Polygamy & Incest

[antiochian]

If same-sex marriage is allowed, so must marriage between blood relatives and polygamous folks, reasons this dude.

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articl...ayMarriage.php

The thing of it is, how many people do you have petitioning for the right to marry their sisters or first cousins? And polygamy is really a non-issue outside of groups like the Fundamentalist Latter-day Saints (a break-off group from Mormonism), although it was practiced by Native Americans in ages past. I dunno. Just wanted to hear your thoughts.

[Gregory_de_Bois]

It is not necessary that polygamy be allowed if Same-Sex Unions were allowed. First of all, there is the language of the law. The Law already has it that marriage (or civil unions) are between two people (in some states a man and a woman). To allow SSU would not be changing the law in such a way that there would be drastic changes to every social structiure in our culture and government.

Second, based upon what I have studied of polygamy, it is not good. Consider the ramifications to many aspects of our culture: there is the horrible effects it has on the families involved (look at Fundamentalist Latter-Day Saints), there would have to be huge changes to our laws in regards to insurance, divorce, child custody, wills, and the like. There is also a huge problem with the inequality in such relationships: child abuse and domestic abuse are very prevalent.

I did not do justice to the topic, but that is what I think at this point in time. Who knows, perhaps my views are bound to change, but I doubt it. As to incest, I doubt there are very many people who want to marry their siblings, they at least do not make up even a minor minority.

[Alecto]

Regarding legal polygamy: I think it's problematic simply because of the simplicity that marriage allows. There's ONE person that gets your medical rights, your property rights etc etc should you become ill-disposed to take care of any of those. Looking at it purely from this standpoint, it doesn't make sense to me. If you had to have a hierarchy, that would make sense (though, you can't help but see it as demeaning to those involved; I'm trying to just look at the legal though).

As for legal marriage between immediate family members, truth is, that might be a good idea sometimes. The deal is, most often when gay folks want to get married, it's because they want EVERYTHING that marriage represents in our society. There's the legal aspect, a social aspect, usually a religious aspect too. But, fact is, the legal aspect might be helpful and beneficial to many people that don't really buy into the rest. If a situation arose where a single parent was being helped by immediate family in raising a child, why do we have to impose our assumptions about what a "family" is on them? WHy can't this child's uncle also be his father? (Yes, that is weird to hear, but what I'm getting at is that I don't think it has to imply anything about the relationship between brother and sister).

[sailaway58]

In the words of the great Amish philosopher, Jacob Francis Hilty:
Vice is nice but incest is best.

Recent studies have concluded that the dangers of consanguinity when first cousins marry and reproduce are minimal and that there is no scientific reason why first cousins shouldn't be allowed to marry.

So ... whats the big deal?

Genetic diseases: Some Amish groups have a very limited gene pool. For example, the vast majority of Amish in Lancaster County, PA, are descendents of about 200 Swiss citizens who emigrated in the mid 1700s. Because they traditionally do not marry outsiders and because few outsiders have joined the order, the "community has been essentially a closed genetic population for more than 12 generations." Thus, intermarriage has brought to the fore certain genetic mutations that were present in the initial genetic pool (as they are in any population), making the Amish host to several inherited disorders." 5 These include dwarfism, mental retardation and a large group of metabolic disorders. One in 200 have glutaric aciduria type I; they are born healthy, but can experience permanent neurological damage when a mild illness strikes. From 1988 to 2002, the Clinic for Special Children in Lancaster County, PA, has "encountered 39 heritable disorders among the Amish and 23 among the Mennonites.....For 18 of the disorders seen regularly at the clinic, the incidences are high, approximately 1/250 to 1/500 births"

[lisa]

This is way too serious . . . all I keep thinking about is the fact that I can barely support 1 wife and 2 kids, much less 4 wives and 10 kids! Plus think of the doctor bills to have all those kids . . . we are a little low on sperm

[mjules]

I'm with u-dog on this one, especially as it relates to group marriages... I think if everyone involved is an aware, consenting adult, they're making their own choices and I don't really see what right anyone has to legally forbid it so long as it isn't hurting anyone.

Sure, the legality could be a mess at first, especially with the beaurocratic (sp?) resistance to change that pervades our legal system, but the fact is, why couldn't it be just as simple to have a list of people who could take care of things? I mean, we already have that issue. Look at what happens when there is a split between who should make medical decisions for someone who is incapacitated - their parents or their spouse? (Bet y'all remember a fairly recent case where that one came into play.)

In the idea of a polyfi relationship (several people all committed to each other), take this for an example: A foursome, two women, two men. (Being that this is an arrangement friends and I have talked out several times, so one that I'm familiar with analyzing.) Assume they're all bisexual and are all married to each other. Say one of them is involved in an accident and is in a coma. Sure, it might seem difficult at first glance to have three other people trying to make care decisions, but realize then that you will necessarily have three people who have to come to a consensus about the treatment for the doctors to act. That way you don't have the possibility of one person acting out of grief, or selfishness, or something else that puts logic and selfless care to the side - you have three people who have to reason together in order to come up with what they agree is the best possible plan of action.

I don't see where it's too much of an issue. Not for everyone, certainly, but I think that in certain cases, it could definitely have its benefits.

Financially, too - assuming more than one of the partners works. Most of the time today, traditional families consist of two working parents providing for 1-4 kids, who are still struggling to maintain what they feel is an acceptable standard of living. Plus, then, you end up with "latch-key" kids who don't get a lot of parental interaction in most situations (not all, certainly, but most) because their parents are overworked and overtired. Say you have the foursome I mentioned above. Say, for the sake of argument, that they come to the agreement that two of the partners will work and two will stay home to raise the children. Say they have the average number of 3 children. Couldn't this be a benefit? Sure, you throw in the expenses of two more adults to the mix, but you also cut out the need for childcare.

I don't know. I think that, due to mistreatments of group marriage (like u-dog mentioned, with young girls being forced into patriarchal arrangements far before they're ready and without their consent), group marriages have gotten a bad rap... not unlike same-sex relationships which have been villain-ized over the years by extreme edge-cases and cultural misperception.

There. That's my two cents' worth.

[paul]

Some theorize that laws were originally established by people, ideally, to accomdate survival. Then there are some who believe that "God" is the source for their choice of "law." Ya gotta laugh at how the Pharisees were apparently conflicted by Jesus when he started a sentence "you have heard it said...." Can one extrapolate that a key element of Christianity is change ("...the Wind blows where it will...")

Having said that, if it endures the test of "love" then is it against the law?

[Alecto]

I would only add that, to me, forcing three partners of one incapacitated person to all AGREE on something sounds like a really bad and problematic idea for me. Because: what if they flat out don't? What if the decision that needs to be made is time sensitive: by not reaching consensus, one side necessarily "wins". Again, not saying there isn't a way to work it out, but...I just think that unanimous consensus isn't it.


Also, is it weird that I think it's silly to use love as an argument for legal marriage of any kind? I mean, yes, there are some rights that are especially cruel to be denied, but when you really break it down, the legal bit is just a contract that's made excessively simple and easy to obtain. And, yes, there's going to be some kind of love there in all likelihood, but part of my entire point is that I think we as a society should stop making assumptions or even requirements as to the specific nature of that love. Two men want to get married: maybe they're gay and share a romantic love. Or, maybe they both feel they've been called to be lifelong single, and this is a really good way for two best friends to share property, finances, health decisions etc. I don't necessarily see why the former should be more compelling a legal argument than the latter.

[paul]

Originally Posted by Alecto

Also, is it weird that I think it's silly to use love as an argument for legal marriage of any kind? I mean, yes, there are some rights that are especially cruel to be denied, but when you really break it down, the legal bit is just a contract that's made excessively simple and easy to obtain. And, yes, there's going to be some kind of love there in all likelihood, but part of my entire point is that I think we as a society should stop making assumptions or even requirements as to the specific nature of that love. Two men want to get married: maybe they're gay and share a romantic love. Or, maybe they both feel they've been called to be lifelong single, and this is a really good way for two best friends to share property, finances, health decisions etc. I don't necessarily see why the former should be more compelling a legal argument than the latter.

I don't think it "weird" in the least. I like your argument. I should qualify that the definition of love I am using is seeing and acknowledging a persons value in action, loosely put. I am not thinking in terms of the romantic feeling. So, I would agree with the idea of, say, two friends forming that alliance. That would seem an expression of love to me. I was really looking at the influence of religion on the law vs. strictly practical. Im not sure a written law can encompase love, that it would have to be the other way round.

[antiochian]

It would be interesting to know how countries where polygamy is legal and practiced handle these issues. I can't imagine that many American women would put up with such an arrangement. It is very sexist, as in most cases the "leader" is a man (although in some cultures past one woman could have multiple husbands). Plus, when there are relationship issues, the whole dang Brady Bunch is pulled into the mess, it isn't just between two people.

But honestly, I don't see people in this country fighting for the right to marry 4 women or 2 men or whatever, or for the right to marry an immediate relative. Isn't it a little stupid that this guy is putting those issues on the same level as g/l marriage?

[Emproph]

Not only is the author biased, but based on the info below, he is biased in a manner that makes his motives highly suspect.

As this article has attempted to demonstrate, allowing same-sex marriages necessarily reverts to a situation in which every adult could be married to every other adult simultaneously.

And gosh golly gee, if SSM leads to the marriage of every human adult simultaneously, obviously the next thing that would occur is every human adult being married to every animal adult simultaneously!

And then at the bottom:

James M. Thunder is a former general counsel of Americans United for Life whose master of art's degree was on marriage. This article is dedicated to the late David Orgon Coolidge, founder of the Marriage Law Project.

I couldn’t find much on James M. Thunder, other than the Americans United for Life, a pro-life site. He has a few other articles out there but not much to speak of.

(Wikipedia article on the Marriage Law Project here.)

Google results for “Marriage Law Project” bring us to MarriageWatch.org “A Service of the Marriage Law Project. The site includes articles by such virulently anti-gay notables as:

Peter Sprigg and Tony Perkins, from the Family Research Council
(Several articles there by the FRC)
Maggie Gallagher
Rick Santorum

Also, the Google results for the “Marriage Law Project” showed that it was referenced in articles from other such anti-gay notables as NARTH, leaderu, and lifesite, among others. Similar results for “David Orgon Coolidge.”

Enough said.

Based on all that, I think it’s safe to assume Thunder is coming from a conservative “Christian” perspective, which puts his motives in question for several reasons.

First, he’s arguing from a religious perspective without saying so. That’s dishonest on the face of it, but it also means it's virtually guaranteed that he BEGAN with his conclusion (SSM is wrong), and worked backwards from there.

Second, It means that no amount of proof in support of SSM would ever change his opinion.

Third, his coming from a supposed Biblical perspective (or at least being in bed with those that do), his use of incest and polygamy as arguments against SSM make him a flaming hypocrite (which hopefully I will get around to demonstrating).

Arguing a so-called Biblical standard under the guise of “what is best for society” is a common anti-gay tactic. And as is evident with his article – clever though it may be – they almost always tend to omit the facts and evidence that doesn’t support their conclusional premise.

[Emproph]

James M. Thunder from the originating article, on the "horrors" of SSM:

Given all of the foregoing, may I suggest the following as this debate continues:

(1) A child has a fundamental right to know the identity of its parents and to obtain their support; this fundamental right is at risk when a child can be born outside marriage and even more so if a child can be born outside normal human coitus.

Yes, let’s do away with all those adoption agency privacy laws - such a nuisance. I say not enough people are throwing their newborns in a dumpsters, and that all unwanted pregancies should become a matter of public record.

Even worse than that -- as you rightly point out -- are those married heterosexual couples with the audacity to require artificial means to conceive. As I’ve always said, "the fundamental right of a child to know the identity of their parents and to obtain their support HINGES on the fact that they were the direct result of a P in a V."

It's bulletproof logic.

(2) Since a fundamental right must be given "careful description" (Conaway, quoting the Supreme Court's Glucksberg decision), the right to procreate is fundamental only if it occurs within marriage.

Let the sterilization of every non-married person begin!*

*Reversible upon proof of one man one woman marriage.

I'd LOVE to see the arguments for that one on CSPAN.

(4) The right to marry is a fundamental human right, but it must be given "careful description."

That careful description being that it’s not a fundamental right for some humans, namely gays and lesbians.

Also acceptable would have been: Gays and lesbians already have the equal right to marry. They have as equal a right to conform to straight marriage as straight people do.

(7) Although it may be in the best interests of children to have two parents and to have them married to each other, it does not follow that any adults having or caring for children should be eligible to marry. Children may follow marriage, but marriage does not necessarily follow children.

Agreed. Two same gender parental units should always be considered to be exactly the same as any grouping of adults caring for children, in-all-circumstances-everywhere-all-the-time-no-matter-what-forever-amen.

MY FINAL OBSERVATION IS THIS: Lawyers, legislators, judges and policy analysts cope continuously with complexity. If they take a step back and look at the requirements to marry and to remain married, they see that the law and structure of marriage is so minimal, so simple. It is an example of what mathematicians call elegance -- like Einstein's equation E = mc2:

One man -- one woman -- indivisible.

...under God... ♪Oh, say can you seeeeee...♪

Honestly though, I just don’t understand why people can’t just step back, shut their eyes, and pretend that gay people, their relationships, and their children don’t exist. It’s really just that simple.

As James M. Thunder has proven beyond any shadow of a doubt, eyelids control reality.

[Emproph]

Ok, now for the goods.

To be clear, I am of the adage “do unto others as you would have done unto you.” So I don’t present these arguments in an effort to depict all incestuous relationships as being inherently harmful to others, be they between immediate family members or otherwise. I present them in response to incest being used as a fallacious slippery-slope argument in regard to opposing same-sex marriage.

And I’d like to add that I was very pleasantly surprised to see that the responses in this thread have been of that – in a sense – conciliatory nature. The concerns expressed have been fair and balanced, if you will.

Also, I have been dealing with the argument of these issues of late, and this is how I found this thread, much of the research that follows, and why I bring them up now with such passion. There’s some rich stuff to be had if you look for it...

Now, Some thoughts on the practical concerns:

This is the problem with sleeping with your cousin. You can move on from an ex-spouse or ex-lover, but there's no such thing as an ex-cousin. How are your parents and your ex's parents supposed to handle a nasty divorce or a breakup? How can they support their kids without antagonizing their siblings and their siblings' kids? You've wrecked your whole family. It isn't as bad as if you'd slept with a sibling, but it's a lot worse than if you'd slept with a friend or an officemate. We don't ban you from dating people at the office, but we don't tell you it's a great idea, either.

If you get into bed with your cousin, there's no need for Uncle Sam to throw you in jail. If it works out, great. If not, you'll find yourself in a jail no uncle will let you out of.

http://www.slate.com/id/2064227/

And then there’s the long term social and very practical increase of harm in regard to legally sanctioning incestuous relationships:

Incest, of course, may produce impaired children. But incestuous marriage is a horrible idea for a much bigger reason than that. Imagine a society where parents and children viewed each other as potential mates. Just for a start, every child would grow up wondering whether his parents had sexual designs on him, or were "grooming" him as a future spouse. Holding open the prospect of incestuous marriage would devastate family life by, effectively, legitimizing sexual predation within it.

http://www.indegayforum.org/news/show/26894.html

Let’s keep in mind too, the only reason these arguments are being had in the public sphere is because of so-called conservative Christians – who supposedly base their "morality" as it relates to the "definition of marriage" on the Bible.

From CousinCouples.com:

Isaac married Rebekkah, his first cousin once removed. Genesis24:12-51
Jacob married two of his cousins , Rachel & Leah. I love this story! Genesis chapters 28-29)
Zelophehad’s five orphaned daughters were commanded by God to marry cousins. Numbers 36
Eleazar’s daughters each married first cousins, as they were instructed. I Chronicles 23:22
In the 18th chapter of Leviticus, the Bible provides a lengthy list of forbidden relationships. These laws are the scriptural definition of sexual impurity. Not one mention of cousins, of any degree, is made.

Some would argue that these are all Old Testament references. That is correct. The reason for this is that the New Testament does not specifically address the rules of sexual misconduct, with the exception of fornication, other than to refer you back to the Old Testament laws.

And then we have:

Incest and the Situational Evolving Morality of God
D. Frederick Sparks

The Bible and Incest

The bible explicitly condemns incest, at least in certain configurations. Certain forms of incest, including father-daughter, are punishable by death according to Scripture. Yet, the condemnations of incest in Leviticus not only conflict with incest implicit in and inevitable from the creationist model, they also conflict with the sexual activities of a decent number of central figures in the Old Testament. Genesis gives us Abraham, the ancestor at the heart of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, who marries his half sister, his father's daughter. Abraham's nephew Lot, a man righteous enough to be spared the fate of the scorched Sodom and Gomorrah, engages in alcohol-induced intercourse with both of his daughters, impregnating both.

And you’ve gotta love this:

The other puzzling part of this proffered explanation is the concept of God changing his mind at all, especially so drastically. Changes of mind are generally precipitated by receiving new information, even if this information takes the form of changes in internal emotions towards the subject. It's difficult to grasp how an omniscient God can ever receive new information. If he later hates something he previously approved of, wouldn't he know of his future hatred at the time of the earlier approval? A God who changes his mind arbitrarily and so drastically makes a philosophically fragile foundation for a moral code, especially a code believed to be supreme and to apply into perpetuity.

I recently brought up first family Biblical incest with someone who was using incest as a slippery slope argument against SSM, this was his reply:

Obviously, the only time that God clearly approved of “incestuous” relationships was in the first years of the human race (after creation, as stated in the OT), and that is because those who were the only human beings around! Adam and Eve’s son had to marry Adam and Eve’s daugther.

Which of course was my point, it was part of the original design by intention.

Fortunately unchanging God changed His mind, which is why we can now be certain that God hasn’t changed His mind in regard to SSM...

[Emproph]

I put together an article on this about a year ago, so I won’t quote much. You can read it here at Joe Brummer’s “Replace the Lies with Truth.”
http://joebrummer.com/WordPress/?p=494

The original article I gleaned it from was this:
One man, many wives, big problem: When some men have several brides

The broad public opposes polygamy but is unsure why. What hardly anyone is doing is thinking about polygamy as social policy…

…Polygyny…is a zero-sum game that skews the marriage market so that some men marry at the expense of others…when one man marries two women, some other man marries no woman. When one man marries three women, two other men don’t marry…

…societies become inherently unstable when sex ratios reach something like 120 males to 100 females… The United States as a whole would reach that ratio if, for example, 5 percent of men took two wives, 3 percent took three wives…

…boys could no longer grow up taking marriage for granted. Many would instead see marriage as a trophy in a sometimes brutal competition for wives.

Think society isn’t violent enough now? Imaging that scenario.

Also, given that this is STILL being used as an “argument” against SSM, consider that with all the anti-gay industry’s millions upon millions of dollars, including the Family “Research” Council, somehow, this compelling information has completely slipped past their radar.
~~~
The following info was really surprising to me:
http://www.biblicalpolygamy.com/

This site has 40 examples of polygamy in the Bible. There’s a chart at the bottom of each page which lists them all. I’ve plugged a few into BibleGateway and so far they’ve come up legit. Perhaps more importantly, they also have the exegesis for each. A few examples:

Gideon
A judge of Israel
Drumah, Shechem
“And Gideon had threescore and ten sons of his body begotten: for he had many wives.” Judges 8:30
———
Esau
3 Wives - Judith, Bashemath and Mahalath
“And Esau was forty years old when he took to wife Judith the daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and Bashemath the daughter of Elon the Hittite:” Genesis 26:34
“Then went Esau unto Ishmael, and took unto the wives which he had Mahalath the daughter of Ishmael Abraham’s son, the sister of Nebajoth, to be his wife.” Genesis 28:9
———
Abraham
Faithful friend of God and father of the Hebrew nation
“Father of the faithful”
3 Wives - Sarah, Hagar and Keturah
“Now Sarai Abram’s wife bare him no children: and she had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar.” Genesis 16:1
“And Sarai Abram’s wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife.” Genesis 16:3
“Then again Abraham took a wife, and her name was Keturah.” Genesis 25:1

Oh yes, but God didn't explicitly condone polygamy...

2 Samuel 12
I gave your master's house to you, and your master's wives into your arms. I gave you the house of Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more.

Tons more exegesis on that one alone. And these are just a few examples and contexts.

Which of course brings up the underlying question, if men are pigs, why is the Bible against eating pork...

[Erik]

I'd be interested to see studies on polyandrous societies, if there be any. Also, how do those so vehemently opposed to ssm work around the issue of intersexuality? If marriage is to be between one man and one woman, should we not first develop a standard as to what constitutes a man or a woman? Do we base this on whether one has a penis or vagina? Do we go with genetic/chromosomal makeup (xx,xy)? If we use chromosomal makeup, how then do we address intersexuality? What of someone with Klinefelter Syndrome (xxy)? I admit that I know little to nothing about genetics. I guess that's why I'm asking the questions I am, huh?

[paul]

Seriously...after reading through your comments, it occurred to me that one of my early crushes was my cousin. But since we were both guys, would it have been "incest?"

[NathanATX]

Originally Posted by u-dog

This is fascinating theory, but what is even more fascinating is that you can see it play out in existing polgynist fellowships. In a recent best-seller, ESCAPE , Carolyn Jessup describes what happens to boys -- even boys as young as 12 -- in these fundamentalist Mormon communities. They are shoved out of the house and abandoned. They would probably be "exposed" on a hillside as infants if these creeps thought they could get away with it.

Those boys are called the "lost boys."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Boys_of_Polygamy

[Emproph]

Originally Posted by NathanATX

Those boys are called the "lost boys."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Boys_of_Polygamy

I'm going to post this because I think It's important. It's almost like a living microcosm of the argument against polygny.

I colored the entire text black for the sake of readablity, but everything underlined is still hyperlinked from the original article.

Lost Boys of Polygamy are young men who have been excommunicated or pressured to leave polygamous groups such as the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS) or the Latter Day Church of Christ, churches that splintered from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints after 1890.[1] Most of the Lost Boys are between the ages of 13 and 21 when banished or pressured to leave.[2]

Critics of the FLDS say that, given the fact that roughly equal numbers of boys and girls are born in any community absent sex-selective abortion, the practice of polygamy leads unavoidably to bride shortages and a surplus of boys. Lost Boys are the surplus boys who are removed from polygamous sects in order to reduce competition for wives, though they are ostensibly banished for misbehavior.[2] There are also young women[3] who have left or been pressured to leave because they did not want to be part of polygamous marriages.[4]

One of the main difficulties that Lost Boys face is that they are raised not to trust the outside world. In fact, leaving their communities is considered a sin worse than murder.[5][6] These boys and girls are usually left with little education or life skills and must learn to live in a world about which they know little, while dealing with the deep psychological pain of being shunned by their families and believing they are beyond spiritual redemption.

(Also, Wiki is copy left, as opposed to ©, doesn't that mean you can copy it as long as you give credit and don't alter it?)