writing group and meandering thoughts.

[kippurbird]

So, the guy who wrote that horribly cliche piece of drivel turned out to be rather nice about it (and kinda hot >.> ) and wasn't at all like Miss Formulaic. He seemed to be very interested in our comments and didn't mind that I was horribly brutal. He asked questions about how to make it better and was generally everything a reviewer could want in a person. I look forward to his next installment with high hopes.

Now, on a completely random matter as I wait for the paint to dry on my birthday present for my brother (we exchange presents on our birthdays, don't ask, we just do). I think Polygamy should be made legal.

Why? You may ask. My response: Why not? How is it wrong to be married to more than one person. Where does it say that it's a morally wrong thing to do? If all parties that are involved are consenting adults, they why shouldn't they get married in any which way they please? No one is getting hurt by such a marriage. It's just a different way of doing so. In fact I think the fact that it is illegal is unconstitutional according to the Constitution of the United States. It does, after all, state that we are allowed religious freedom and there are religions that allow for polygamy. So, theoretically those who practice those religions should be allowed to practice that practice. >.> Also, there is the separation of church and state. This I think is important, because in the Protestant tradition (On which this country was founded in )polygamy is a Bad Thing (I don't know why as I'm not a Protestant nor a Christian) and so they have imposed their religious ideal upon the rest of the country. If the US wanted to fully espouse that they are a land of true religious freedom and that there is a true separation between church and state then polygamy should be legalized.

After all beyond religion there isn't a good reason not to. I have yet to hear an argument as to why we shouldn't allow it. It just isn't allowed.

Perhaps I should start a petition to get it on a ballot or something. =D

Comments

[prototypical]

I think it's got something to do with the romantic ideals of "one true love" that have been predominant in the European/Western world for hundreds of years. According to those forms of art, you're intended to love just one person for all eternity. And people automatically think that since it's not monogamy, it's bad, because anything that isn't what they believe is bad. There's probably also fear that "normal people" will pretend to be Mormon or Muslim in order to have multiple spouses.

[ghostgecko.livejournal.com]

As I understand it, the objection to polygamy is that it's one male and a harem of females. That is, he isn't marrying a bunch of women because he *loves* them all, it's so he'll have a lot of religous-endorsed house slaves to serve him and plenty of wombs to cultivate his seed in. I doubt that any woman who sees herself as something more than a useful herd animal would want to participate in such a system - it's dehumanizing, objectifying.

[(Anonymous)]

It’s not surprising he didn’t get mad, you’re a great reviewer and know what problems a story has besides from ‘it sucks.’ Seriously I would actually kind of like having my little story reviewed by you, I think it’d be funny and would give you something to do until ‘Empire’ comes out. What do ya think?

I think they would be problems with Polygamy, I’m not to sure that would be a good idea. Relationships are hard to keep up at best of times due to working life and other things. So trying to keep two people happy would just be all that harder. And if it was made legal you would still have the social problems.
You know the usual outcries of ‘pervert‘, ‘slut’ and of course ‘sinners.’
Personally I don’t see anything too wrong with Polygamy but there would be a lot of problems with it.

-NK

[b2wm.livejournal.com]

Now, given all else being equal - the parties involved are all cool with polygamy, no complaints religious/sexism/OTP!13!-wise, - the one major biological reason I could see the government wanting to nix polygamy has to do with paternity questions. More of a polyandry thing than polygyny, of course, but there's a reason that the former's comparatively rare, I suppose. 'Sides, that's what DNA testing's for.

The other traditional knotty issue with polygamy - economics - is also a little easier to deal with these days, I guess, right up until you have to list spouse's income on the tax sheet...

[faded-enmity.livejournal.com]

Personally, I've seen several attempts at having a relationship involving 3 people. They were all unstable and one even resulted in two of the members developing depression and the third ended up cutting off all contact with the other two (who are now married). This tends to tell me that polygamy is a Very Bad Idea. Of course, many other things qualify for the tag of VBI and they're not illegal so I suppose I at least side with not having it illegal.

If the economics of it are a major concern, then it doesn't have to be legalized, either. I mean, gay marriage isn't legal nor illegal in most states--you're still allowed to be together and everything, there's just no tax/insurance/etc. benefits. Of course, sooner or later, that'll change to legalized, I'm sure, which would make what I just said completely obsolete....

[emily-goddess.livejournal.com]

I completely agree with you about legalizing polygamy, under one condition: all parties involved have to be married to each other. This prevents one person from collecting a harem against the wishes of hir other spouse(s) (you'd think respect would stop them, but look at the way the Mormons or certain Muslim royals do it). It's not perfect, but then, neither are people.

I must disagree on the First Amendment thing, though. In Lemon v. Kurtzman,the Supreme Court ruled that states and the Fed could regulate certain religious practices for one of three reasons (the so-called "Lemon test"), one of which is if there is a "compelling state interest" in doing so. For example, certain religious groups use various drugs in their ceremonies (Rastafari, the Native American Church, etc.), but the Court found that the state's interest in drug control was greater than te interests of Free Exercise in those cases (see Smith v. Oregon). Of course,one wonders how it would go if it were a majority religious group being impeded by a "compelling state interest," but that's another question. Anyway, as long as states can claim they have an interest in regulating marriage as they do, Free Exercise will have to play second fiddle. [/Con Law geek]

I fully support ballot initiatives (I will sign a petition to get anything on the ballot, even if I don't agree with it, because the voters have a right to decide), but given that the gay marriage bans have been winning all over the country - and given that even Utah, where many legislators and voters are Mormon, hasn't been able to legalize polygamy - I wouldn't get my hopes up.

[emily-goddess.livejournal.com]

Oh! Also (and keep in mind that I'm saying this because it's precedent, not because I agree with the reasoning), one could point out that no one is prevented from being a Mormon or a Muslim by not being allowed to have more than one wife. Those religions allow polygamy, but they don't require it, so the argument goes (and SCOTUS has accepted it before) that their Free Exercise isn't really being inhibited.

[kippurbird.livejournal.com]

I suppose so, but I'm just sort of saying that regardless of your religion you should be able to marry how you want. Because there's nothing morally abhorrent about it, romantic ideals aside.

[kippurbird.livejournal.com]

I think it depends on the actual relationship. I mean there are traditional relationships that are just as horrible with things like spousal abuse. Despite such things, no one has outlawed traditional marriage.

[kippurbird.livejournal.com]

Am I? I just feel like I'm horribly brutal with my reviews.

Relationships are difficult in any sort of situation. But they're always workoutable. Or not. But that's why you can get divorced. I just look at traditional marriages where you have things like spousal abuse and those people who get married and then divorced a few years later. Those are just as problematic. As for laws. It's just a mater of creating the correct laws that actually make sense, which is utterly impossible now a days. But eh.

[kippurbird.livejournal.com]

DNA testing is a wonderful thing.

As for taxes, that's why you have room for multiple people. =D

[kippurbird.livejournal.com]

I can't say if it would actually work relationship wise, but that would be the people involved's problem. They should at least have the chance to try it.

Of course I think the whole gay marriage issue is also silly and for the same reasons.

[dryaunda.livejournal.com]

So, the guy who wrote that horribly cliche piece of drivel turned out to be rather nice about it (and kinda hot >.> ) and wasn't at all like Miss Formulaic.

Good to know you can't judge a person by their badfic. I'd like to see how hot he is sometime.

Also, there is the separation of church and state. This I think is important, because in the Protestant tradition (On which this country was founded in) polygamy is a Bad Thing (I don't know why as I'm not a Protestant nor a Christian) and so they have imposed their religious ideal upon the rest of the country.

"She knows too much! What kind of heathen religion does...aw, man, we can't go after them, not after World War 2!"

[dryaunda.livejournal.com]

I think it's got something to do with the romantic ideals of "one true love" that have been predominant in the European/Western world for hundreds of years.

Or at least since Vicky met Al. People of that time seriously embraced monogamy as a form of social one-upmanship against the nobility of the Regency era; "Look at us, we're not corrupt and decadent like they are!" The marriage of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert was the icon of OTP-mania.

[dryaunda.livejournal.com]

Of course,one wonders how it would go if it were a majority religious group being impeded by a "compelling state interest," but that's another question.

There should compelling state interests against Intelligent Design, from left- and right-wing perspectives. Supreme Court's doin' nutin' though, curious that.

[dryaunda.livejournal.com]

Personally, I've seen several attempts at having a relationship involving 3 people. They were all unstable and one even resulted in two of the members developing depression and the third ended up cutting off all contact with the other two[.]

I wonder why that happened. Were the three deeply into each other, or was it a friends-with-benefits kind of situation?

[emily-goddess.livejournal.com]

I'm not inclined to jump on the "Nefarious Right-Wing Conspiracy" bandwagon just yet. Since SCOTUS can only hear cases that are sent to them (and then only if the cases are important enough to be among the 80 or so that the Court hears annually), it's possible - likely, in fact - that they haven't even had any ID challenges yet. If it turns out they're getting such challenges and rejecting them without good reason, then I'll get suspicious.

[(Anonymous)]

Sorry, my first comment to you ended up sounding snarkier than I'd intended. I think there is a Nefarious Right Wing Conspiracy, but I'm in denial about the courts being part of it *clings to last delusions of hope for America*

[emily-goddess.livejournal.com]

Erm, that was me. I fail at commenting today.

[christinaathena.livejournal.com]

Polygamy was banned long before Victoria. Polygamy had been illegal since Roman times, in large part for political reasons. Marriage for the elite was about political alliances, and enforced monogamy prevented the elite from having to support many wives in a constant attempt to stay ahead of their rivals' multiple marital alliances.

[christinaathena.livejournal.com]

Many people practice polyamory quite happily.

There are a lot of advantages to it: more adults to share the housework and any child-rearing. If one of the adults in a traditional monogamous marriage dies, that's half, or more, of the family's income eliminated. In a family with traditional sex roles its even worse, as if it's the father that's the bulk of income, if it's the mother, that's the child-rearer and housekeeper who's gone. Even in illness, there's only one other adult to take care of the ill one (assuming the other one isn't sick also), if you have, say, 5 adults involved, then there's 4 people to take care of the ill individual.

[christinaathena.livejournal.com]

Those religions allow polygamy, but they don't require it Depends on which sect you're talking about. There are certain Mormon fundamentalist sects that do, in fact, consider plural marriage to be an important religious practice, necessary for the highest form of salvation.

[christinaathena.livejournal.com]

To be clearer, polygamy was banned in the Roman Empire, from which the Catholic Church inherited the ban (and added their own ban on divorce). Polygamy was still practiced by some of the Germanic tribes. Traditionally, European historians tended to sweep the polygamy of some of the early French and German rulers (inherited from the Germanic invaders) by only counting the wife who gave birth to the heir as a queen, demoting the others to mistresses.

[christinaathena.livejournal.com]

Technically ,that's polygyny. Polygamy merely means the practice of having multiple spouses. Polygyny refers specifically to the practice of having multiple wives.

[prototypical]

I learn something new every day, apparently.