Polygamy more justified than same sex marriage?

March 18th, 2013 at 1:00 pm by David Farrar

famfirstpolygamy

 

Some free campaign advice from me.

If one of your major arguments against is that it will lead to polygamous marriage also being made legal, it’s not a great idea to state that is more justified than , as a natural institution.

Interesting of the three sorts of polygamy, polygyny is most common – a man with multiple wives. As Liz points out it is already legal in around 60 countries. Polyandry is not really legal anywhere and exists in a just a few far flung places.

Also of interest is that the Nazis looked at making polygyny legal because WWII killed so many men. Their reasoning was that with such a shortage of men, some men have to have multiple wives so that all German women could have children.

Tags: , ,

43 Responses to “Polygamy more justified than same sex marriage?”

  1. Nigel Kearney (864 comments) says:

    Some free campaign advice from me.

    If one of your major arguments in favour of same sex marriage is that people who love each other should be allowed to legally marry, it’s not a great idea to deny that polygamy is the obvious next step.

    [DPF: I guess you could argue that allowing inter-racial marriage had an obvious next step of allowing polygamy. Of course it is a particularly stupid argument]

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Griff (6,690 comments) says:

    :lol:
    Popcorn

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. iMP (2,231 comments) says:

    DPF, this is the whole point with all of this. If the principal argument for s-sex marriage is LOVE, EQUALITY then all sorts of other things should be included too as long as they are adult and consensual. WHY would we deny them?

    No one has answered that.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. wat dabney (3,655 comments) says:

    WHY would we deny them?

    The question is why should we deny them.

    No one has answered that.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. RRM (9,414 comments) says:

    I like the way the Fundamental Latter Day Saints do it.

    The Prophet gets to hand-pick men who are Godly enough to deserve to have multiple wives.

    If a man with multiple wives transgresses in some way against the church or community, the Prophet re-assigns the multiple wives to other more deserving men.

    14 year old girls are deemed old enough to be a 49 year old’s 7th wife.

    Seems legit…

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Fletch (5,992 comments) says:

    DPF, this is the whole point with all of this. If the principal argument for s-sex marriage is LOVE, EQUALITY then all sorts of other things should be included too as long as they are adult and consensual. WHY would we deny them?

    That’s right. If it’s all about everyone’s wants being sated (in more ways than one) then there really isn’t a good argument for proponents of same sex marriage to present for denying polygamous marriages.
    If same-sex marriage is made legal, the polys are still being discriminated against aren’t they? And, as they are so fond of childishly saying, there should be no law against love.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. RRM (9,414 comments) says:

    Personally, my concern is more that if we allow gay marriage, the next thing you know Crab People from Alpha Centauri will be demanding equal wights too.

    And THEN where will we be, eh? Riddle me that, liberals.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Urban Redneck (234 comments) says:

    Polyandry is not really legal anywhere and exists in a just a few far flung places.

    It will be if the sexual militants get their way (and they will). Just add it the the list of other depravities/insanities coming down the turnpike – age of sexual consent lowered to 12, euthanasia, taxpayer funded gay surrogacy, genderless bathrooms and toilets, the list goes on and on.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. RRM (9,414 comments) says:

    We have a “genderless bathroom and toilet” in my house.

    I haven’t sexually abused my son or daughter… yet… :twisted:

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. iMP (2,231 comments) says:

    RRM…”Crab People from Alpha Centauri ” better sea food restaurants?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. JC (904 comments) says:

    DPF,

    I think you mean WW1 in your statement about the Nazis.

    JC

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. cha (3,779 comments) says:

    A fun fact, during the Tanzimat the Ottoman Empire decriminalised homosexuality, in 1858.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Kleva Kiwi (281 comments) says:

    So what is wrong with polygamy if it is between 3 or more consenting people?
    How is it more wrong than same sex marriage?
    What place does the government have to tell us how many people we may love?
    What is the problem here?
    And what the hell do Nazi’s have to do with anything?
    What point are you really trying to make DPF?

    If you want to have equality in marriage, then you need to remove the institute of marriage from law, because as long as you have it as a political yardstick, it will always be motivated by policy, not equality.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Kenny (16 comments) says:

    As usual, misrepresenting the facts

    If you look further down the Facebook page, you’ll see McCoskrie CLEARLY SAY when asked whether he supports polygamy
    “Nope. Polygamy is a distortion of marriage and is harmful to women and children.”

    Sheesh. David – you and Whaleoil and a few other crappy blogs simply won’t tell the truth.

    Shame!

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Ed Snack (1,733 comments) says:

    Stating the obvious, those countries that legalize polygamy are almost entirely Islamic countries, which also explains the strong sanction against legal homosexuality.

    But the argument as expressed by Nigel and iMP is quite correct. That there is no large beat-up propaganda campaign for Polygamy as there was for Same Sex Marriage doesn’t mean that the campaign that was run, for “Marriage Equality” is equally applicable for both situations. And for that matter for consanguineous marriages and potentially other more extreme arrangements.

    That is if the campaigners were honest that is…

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Shunda barunda (2,965 comments) says:

    Marriage as an institution will be meaningless soon anyway so why not allow marriage to inanimate objects as well?

    YOU CAN’T JUDGE!!

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Urban Redneck (234 comments) says:

    Sheesh. David – you and Whaleoil and a few other crappy blogs simply won’t tell the truth

    Yep. It says much about what a corrupt sham this whole “marriage equality” travesty has been – from start to finish.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Andrei (2,499 comments) says:

    Also of interest is that the Nazis looked at making polygyny legal because WWII killed so many men. Their reasoning was that with such a shortage of men, some men have to have multiple wives so that all German women could have children.

    It wouldn’t have been the first time polgamy was endorsed in Germany – after the Thirty years war it was and for that very reason, ie the shortage of men and the urgent need to replenish the population so that neither the Turks nor the Russians didn’t inherit German lands by default which both were threatening to do.

    And therin lies the reason why gay “marriage” is so dumb because marriage is about raising children and nations that don’t raise children will inevitably be surplanted by those that do

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Ryan Sproull (7,023 comments) says:

    And therin lies the reason why gay “marriage” is so dumb because marriage is about raising children and nations that don’t raise children will inevitably be surplanted by those that do

    Even if that was true, legal recognition of gay marriages will have no impact on birth rates.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. andyscrase (89 comments) says:

    Has anyone considered the possibility of someone marrying themselves yet?

    After all, as Woody Allen once quipped, “don’t knock masturbation, it’s sex with someone you love”

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. kowtow (7,579 comments) says:

    What IMP said.

    We’re being lied to that this is about Equality.

    Well fine. If it’s about equality then let’s have all these forms of marriage.

    Wall says ,”no way it’s not about having multiple spouses”,well in my book that ‘s discrimination.

    The whole thing is a con. Whenever politicians talk “equality” you know there’s a catch.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Kenny (16 comments) says:

    Already happened andyscrase
    A US woman who “married herself” in a commitment ceremony says she did it to celebrate the progress she had made in life after being divorced.

    Nadine Schweigert, 36, made headlines in the US in March when she stood on the altar by herself for a ceremony attended by 40 of her friends.

    At the ceremony she exchanged rings with her “inner groom” and guests were encouraged to “blow kisses at the world”.

    She followed the solo union with a solo honeymoon in New Orleans.
    http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/8473435/us-woman-marries-herself

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. SPC (5,334 comments) says:

    So the advocates of heterosexual marriage only link the concept of marrying for love to being the same argument for enabling polygamy (as well as same sex marriages).

    They should remember that they themselves link marriages to procreation and polygamy involves commitment to a procreative sexual relationship.

    Footnote.

    1. since the arrival of the pill, the term procreative sex is less important to the conception of children.
    2. more marriages involve the use of fertility treatment for conception.
    3. divorce is common and many make serial marriages.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. the conservative (58 comments) says:

    The point is this: the door is now open and not just ajar—it’s wide open.

    People who have voted in favour of gay marriage have no idea what they have voted for. It is not simply about two gays getting married and this so-called ‘love’ nonsense; it means a complete societal change from law and education through to every possible concept that can be deemed a loving marriage. Young Johnny will soon have a daddy and a daddy who will bring home their ‘f***buddies’ to educate Johnny about life. See this NZ AIDs Foundation study:

    http://www.nzaf.org.nz/files/100928web_ready.pdf

    And if he doesn’t get two daddies, he will get 5 daddies and 6 mummies.

    A former Dutch MP who was behind the first same-sex marriage legislation in the world, and brought to NZ by supporters of the same-sex marriage bill to make a submission to the Select Committee, has admitted that group marriages of three or more people is the next step.

    http://familyfirst.org.nz/2013/03/former-dutch-mp-admits-polygamy-group-marriage-next/

    The real travesty of all this is the fact that some people are starting to wake up now as they are getting more informed on the subject and this is why Key and his cohorts have undemocratically rammed it through.

    An online NZ Herald poll completed by more than 20,000 people showed support for the same-sex marriage bill at 44% with 52% opposed. A Yahoo poll also found majority opposition to the bill.

    http://familyfirst.org.nz/2013/03/no-public-mandate-for-gay-marriage-bill/

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. SPC (5,334 comments) says:

    Anyone care to take a bet, that after the bill passes the third reading and becomes legislation there will/won’t be a poll (a real poll via a reputable company just asking if people support same sex marriage or not) that shows most of us support it?

    I’ll take the position that over 50% will support it. Who will take the position that 50% will oppose it?

    Can Kiwblog organise the betting?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. F E Smith (3,301 comments) says:

    Polyandry is not really legal anywhere and exists in a just a few far flung places.

    Nepal, I think.  I am happy to be corrected on that, however.

    If one of your major arguments in favour of same sex marriage is that people who love each other should be allowed to legally marry, it’s not a great idea to deny that polygamy is the obvious next step.

    Polygamy is undoubtedly the next step.  There are few logical arguments against it, especially as it has been practised in one major form for thousands of years.  With the growing numbers of polyamorous people the campaign is already starting, piggybacking on the gay marriage campaign, and I fully expect it to be legal within the next 10-15 years.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. RRM (9,414 comments) says:

    With the growing numbers of polyamorous people the campaign is already starting, piggybacking on the gay marriage campaign, and I fully expect it to be legal within the next 10-15 years.

    Really??

    When I lived in inner city Wellington, I once got a flyer in my letterbox from the Wellington Polyamorous support society (or whatever their name was.)

    One flyer. Once. About 5 years ago.

    I’m sorry but I still think the Crab People present a more credible (and more REAL) threat to olde worlde christian “morality” than polygamists do…

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. SPC (5,334 comments) says:

    FESmith, it is legal now in South Africa and Moslem countries and we recognise polygamous marriages made in these countries.

    Do you mean that polygamous marriages will be included in marriage law in countries where they are not now occur.

    Just one country or many, including here in New Zealand?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. SPC (5,334 comments) says:

    Most of the polyandry is in South Asia – it’s related to lack of land to inherit – so brothers share a wife.

    It’s only de facto in Tibet as the Chinese banned the marriages, it’s in northern Nepal, Bhutan and India.

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

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. SPC (5,334 comments) says:

    Those who link marriages to procreation and tradition are the strongest advocates for polygamy as this marriage tradition also involves commitment to a procreative sexual relationship. The only difference is serial (divorce and re-marriage) or concurrent nature of the partnerships.

    Whereas same sex marriage advocacy is of the era of the pill in which most martial sex is non procreative – and increasing numbers of heterosexual couples seek help with their fertilty, just as same sex couples might.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. gump (1,471 comments) says:

    It’s disappointing to read so much pious nonsense in one place.

    Was it this bad after the homosexual law reform bill was passed in the 1980s?

    Patricia Bartlett was regarded as a joke after her death. Many of you will be regarded in the same way.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Rex Widerstrom (5,253 comments) says:

    Pat Bartlett was considered a joke while still alive, Gump, particularly after she confessed at one point to having watched a piece if pornography 3 times – something she was endeavouring to deny the rest of us the right to do even once – just so she could make sure she’d spotted every bit of depravity in it.

    Someone… I think it may have been Sam Hunt… once said he wanted to carry Pat Bartlett shoulder high around a room because it’d be “virgin on the ridiculous” :-D

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Judith (7,443 comments) says:

    gump (541) Says:
    March 18th, 2013 at 5:37 pm
    It’s disappointing to read so much pious nonsense in one place.

    Was it this bad after the homosexual law reform bill was passed in the 1980s?

    ———————————-

    If only it was …. that would mean that NZ had the internet before anyone else in the world. Think of the money we could have made – sadly it was not.

    There were a few protests by those that seek eternal life – but other than that, most accepted it, but then without the internet, how could we really be sure how anyone felt – thousands of years of human existence, and it has only been for the last couple of decades that we have been able to assess the truth – ( yeah right)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. barry (1,317 comments) says:

    DPF – I have analysed your blogg comments and I have concluded that the correct diagnosis for your malady is that you suffer from an un-natural interest in deviant sexual practices that are all based around abusing the emotional state of various parties minds.

    The only thing missing now from a complete diagnosis is the inclusion of various animals in your circle of ‘friends’…….

    First it was same sex marriage
    The it was multi sex marriages

    next surely its going to be multi species marriages…………….

    [DPF: 50 demerits]

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Nostalgia-NZ (4,896 comments) says:

    Have to admire Pat Bartlett as much as Sam Hunt, each following their own voices despite what the neighbours might think – no easy feat.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Adele Keys (39 comments) says:

    I actually agree that if LOVE and EQUALITY are your guiding principles polygamy is the next logical step.

    However the reality of polygamous relationships is often far from loving and equal. As DPF pointed out, the vast majority of polygamous relationships are polygynous and exploitative. As RRM pointed out this often involves the abuse of young girls. These type of relationships should not be condoned by the law.

    This being said, in a free and tolerant society, why shouldn’t a loving, caring, equal trio be able to marry too?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. ChardonnayGuy (1,130 comments) says:

    In Canada, the British Columbia Supreme Court was asked to strike down Section 293 of Canada’s Criminal Code, which bans polygamy, on ‘religious liberty’ grounds, by Bountiful, a fundamentalist schismatic offshoot of mainstream Mormonism (which banned polygamy within its faith back in 1890). Happily, Justice Robert Bauman found that polygamist relationships within the sect in question contained obscenely high levels of domestic violence and pedophile ‘child marriage’ (read: commonplace child sexual abuse). Therefore, it upheld Section 293. Therefore, a leading British Commonwealth case has rejected polygamy within a jurisdiction that introduced marriage equality back in 2005.

    As for South Africa, polygamy is only legal there because of customary law. It is significant that Uganda, which is trying to pass a murderous Anti-Homosexuality Bill that will put ‘recidivist’ lesbians and gay men to death, still hasn’t criminalised spousal rape and still allows polygamy- as does Nigeria, which has just introduced severe restrictions on marriage equality and which bans homosexuality. And not only their Muslim inhabitants engage in polygamy, let it be noted.

    As for imaginary linkages between monogamous LGBT marriage equality and polygamy, might I point out to any fundamentalist or conservative evangelicals here that Martin Luther, the very founder of Protestantism, permitted Phillip Landgrave of Hesse to engage in a polygamous marriage with Christina of Saxony and Margarethe van der Stathe.

    Here’s the BC Supreme Court link: Reference re: Section 293 of the Criminal Code of Canada:2011 British Columbia Supreme Court 1588 CanLii: http://canlii.ca/en/bc/bcsc/ doc/2011/2011bcsc1588/ 2011bcsc1588.html

    In the case of “Consensual Adult” Incest, Section 130 (2) of the Crimes Act 1961 prohibits this in New Zealand. Moreover, one suggests that any such debate here should take notice of the recent European Court of Human Rights case Stuebing versus Germany, in which one such couple complained that their ‘human rights’ were being infringed. Let it be noted that the woman in this case had cognitive and learning disabilities and gave birth to four children, two of whom have severe intellectual and physical disabilities. Consanguinity is a good case to continue banning CAI:

    Stubing Versus Germany (European Court of Human Rights: 2012): http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-110314

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Twinkletoes (52 comments) says:

    Under certain circumstances polygamy is legal in UK for muslims only and apart from the first wife every wife receives a solo mothers benefit (four wives max. in accordance with Sharia law). In some cases these couples will have four council houses, one for each wife and her children. Slippery slope here!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. ChardonnayGuy (1,130 comments) says:

    Actually, TT, slightly incorrect there. Polygamy is legally recognised in terms of welfare benefits and child support obligations for dependent children and wives, but not otherwise in the United Kingdom and Australia. It is still illegal to contract polygamous marriages within those societies. Although some traditionalist Muslims are unhappy about this, liberal Muslims aren’t- they regard monogamy as wholly compatible with the Qu’ran and hadith. Not all Muslim majority societies recognise polygamy, for that matter.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    A Volkisch state must therefore begin by raising marriage from the level of a continuous defilement of the race, and give it the consecration of an institution which is called upon to produce images of the Lord and not monstrosities halfway between man and ape.

    - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Vol. 2 Chapter 2

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. ChardonnayGuy (1,130 comments) says:

    But that would mean that all straight marriages conducted in either Hamilton, Foxton, or other particularly inbred parts of New Zealand (and let’s face it, all of Queensland and much of Australia, as well as most of the Southern United States) would be invalid, Kea! And I’m not into eugenics- I have a brainy and much loved disabled nephew behind enemy lines in Oz.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. ChardonnayGuy (1,130 comments) says:

    Polyandry is about a woman espousing multiple men. It is practised in the Irigwe community of Northern Nigeria, the Masai African tribal community, Bhutan, some Sri Lankan ethnic communities, Rajasthan, Ladakh and Zanskar (India). In Canada’s Sasketchewan province, it is permissible under family law. Now, apart from India and Sri Lanka, none of the above are significant immigration sources for New Zealanders and there isn’t an organised national or international pressure group pressing for the recognition of polyandrous relationships.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. ChardonnayGuy (1,130 comments) says:

    Open and temporary straight marriages are both also legal in New Zealand. Temporary marriages occur due to the existence of no-fault divorce laws, and are needed to insure that people can dissolve marriages when relationship counselling has failed and they are clearly incompatible with one another. Or are Family First saying they’d like the abolition of no-fault divorce legislation? As for open marriages, again, they are perfectly legal and occur with the mutual consent of the partners, although they often view their marital relationship as their significant primary relationship. Family First have clearly confused social preferences with legality in their outburst. They seem to think that if something shouldn’t be allowed, it should be illegal, or else is illegal. My response would be that while I don’t have a personal preference for open spousal relationships myself, not to allow individual freedom for it would be a sign of a repressive and premodern state. Granted, adultery is unethical and involves the betrayal of vows of exclusive espousal and can serve as grounds for divorce, but only if there’s deliberate deception.

    In other words, there’s no “slippery slope” here. Furthermore, polygamy is recognised in Uganda and Nigeria, both notorious opponents of LGBT rights, as well in many Islamic nations that forbid homosexuality on religious grounds. Is the Christian Right now going to suspend assistance to Uganda and Nigeria’s antigay movements on the basis that polygamy is legal in both nations? No, I thought not. Hypocrites. And does the fact that Israel has no legislative sanctions against consensual adult incest reason enough to suspend support for Israel’s foreign policies amongst many evangelical Christians? Evidently not. Note, I am certainly not condoning either arrangement. I would support any internal social movements within any of the named societies that endorse prohibition of either polygamy or CAI.

    I find this whole polygamy debate in appalling bad faith. The Christian Right may have conveniently forgotten about Patricia Bartlett’s sickening and disgusting campaign against criminalisation of spousal rape back in 1982, but I haven’t. And I fully intend to publicise that nauseating but thankfully failed little campaign. Merely because something is supposedly ‘traditional’ does not mean that it should be ‘permissible’- like excluding LGBT people from entering civil marriage.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.