agree to it otherwise it's not valid. What you said about Lebanon is True Husbands have to support both wives and all children...the wives must be treated equally. Sometimes they don't live in the same roof but others do. I know one friend who's mother is moving from one city to another. This because the wife wanted to move there. Personally i could not handle two women, it tends to be the wife ho wants the husband to marry somebody else.

I have no way of knowing if those answers are accurate or not. What is official policy or teaching might not be how things end up in practice. But I did find an interesting comment that backs this up over at Ms Magazine. The commentary references the Canadian poly trial and asks “Is Polygamy Inherently Bad For Women?” The author, Jessica Mack, isn’t convinced that it is.

The practice of taking numerous spouses, in and of itself, doesn’t seem to be the root cause of the problem. After all, there are clear examples of polyandry (in which one woman has several husbands, as opposed to polygyny, with one man and several women), but abuse and oppression of men in these cases rarely, if ever, comes up.

Perhaps instead, the problem with polygamy (or, really, polygyny) is that the legal structure of marriage codifies an underlying discrimination against women. Reports from polygamous communities often point to early and forced marriage, in which the institution of marriage serves as both a shield for, and weapon of, sexist behavior.

Also, polygamy is often practiced secretively and in cloistered religious communities that exist quite literally outside the norms of broader society. This situation can create impunity for those men who are abusing women.

Having polygamy, of which polygyny is just one form, legalized, will make it more difficult for abusers to get away with their misdeeds. Legalization takes away much of the fear and mistrust victims have when it comes to the government authorities.

Miah Shilpi makes it clear…

But, the simplified version is this: Polygamous marriage is not what hurts women - sexism in society is. All the conventions on how polygamous marriage hurt women - allowing and institutionalized underage sex/marriage, nonconsensual sex/marriage, domestic violence, isolating women, keeping them from have jobs, an education, or leading a fulfilling live, ect ect - were all hallmarks of monogamous marriage in our society just a century and a half ago. Because the role of sex and women in society has changed, so has the narrative of marriage, women's role in it. Abuse DOES happen in polygamous marriage...but it happens in monogamous marriage, too, and the cause isn't the structure of the marriage, but the structure of society and the role of sex/gender within it.

Christine has the comment I mentioned…

A few years ago, I was in Kenya for work. I had the opportunity to travel with one of my Kenyan colleagues to her father's home in a semi-rural area. Her father was in his 60s and was polygamous. While traveling there, my colleague told me the past few months had been very difficult at her father's house because his "first wife" had died. I said her father must be devastated and she responded that, yes, he was, but it was his second wife who was the most devastated. Seeing that I was baffled, she explained that the two wives were best friends and were each other's most important support system. The death of the first wife left the second wife with a devastating emotional hole and doubled work load overnight. I had never thought about the support system some women get from polygamy. Now that I am a wife and mother, I can understand the sentiment. I could certainly use a second wife to help me out - and I have a truly equal partner in my husband!

As long as a society has gender equality or nearly so, as long as people in that society have the freedom to refuse marriage and the freedom to divorce, full marriage equality, which includes the right to polygamous marriage, will benefit all. All includes women, of course! But even where there isn't gender equality, some women may genuinely desire to be part of the polygynous marriage.

Without a Victim, It Shouldn’t be a Crime

David Epstein’s case continues to get people talking.

Do you think both should be charged with incest?

So do you think Incest is a two-way street? I think Incest is a two way street.

Neither should be charged with a crime. Incest should not be a crime when it involves consensual sex. It should only be a factor that enhances sentencing for child molestation, child rape, and statutory rape, which are already crimes. Rape or sexual assault involving two or more non-dependent adults should bring severe sentences regardless of whether the people involved are a related.

If David Epstein’s daughter was a consenting party, the law should have nothing to do with this.

Mom2Max is clearly disgusted by the idea, but still sees that this is not a criminal matter…

However sick and disgusting incest may be – I don’t see how it is a crime if the sex was consensual. What business is it of the governments is neither of the parties have a problem with it?

Excuse me while I go vomit now.

Nova…

God, they should get rid of incest laws. Incest is a two way street. If it’s consensual, what’s the problem? Both people want it.

Thank you.

indie chick…

No. Incest USUALLY occurs when one of the victims is raped.
rape is not a two way street.

We actually have no way of knowing for sure how much consensual sex there is between close relatives, whether adults or minors who are close in age. I have witnessed and read many credible accounts of consenual sex between close relatives. So statements that incest “usually” occurs through rape is a statement that can’t be definitively supported. Rape, of course, should be illegal.

most people will not willingly have sex with their relatives.

Most people will not have intergenerational sex, and most men will not willingly have sex with another man, but we don’t make those things illegal.

Whether or not something should be illegal is a different question than whether or not someone wants to do it themselves. Most people can’t seem to give any reason as to which Esptein should be charged with a crime other than “I wouldn’t want to do that.” That’s not a good enough reason.

Bigot Testifies in Canadian Poly Trial

It is surprising that people are willing to go on the record and make such claims.

Canada has obligations under international human rights law to uphold its current rules prohibiting polygamy, a University of Toronto law professor charged Thursday, calling the practice "inherently wrong.

These people never seem to be able to explain how exactly it is wrong for grown people to make their own marital decisions.

"The patriarchal structure allowing men to take multiple wives offends women's dignity," Dr. Rebecca Cook told a B.C. Supreme Court tasked with determining the constitutionality of Canada's anti-polygamy law.

The women in these POLYGYNOUS marriages disagree. It is a nice try, though. Some have made the same accusation about heterosexual monogamous marriage, too. Why are they wrong and this accusation right? We support FULL marriage equality, allowing people, regardless of gender, to marry the consenting person or persons they choose to marry. Polygyny is only one of many possibilities someone can choose.

"The purpose of international human rights law is to protect and promote the dignity of the individual."

It is not very dignifying to try to make criminals out of them for their harmless marital choices.

Cook, who was called as a witness for the attorney-general of Canada, also testified the trend among nations around the world is to ban the practice of multiple marriages.

There has been a recent trend in the US to ban same-sex marriage, too. Go ahead and check. Most of the laws banning same-sex marriage were passed in the last fifteen years or so. Should Canada ban same-sex marriage? Canada should stand up for the freedom to marry regardless of what other countries are doing.

Cook identified a number of harms to woman that are associated with polygamy, including increased risk of physical violence and increased exposure to sexually transmitted diseases, such as HIV.

Are you kidding me? Does anyone really believe HIV is spreading like wildfire in FLDS communities? Is she talking about Africa??? In Africa or anywhere else, you can get 100 people having sex together and none of them will get HIV if none of them was HIV positive before. Polygamy doesn't spread HIV. Unprotected sex with an infected person might. Concerned about HIV? Promote testing and safe sex... and marriage, instead of discouraging marriage. As far as domestic violence, that is already illegal.

People should be ashamed to spew such bigotry. And don't talk to me about "international human rights law" as long as international organizations ignore killings and rapes (especially of LGBT people), slavery, and environmental pillaging. Seems to me that three people being in a loving marriage in Canada would hardly be something to be worried about.

Yet More Yahoo Answers on Polygamy

Robin Singhapreecha asked…

Why is polygamy wrong?
Why do you think polygamy is wrong/socially unacceptable?
Alternatively, why do you think it's not wrong?

Polygamy, it an of itself, is not wrong. Consenting adults should be able to marry each other, whether it is two, three, four, or more who want to marry. It can be one woman and three men, whether or not any of the men are sexual with each other. Same goes for one man and three women. Or it could be two men and two women, or many other variations. It isn’t anybody else’s business.

Like any other relationship type, you can find polygamous marriages where there are problems, but a relationship that is problematic does not mean that the relationship type is always wrong.

Rawr!...

I really don't care what people do as long as they are adults and are doing it of their own choice.

Thanks!

Jamie…

I wouldn't say it's "wrong". I think for the most part it isn't accepted in most communities because a lot of people are afraid of OR don't like what they aren't used to.

The more people see normal polygamous marriages the more people will drop their opposition to this freedom to marry.

Steven M…

The main reason it was abandoned long ago was inheritance issues. How is a patriotically society do you determine property ownership when multiple wives and children exist.

This can’t be a reason for the continued denial of the freedom to marry. With today’s restriction of monogamy-only for marriage, we see inheritance disputes all of the time. Widows and widowers who were married only once get in fights with their own children, who may fight with each other. Then, in some cases, there are children born outside of that marriage. There’s divorce and remarriage with or without stepchildren or making more children, there are people who were never married who have kids, there are childless people whose inheritances are disputed, on and on it goes. If anything, legalizing polygamy would make it easier to sort out inhereitance. There can be default rules in the law, and people can come up with their own documented, legal agreements.

Venshore…

If it is part of your religion it should be acceptable. But leave the children alone and let them marry who they want...not some old pedophile hiding behind religion

It is acceptable regardless of religion. But I agree about not having children married off.

"History"…

Polygamy has never been successful in a free democratic country.

I don’t know where people get an idea like that. What’s the criteria? There are people who are living as polygamists or polyamorists right now who strongly disagree with this claim. Is monogamy in the West successful today, given the divorce rate and the levels of unhappiness even when there has not been a divorce?

It has been tried by several communities back to the 1700s in the US, and they always fail in some critical way.

Who really thinks that a place and time when only landowning white males had rights and LGBT people had to be in the closet was a “free democratic country?” What would be the problem if you neighbor had more than one spouse? And if a bunch of like-minded people go off and form an isolated community together, and the town goes bust, then so what? Let them try.

Consanguineous Sex Leads to Chaos?

Concerned about what David Epstein was doing in private with another consenting adult, this blogger tries to convince us that the freedom to consanguineous love and sex will lead to chaos. He cites Thomas Aquinas, so I was expecting something deep. But maybe something was lost in translation?

In the Summa Theologica (II-II, Q. 154, A. 9), Thomas Aquinas gives four reasons why incest is contrary to reason. First, “because man naturally owes a certain respect to his parents and therefore to his other blood relations”; this respect can no longer exist once the relationship becomes incestuous.

You can’t respect someone with whom you are having sex? That doesn’t bode well for marriage or any relationship at all, does it? I wonder if this blogger is in a relationship, and how the other person feels about that?

Second, since blood relations “live in close touch with one another... opportunities of venereal intercourse would be very frequent and thus men's minds would be enervated by lust.”

Oh no, they might have sex a lot? Men (and quite a few women) think about sex all of the time, no matter where they are.

Third, by marrying someone to whom one is not related, one thereby gains friendships with one's wife's kin; this would be frustrated if one did not marry outside one's family.

I have many friends outside of my family to whom I’m neither married nor married to a relative of theirs.

And fourth, courtesy of Aristotle, a man will have a liking for his kinswoman; it is not good for this affection to become too ardent, which would occur if he had sexual relations with her.

It isn’t good to care about your relatives so much? These objections make it sound like sex is a horrible experience. I have to wonder if those who oppose equality are frustrated.

Moreover the bond between a husband and wife is substantially different from that formed between mother and son or father and daughter. Incest irrevocably distorts this bond, to the detriment of the family, and, by extension, society.

This is like saying best friends should never get married, because it would distort the friendship. When people are functioning socially in their biological roles, sex would create an additional bond. For some who are not functioning socially in those roles (as is often the case when someone was adopted and raised by loving parents, and he later meets his birth mother), that bond may not exist in the first place.

What have we learned? Sex is disrespectful and a chore. You can only make friends through marriage. You should not care about your family members so much. Do not have more than one dimension to your relationships. Funny, but that all sounds like it is much more likely to create chaos than two adults having the freedom to be happy together.

It isn’t like those of us who want full marriage equality insist that everyone should enjoy consanguineous sex. We simply want those who do to have the same freedom as anyone else; to be able to love the person(s) they do without being prosecuted or denied equality.

Nonmonogamy on Yahoo Answers

There were a couple of discussions I noticed on Yahoo Answers relating to nonmonogamy.

Celes asked…

If I wanted to have a polygamous marriage, should I have it with bisexual men?

Depends on how much fun she wants it to be! Seriously, if a woman wants a polyandrous situation, she has to ask herself if she’d prefer that sexual encounters or bed-sharing would be stricltly one-on-one or at least sometimes as a “threesome.” Would the want the social structure of the relationship to be a triangle or a “V,” assuming she would only need two husbands.

Since I KNOW there isn't a straight man on earth who would be comfortable sharing a bed with me and several other men let alone sharing just little old ME.

Actually, there are men who identify as straight who would be comfortable. I don’t think a majority of straight men would, but there are some.

Bisexual guys seems like the best option, doesn't it?

That is up to personal needs.

The husband I have now (and forever, despite what some of you might think, I really do LOVE him) is interested in 'experimenting' but is too afraid to go through with it.

She updated her question to indicate that her husband is most definitely straight, in response to someone asking her why she married a gay man.

Her own words: interested in 'experimenting'. That isn’t quite a desire for polyandry, although it could lead to that. It soulds like her husband is interested in at least seeing another man or other men with his wife. That could be done in any number of contexts, ranging from picking up someone in a bar to an ongoing polyamorous relationship.

BTW, for ya'll who find it so 'disgusting'....good news! I never asked any of you join in on the party, so nyyyyahh!!! :P

She told them! There were a few allies.

Tam Writer…

Um... sure, why not?? I mean, that way, you can all enjoy each other.... :S.... XD

Creation Crusher 5000…

Do whatever you want. It neither picks my pocket, nor breaks my leg.

*ajidamoon* the Eh team…

In my polyandrous marriage, I do not plan on having group sex, but rather a different man for every night of the week. Its not fair that women peak near twenty years after males.....so I feel I need several men for compensation and to be able to keep up with me. Thus negating the need to only marry bi-sexual males. Of course, I might throw a few more wives in for variety as well.

Come on up to Canada....polygamy/polyandry will be legal by 11's end.

May it be so!

DAVID…

All I have to say on this subject is thank God for penicillin, to be fair to this weired Polyandryist he has not included farm animals in his experiment (give it time now I have planted the seed, in a manner of speaking).

Is David unaware that if a group of people who have no communicable disease have sex, none of them will get a communicable disease as a result?

laduni…

Why don't you just be a prostitute. You get paid that way.

What kind of an answer is that? A bigoted one.

C V…

It is possible for polygamous marriages to be strong and successful, but I don't think we have the right mentality for it in modern society.

I don’t think we’ve ever been closer to having the right mentality. Much of that is because of gender equality.

Scarlet MacBlu…

While some bisexuals can be polyamorous (just as some straight or homosexual people) not all bisexuals are interested in sharing or being shared. The assumption you also seem to be making here is that your lovers/husbands would be actually interested in each other... there is no gurentee of that.

This is all true. That is why everyone needs to be on the same page.

And now for one of the answers that received low ratings, thankfully. That gives me hope.

Pontiff…

sorry but that's disgusting

I’m sure there are things Pontiff does that some people find disgusting. For example, I find bigotry disgusting.

Experiencing something like this is one thing but to actually want to live such a life means you have no morales whatsoever.

How would Pontiff know if she has no Morales? She may be thinking of including Morales as the secondary.

On to the second question.

Gum drop…

Are you for or against polygamy?

Sherif Fahmy…

Against. It is inherently misogynist.

I assume that person is thinking only of polygyny, but I think the person is confusing some of the other practices of some societies with the freedom to polygyny. With gender equality and the freedom to divorce, polygyny is entirely voluntary for all involved.

Carl L…

Neither as long as all involved consent to such a relationship, but personally I wouldn't be interested in it.

Thanks, ally! So many of the other answers were typical anti-equality bigotry and myths.

What About the Children?

Abdullah asked a very common question…

How likely is it that brother-sister incest will produce a healthy child?

Taking the question exactly as it is written, a very small percentage of sexual encounters result in a live birth. Only sexual encounters that result in a healthy sperm entering a healthy egg and fertilizing it, followed by successful implantation in the uterus, followed by gestation until viability will produce a healthy child. (This is leaving aside reproductive technologies, donors, and surrugotes.)

But I suspect that the question the person was really asking is that if a brother and sister have a pregnancy that comes to term and is successfully delivered, what are the chances of the child being healthy?

Most likely, with any given brother and sister, the child will be healthy. With any birth, there is a chance of the child having a birth defect or genetic problem. All it takes is for a genetic problem of one or both parents being passed along, or a the embryo developing one on her own. If two people have the same genetic problem, as siblings may, there is an increase in the chance that their child will have the same problem in comparison to the general population. However, that increase in chance will still mean that the overall chance is a minority chance.

Anyone concerned about these things should have genetic testing and counseling. People who are not close relatives can pass along health problems.

We do not deny people the freedom to marry based on their lack of ability to birth healthy children or lack of intention to birth children. We do not make criminals out of them based on those things, either.

Still Waiting For A Good Reason to Deny Marriage Equality

This guy tries to explain why only some adults should have the freedom to marry the person they love.

Essentially, I believe that whatever involves just consenting adults, and does not do violence to others or society as a whole, should be tolerated. And, when it involves the notion of legal equality, it should be accepted.

Sounds great.

Gay marriage: Sure. Fine. Whatever. "I think it's gross" is NOT sufficient legal justification for banning it.

Thanks for supporting this freedom to marry.

Incest: No, no, a thousand times no.

Why not? He struggles to justify his opposition to this freedom to marry.

In some cases, it involves minors -- so there goes the "consenting adults."

By starting out with this, he’s trying to equate fun, romance, and love between consenting adults with child abuse. It’s like making a case against adults working for a living because of child-slave labor. I, like most people who want marriage equality, condemn child abuse.

In others, it raises the likelihood of inbreeding -- so there goes the "harm to others."

We’ve dealt with this one so many times before. There is no law against people having children despite and increased risk that the child will inherit a disease or birth defect, so unless you want to deny reproductive rights and force everyone to take genetic tests and bar carriers and the congenitally disabled and women over 35 from having children, then equal protection prevents this from being a justification to bar this freedom of association and freedom to marry. Still, most children born to consanguineous parents are fine. Furthermore, there are people marry who have no intention of reproducing, and most sex does not result in a live birth, nor is it intended to. So give this one a rest.

In some, involving parents, squicky issues of power and authority and inequality are raised.

This objection also fails. Next?

But even in those cases where those pitfalls are avoided, the introduction of the sexual dynamic entirely within the family structure causes violence to society as a whole.

What does this mean, and where is the proof? One might as well say that it kills ancient redwood trees. Spell out the harm. The sexual dynamic often brings people closes together. If you’ve found otherwise, maybe you’re doing it wrong.

Bigamy: Too many legal nightmares.

That’s what the bigots said about same-sex marriage and the Americans With Disabilities Act and just about any civil rights laws. Of course it is easier for those who already have what they want to keep things as they are. But what about all of the people who are denied their rights?

Let's take the case of Adam, Eve, and Eden. Adam marries Eve, and then the two marry Eden. Then Adam wants out. What does that mean to the legal relationship between Eve and Eden? Are they still married, even if they don't want to be? Are they divorced from each other, even if they don't want to be?

Use some thinking. It is very simple. If Adam leaves, Eve and Eden have the option of either continuing in a reformed marriage or entirely dissolving the marriage. It’s called freedom of association. When one person leaves a polygamous marriage, the others can too. Or, they can stay. It is their choice, not anyone else's concern.

And what about children?

What about children from one night stands, donated sperm, surrogate mothers, affairs, brief flings, or supposedly monogamous marriage that's ending? What about children born to a woman whose husband wasn’t the man who impregnated her? All of these situations are entirely legal. A court decides custody disputes that aren’t resolved amicably.

Marriage is a straight line (pardon the expression), defined by two points.

In his limited imagination. Others are living in marriages that are different.

It can be made and broken relatively simply (geometrically speaking). Introducing more points, making it into triangles, squares (with corners also connected), and whatnot just gets messy. No just say no to bigamy.

Got that? You can’t have your freedom to marry because someone else finds it “messy.” I mean really, why does one person care if someone else’s relationship is more complicated than he would like for himself? Don't want a poly marriage? Don't have one.

It’s past time to stop this. Just let people marry the person(s) they want to marry. Stop persecuting and prosecuting people for the sex they have with other consenting adults.