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.

A Mormon Ally

Julia, a Mormon, gives a “testimony” that includes...

I believe that polygyny, polyandry, and gay/lesbian marriages should be legal. I don't believe it is the government should tell me who to love.

Thank you, Julia. There are probably many more members of your church who believe the same thing, but just haven’t spoken up in public about it. The silence has meant people assume they support Prop H8.

About her choice of schools…

This choice kills me when I hear people use the word gay as a synonym for stupid.

Words do matter. There are stupid gays, but there are brilliant gays, too. Gays are people. “Gay” shouldn’t be used for “stupid,” or as an insult. People are slurred simply because of who they love. That’s wrong and everyone needs to reject that hateful attitude. Thanks, Julia.

Polygyny in Kenya

Here’s an article on “Happy Co-wives” from Kenya.

The practice of polygamy is today recognised under customary law. Lawyer Julius Ondika says the new Constitution allows for registration of polygamous marriages, but the man has to first seek the consent of the first wife before entering into the second marriage.

Full marriage equality is only possible if consent is a requirement. This is not about cheating or having a mistress, or duping an existing spouse.

Bramham Continues Rants Against Freedom to Marr

Daphne Bramham attacks “polygamy,” but it is clear her real problem is with the decisions of the leaders in Bountiful, and those who follow those decisions.

She cites testimony from women in polygynous marriages who say that at times, it is difficult. I know many, many people still in monogamous marriages who say that their marriages are difficult and that it takes a lot of work. And then you can talk to the ones who are divorced.

Those consequences, laid out in the hearing's early days by an economist, an ethnographer and a legal and religious scholar who studies marriage, include early sexualization of girls, downward pressure on the marriage age of girls, poverty, and low educational attainment for both girls and boys.

Early sexualization of girls is happening in the larger culture. Just turn on your television or radio. Visit schools. The difference in places like Bountiful is that rather than having casual sex, they are getting married to someone who is socially obligated to them.

Under cross-examination, a 24-year-old said it was God's will that her 15-year-old sister-wife married a pillar of the Bountiful community more than twice her age.

Enforce age of consent laws. Mandate school attendance, if you’re so worried about “low educational attainment.” But criminalizing consensual marriages contributes to abuse and poverty. The problem these people have is with a couple of leaders in a community. This should not deny consenting adults this freedom to marry.

Calling It Bizarre Doesn't Make it So

Here’s another bigoted rant prompted by the Canadian poly trial.

Try to wrap your brain around the bizarre notion that a smart, female law professor, with all the societal privileges such a position offers, believes polygamy should be decriminalized.

It isn’t bizarre for anyone to believe in having more freedom to marry.

Carissima Mathen, of the University of New Brunswick, used to work for the Women’s Legal and Education Action Fund (LEAF).

The group promotes women’s equality and has pressed for things like universal day care, equal pay for work of equal value and the eradication of discrimination against aboriginal women.

So it’s strange that a lawyer who once worked for LEAF seems to think polygamy isn’t a big deal.

Again, why is it strange?

Instead of worrying about plural marriages, the authorities should concentrate on specific harms and use other Criminal Code laws, such as those prohibiting exploitation and forced marriage, to nail the perps, she explained.

Yes.

The law only requires proof of someone having a conjugal relationship with more than one person at the same time.

“At some point, we need to be comfortable with the idea that people will make choices that we disagree with. They’ll make choices that, to us, seem … not in their best interests,” Mathen said.

Full marriage equality is a matter of liberty and fairness.

The writer attacks the religions of others…

The trouble with that is only men (and the older ones, at that) have autonomy in polygamous communities, particularly the twisted breakaway Mormon commune in Bountiful, B.C. and the like-minded areas in the U.S. run by polygamist crackpots.

That’s not very nice.

Credible experts warn repeatedly that polygamy is harmful to women and children.

How, exactly?

Do we want to be the first western country to OK polygamy?

Canadians should be proud to further increase the freedom to marry. Future generations are going to look back, ashamed that there were these bans on marriage.

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.

A Feminist Supports the Freedom to Polygamous Marriage

Over at Finding My Feminism, Not Guilty wrote in regards to the Canadian poly trial and the community of Bountiful…

As I have stated before, I am wholly supportive of adult women making the decision to enter into a polygamous marriage. I believe that making polygamy illegal is simply the government seeking to make decisions for women that men believe women are incapable of making for themselves. There is a case in the British Columbia courts involving the polygamous communities in Bountiful, BC. The case is challenging Canada's polygamy laws as unconstitutional on the basis that they are a Charter violation of religious freedom. While I personally don't enjoy supporting ridiculous religious beliefs, the reality is that a polygamous relationship affects nobody else and it thus none of our damn business.

Very well said. She goes on to write that she is against teenage women marrying much older men, and gives a suggestion for revisions in the law.

She links to an earlier message she wrote that references “Sister Wives.”

My gut reaction to polygamy is that it is wrong and I am glad it is illegal. I also wish it were enforced more strictly. Unfortunately, I never let myself just go off my gut reaction; I always think more deeply about issues.

That’s a good thing. My gut reaction when seeing open-heart surgery is “gross!” but it doesn’t mean it should be illegal. It saves lives.

My reasons for disagreeing with polygamy include the manifestation of the patriarchy since it is always men with multiple wives and never, as far as I know, women with multiple husbands; oppression of women; and the effect on the children.

That isn’t true, of course. There are polyandrous families. I link to some of them on this very blog.

She mulls over how things are for the children in polygynous familes….

Except when you delve a little deeper, this is no different from children raised by same-sex couples. There is no evidence kids are harmed by having same-sex parents and any harm that does befall them is due to prejudices in society. If this is the same with children of polygamous families, I really don't have a leg to stand on. Unless there is clear evidence that these children are somehow damaged by being children of a polygamous family, I don’t feel comfortable declaring polygamy wrong.

The reason my gut reaction is that polygamy is wrong is because I don’t understand it and to an extent, the idea repulses me. But I don’t get to judge the lifestyle of other people just because I disagree with it; that isn’t my right. I despise people who judge LGBT, so I cannot in good conscience, without evidence of harm, judge polygamous families.

Yay for solidarity.

From the Source

Polygamy in the Desert is a blog from “a polygamous Muslim family who tries to live by Qur'an and Sunnah. This blog tells about our family but also gives the readers an insight into Saudi culture and lifestyle.”

More Testimony in Canadian Poly Trial

One of the wives from Bountiful testifying in the Canadian poly trial told the court that she has suffered bias and prejudice because of the ban on polygamous marriage.

The mother of nine told B.C. Supreme Court Chief Justice Robert Bauman that many people in mainstream society treat polygamists with bias and prejudice.

“That affects my everyday life. We’ve had to pay so much money to try and stay out of jail. It’s hard to come up with the money that we need,” she said.

People should not be persecuted because of their marriage. Their government should recognize their marriages and honor their choices.

She said she married at the age of 16 at her parents’ suggestion, in order to have someone help support her while she attended college.

Contrary to evidence that has been heard at trial that women have no choice in such arranged marriages, the witness said she chose to marry her husband.

“I felt good about him and I married him.”

These women are attending college. They aren’t being hidden away in a prison. They are choosing these marriages. Let them have that choice.

Lasting Polyamory

Scarlet asked for opinions on polyamory. She got a good answer from Chances6...

I've been in a committed, triad polyamorous relationship for 17 years now. It's not at all that I have two "wives." It's more correct to say my wife has a husband and a wife.

It's certainly not for everyone (but then, neither is a monogamous relationship!), but we've all found it to be really wonderful and fulfilling and healthy and comforting.

17 years. That's longer than so many monogamous marriages these days. Shouldn't these people have the freedom to marry?

Polygyny in Iraq

BBC News reports that Iraq has more than one million war widows and a shortage of young unmarried men, and that polygyny may offer a solution.

It's a practice that became less common in the 20th Century, but politicians put forward a proposal last year to offer married men financial incentives to take on a second wife.

Under current Iraqi law, polygamy is illegal unless authorised by a judge - though it is part of the country's Islamic tradition and has been backed in recent years by some religious groups.

In Iraq's largest province, Anbar, a charity called Angel of Mercy has been helping widows remarry for the last four years. Dozens of marriages have been completed, with the widows often marrying their husband's relatives.

If that is what is best for all of the spouses, why not encourage this?

Women in illegal second marriages are often "in an inferior situation where they are unprotected and prone to abuse by men", [chatity worker Hana Edwar] adds.

Legalize them and the women will have more power. Of course, I don’t support polygyny only; I support full marriage equality, which includes gender 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.

Bramham Has Fun With Statistics

Daphne Bramham at the Vancouver Sun looks for any reason to deny people their freedom to marry. Here’s her latest on Bountiful, a community that has come under scrutiny during the Canadian poly trial, because some there practice polygyny. She cites some statistics.

The number of births alone is surprising -- 833 born to 215 mothers in 13 years in a community whose population is commonly estimated at around 1,000.

That’s fewer than four children per mother. A woman having four children over the course of 13 years is hardly shocking.

The most disturbing fact is that 85 mothers -- a third of the total -- were 18 or younger. That's seven times the provincial rate of teen moms.

Very interesting how this is worded, “18 and younger.” How many of those were 18? Plus, the age of consent in Canada is 16. So out of those “teen moms,” how many were under the age of 16? Why doesn’t Bramham tell us? Also notice that this means that two thirds of the mothers were age 19 and older. She cites the “provincial rate.” How many teen girls outside of Bountiful are having sex outside of marriage? My guess is that most of the wives in Bountiful are not getting abortions. What is the provincial abortion rate? Is is better for 17-year-olds to be having sex with multiple partners in casual encounters or with a husband who is bound to them?

Ideally, I think people should be age 25 or older when they marry, simply because they’ll know themselves better and have more life experience and perspective. But I would not be in favor of raising the legal age to marry.

Two of the teens had three children each by the time they were 18; 16 had two children each. That means one in 10 babies was born to a teenager.

This sounds a lot better than what we see in low-income urban areas, especially when you consider these teens are married and having children by the same husband, rather than unmarried and having children by different fathers, non of whom care about her, as seen in some areas.

And it's no secret that in Bountiful (as in most polygamous societies), the powerful older men have the most wives and the most children. The statistics support that.

Well, yeah, the longer you live the more children you can have. Of course the older men have more children. And wives are better off with more powerful husbands. If a heterosexual woman has a choice between marrying a man with more power or a man with less power, she’s more likely to marry the man with more power.

The age gap between the 215 mothers and the 142 fathers is slightly more than eight years. That's nearly double the regional average and an anomaly in B.C., where the average is 4.6 years.

It is much smaller than the gap in the Playboy Mansion, however. And doing the math, it looks like it breaks down so that there could be just as many monogamous fathers as polygynous fathers, with the polygynous fathers having two wives.

(Even though the legal age of sexual consent was raised to 16 from 14 in 2008, it bears noting that it's a criminal offence for someone in a position of trust or authority to have sexual relations with anyone under the age of 18.)

Well, I’d hope a wife could trust her husband.

It also bears noting that the legal age of marriage in B.C. is 18.

I find it a problem that someone has the freedom to consent to sex and other things, but not marriage.

Not that it matters. As Chief Justice Robert Bauman has repeatedly been told, most fundamentalist Mormon marriages are "spiritual" or "celestial" unions arranged by the prophet or his designate.

So… she’d be in favor of making them legally recognized?

As Bauman has also heard, women and girls are routinely moved between the fundamentalist Mormon communities for arranged marriages.

Woah, woah… moving to get married? Who ever heard or such a thing?

Look, I’m not a member or follower of the FLDS or any related group. I’m not saying I like everything going on in Bountiful. But I cringe when alarmism and broad-brushing is used to deny adults the freedom to choose their marriage partner(s).

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.

A Confused Opponent of Equality

Beverly Nye Stratford embarrassed herself with this anti-equality letter to a newspaper.

Polygamy hurts men.

Why don't we let people decide for themselves how their marriages will be?

If three men out of 10 take three wives each, that leaves one woman for the seven other men.

There are billions of people in the world, though. The three men aren't "taking" those wives by force. Those women choose to marry those men. Shouldn't they have that choice?

Keep in mind too that in most polygamous countries, like the Muslim ones, all sex outside of marriage is illegal with penalties up to death itself, so it is unlikely the last woman would dare to service the other seven men even if she wanted to.

This a red herring in places like Canada and the United States. All adults should have the right to love, sex, and marriage. That some freedoms are restricted in one place does not mean we should restrict other freedoms here.

The only way to make it fair for a man to have more than one legal wife at a time is for the wife, or wives, to be legally able to have an equal number of husbands.

They should have that freedom.

For example, a man takes a second wife. This new wife is now eligible to take another husband, as is the original wife as well.

Everyone should have the right to marry the person or person(s) they want to marry. The letter writer really should be writing to support full marriage equality. Seems to me her beef is with "polygyny-only."

Another Witness For the Freedom to Marry

Mary Batchelor, a Utah woman, wants to have the freedom to marry, and has testified in the Canadian poly trial.

A Utah woman who describes herself as a former polygamist says she would be happy to enter into another plural marriage if the opportunity arose.

She should not be denied by laws imposed by people who don't even know her.

She told B.C. Supreme Court Chief Justice Robert Bauman that she had some "very good times, some very positive times" during the polygamous marriage.

Some women enjoy polygyny.

She also had some "very challenging times" when the first wife had an affair and left, she said.

"It was especially hard when the marriage broke down and there was a loss of trust," she testified.

The first wife, Victoria Prunty, became a third wife in another polygamous marriage before becoming a spokeswoman for a group called Tapestry Against Polygamy, which opposes plural marriage, the court heard.

It's convenient that Prunty wants to keep this freedom to marry illegal, while she had the freedom to cheat.

Despite the divorce of the first wife, Bauman said she hopes to re-marry into a polygamous relationship.

"I do hope to be able to live in a plural marriage again. It would be wonderful if I could do it without a law against it. When that plural marriage ended, it broke my heart."

She should have that freedom to marry. We need full marriage equality.

Thank You, Sophie Hirschfeld

Sophie Hirschfeld gets it right when it comes to testimony in the Canadian trial over polygamy that portrays polygamous communities as horrible places.

This account about tortured babies is being used to argue that polygamy should continue to be illegal in Canada. I don’t want to downplay Jessop’s suffering. It certainly deserves attention and it does need people to take action, but this action is not the appropriate action. Polygamy is not what is to blame for what has happened to these children. Polygamy is not to blame for the young brides forced into marriage, either, or for the displaced boys who have been tossed out of their religious community. No, instead, the blame goes to dogma and people, mostly people.

Polyamory and Polygamy have become dirty words in our culture. It has become symbolic of something that is a distant, distorted image of what it once was and what it can be. Polyamory is alive and well in the United States and I’ve had plenty of experience with polyamorous people and have even been in polyamorous relationships, myself. I’ve seen many varieties of poly family structures and have seen what kinds of struggles those people face because their chosen love life is not what people think is ‘right.’ I’ve seen no evidence that polyamory or polygamy are, themselves, dangerous things.

Read it all.

Happy Wife Extols Polygyny in Court

After a parade of bigots and the dissatisfied, the Canadian poly trial is finally receiving testimony from people actually in polygynous marriages. Alina Darger didn’t avail herself of the option to testify anonymously.

In a marked contrast to former FLDS members who have told the court about overcrowded, abusive homes filled with conflict and power struggles, Ms. Darger described her childhood and marriage in glowing terms.

Her father had two wives, and Ms. Darger herself is the first of three wives. She has seven children of her own, and she and her two “sister-wives” have a total of 24 children aged from six months to 20 years old.

Ms. Darger said she chose to practise polygamy because it is central to her faith and she wanted the same closeness and security as an adult that she had experienced as a child.

“I loved that experience and thought it was really amazing,” Ms. Darger said. “I always felt I had somebody close to care for me.”

Why would anyone want to deny her this choice?

Ms. Darger said she does not believe in arranged marriages and, under questioning by a B.C. government lawyer, said while she is aware that some fundamentalist Mormons have married underage girls, she does not endorse or approve of that practice.

“I disagree with that; it’s not in my belief system, and there are laws to take care of that – and they should,” Ms. Darger said.

Yes! Exactly!

Anyone who doesn’t want this kind of marriage doesn’t have to enter one. But let those who want to have a polygynous (or polyandrous, group, same-sex, interracial, intergenerational, or consanguineous) marriage have one. Do not prevent other adults from exercising their rights to love, sex, and marriage.

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.

Bad Sixties Childhood

In the Canadian poly trial, Brenda Jensen said that she had a bad childhood in Bountiful and in a community along the Arizona-Utah border. (See this and this.) This is meant to show that Canadians should be denied the polygamous freedom of marriage. Why? Because her parents were polygynists, which means they practiced a form of polygyny.

I wonder what her family had for breakfast? Maybe whatever they had for breakfast should be banned.

My point is, a problematic family or a problematic community or sect that also practices polygyny is not a reason to deny all adults their right to choose to have more than one spouse.

Many people tell of horrible childhoods they had in monogamous homes. Hold individuals accountable for what they do. Unless you can demonstrate an inherent, direct, causal connection, don’t blame polygamy in general for the bad actions of an individual or a group.

Brenda Jensen left the group in 1968, according to the articles. Her testimony might be useful for historical purposes, but it can’t be considered reliable about what is going on today.

I think child abusers should be dealt with severely, but I don’t believe denying everyone marriage equality helps anyone, child or adult, other than bigots who want a smug sense of control over others.