March 16, 2021

"Queer theorists have complained that Obergefell valorizes the family values associated with monogamous marriage and thereby demeans people who resist those values."

"But others see it as the first step toward more radical change. 'Obergefell is a veritable encomium for marriage as both a central human right and a fundamental constitutional right,' Joseph J. Fischel, an associate professor of women’s, gender, and sexuality studies at Yale, has written. 'We, as an LGBT movement, should be ethically committed to endorsing poly relations and other experiments in intimacy.' He argues for 'relational autonomy' without regard for 'gender, numerosity, or affective attachment.' The campaigns of both polygamists and polyamorists to have their unions recognized point to the larger questions that swarm around marriage battles: what are the government’s interests in marriage and family, and why does a bureaucratic system sustain such a relentless focus on who has sexual relationships with whom? Surveys in the past decade have consistently found that four to five per cent of American adults—more than ten million people—already practice some form of consensual nonmonogamy, and the true number, given people’s reticence about stigmatized behaviors, is almost certainly higher.... In the West, champions of polyamory have included Mary Wollstonecraft, George Sand, Havelock Ellis, and Bertrand Russell. Still, a particular ethos, rooted in Christian, European values, has created a presumption that monogamy is superior to all other structures. Immanuel Kant saw marriage as emblematic of Enlightenment ideals, claiming that it was egalitarian, because spouses assigned ownership of their sexual organs to each other."

From "How Polyamorists and Polygamists Are Challenging Family Norms/From opposite sides of the culture, parallel campaigns for legal recognition may soon make multiple-partner marriages as unremarkable as same-sex marriages" (The New Yorker).

182 comments:

tim maguire said...

If you just want to fool around, do as you please. If you want to raise children, you owe it to them and to society to provide a stable nurturing environment. Two-person committed relationships is not just a Western invention, it is nearly universal (and it is universal among large successful societies) because it is the best environment in which to raise the next generation of our society.

Temujin said...

Any society with a desire to continue to exist in a growing and civilized fashion would highly value monogamous marriage. You can feel bad or good about it. You can wish it were not true. But all the data, all the 'science' says that, yes- to succeed in this world, you need a two-parent family, a monogamous marriage. All other avenues may...or may not work. Mostly they do not.

That a 'spokesperson' for the Vowel Brigade is now expanding their range of anti-societal declarations it does not make it correct, or needed. They will stop at nothing to erase all of the standards that built Western Civilization. They want to make everything that was black and white into a cloudy grey. Everything that was known to become unknown, unsure.

The thing is, reality does not care about what you want, what you desire. Reality consists of what works and what does not. We know what works.

Josephbleau said...

The way to sabotage this is to associate polygamy with the Mormons. No one on the left could be in favor of something the Mormons want.

Bob Boyd said...

make multiple-partner marriages as unremarkable as same-sex marriages

Like the Mormons?

Bob Boyd said...

We, as an LGBT movement, should be ethically committed to endorsing poly relations and other experiments in intimacy

Do they have to be made full partners or could some be like...handmaids?

David Begley said...

Isn’t valor a good quality?

Rick said...

Whoever could have predicted legalizing gay marriage was going to lead to polyamory?

It's interesting the left insists anyone pointing out the next step in their program is insane. Then when it happens they continue to believe those people are insane, they just stop talking about why.

Danno said...

If not for Althouse, I would not know what queer theorists were thinking. Imagine that.

David Begley said...

This is all about one guy who wants to have regular sex with a number of women.

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

They are queer theories all right. In every sense of the word. At the most basic “norms” are things that stabilize a society as a whole and stable was and is the best state of foundational social structure to build on and improve by managing change to mitigate detrimental effects to the base. The more we agree on as stabilizing norms the more differences and change can be accommodated. The 20th century brought forth a lot of destabilizing ideas that here in the 21st have finally overwhelmed the stable base of American society. We can argue over what factors did more damage but without agreement on how to move forward we have likely entered that phase where this nation-state is no longer sustainable. Queer people are accepted and loved now generally and yet some keep pushing to completely destroy the “family” as the base unit.

Sure that’s an interesting topic intellectually but why we are discussing it Congress is preparing to do to all future elections what they did to the last one, effectively making the USA a one-party rule dictatorship of the “majority” even though in the whole very few Americans voted to go that direction. The armed forces are now used as political props for partisan gotcha (take a look at the Democrat congresscritter who marched a National Guard unit to a Republican who said something silly about Guam) and COVID was their excuse to lock healthy Americans up for shits and giggles (and practice makes perfect). If we can keep the Republic intact gays can have fifty mates. I’d like to save America from the wokerati.

James K said...

Who knew that "valorize" was a word? I guess it's supposed to be the opposite of "stigmatize"?

Jersey Fled said...

We are truly living in the end times.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

Whoever could have predicted legalizing gay marriage was going to lead to polyamory?

Pretty much every conservative commentator on this blog back before it was the law of the land. And they were pooh poohed of course.

"a particular ethos, rooted in Christian, European values, has created a presumption that monogamy is superior to all other structures"

So these people have never heard of Hinduism? Confucianism? Shinto?

"what are the government’s interests in marriage and family, and why does a bureaucratic system sustain such a relentless focus on who has sexual relationships with whom"

That is a non sequitur. The government obviously has an interest in marriage and family because that is how a society propagates. Children need to be cared for, property distributed to heirs. But the bureaucracy does not care who is having sexual relationships with whom as long as the people involved are of legal age and consenting.

gilbar said...

what are the government’s interests in marriage and family?

this is THE Question
and, the Answer is: CHILDREN

which is better (and thus, deserving of government support)?
a man and a woman, raising THEIR children?
a man and a man, raising someone's children?
a woman and a woman, raising someone's children?
two (or three! (or four! (or MORE!))) people concentrating on F*cking each other (and others)?

OBVIOUSLY, the answer is the last one; right? On account of because there's More sex?

daskol said...

I don't own a gun, but was thinking as my daughter gets closer to dating age would make sense to have one around in a "you know my dad's an NRA guy, right?" way. Now I'm thinking, shit, my dog's just hit puberty...am I being an insufficiently involved doggie-daddy?

Ron Winkleheimer said...

The fact of the matter is that "poly" relationships should be stigmatized because they are harmful to society and if you are involved in one you are a weirdo who shouldn't be around children.

daskol said...

Are the slippery slopes really this slippery, or is this more of a culture war flex, rubbing the rubes' faces in it for shits and giggles and hopefully a few more eyeballs? Because nobody's watching the news anymore.

Bruce Hayden said...

“If you just want to fool around, do as you please. If you want to raise children, you owe it to them and to society to provide a stable nurturing environment. Two-person committed relationships is not just a Western invention, it is nearly universal (and it is universal among large successful societies) because it is the best environment in which to raise the next generation of our society.”

I disagree. You are essentially claiming that two person gay marriages are a better environment for raising the next generation. While polygamous marriages may not be as good as monogamous heterosexual marriages at raising kids, there is no evidence that a homosexual monogamous marriage would do better, and there are strong suggestions that they would do worse. I am going to be a sexist here, but my impression is that lesbian couples do only marginally better at raising kids than single mothers. There is no strong male role model in either case. The boys don’t get the structure and discipline they need, and the girls don’t get the male love of a father to keep them from trading sex for attention.

Moreover, the three Abrahamic religions have at least accepted polygamy (but not homosexual marriages) in their pasts. Islam, the second largest religion in the world, still allows it, based on the actions of their Prophet who was well known as a polygamist. Indigenous cultures around the world still practice it too. We discussed yesterday the Pope reiterating that the RC church would still not sanction homosexual marriage.

What must be remembered is that polygamy is often the societal solution for having too few males. Definitely part of why it flourished in Utah throughout much of the 19th Century. Their second wife was typically a “duty” wife, a widow with children in need of financial support and a male hand in the raising of her children. It was a wild and dangerous place then, and a lot of males died creating abundance out of the desert. It was only after taking and supporting a first wife, then a duty wife and her children, could he, if he had enough resources, marry a childless woman to have more children.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

https://thefederalist.com/2020/04/15/why-child-abuse-is-more-likely-in-polyamorous-homes-like-the-woman-with-four-boyfriends/

Bob Boyd said...

A woman needs a polygamous relationship like a fish needs part ownership of a bicycle.

gilbar said...

Serious Question

IF you were Planning on destroying society, so much that you caused Huge population drops..
So that in a few generations, "Western Civilization" was just a Distant memory...

WHAT would you do, differently from what today's "Progressives" are doing?

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

Fake president Biden mumbling in public about “flight suits for pregnant pilots” is the equivalent to Nero fiddling while the city fell and was burned like Minneapolis. All empires fade away. Look at any history of Rome, turn to the page about The Fall, see the big arrow? It indicates YOU ARE HERE.

Mike Sylwester said...

Conspiracy Theorist = Bad person whose opinions are worthless

Queer Theorist = Good person, whose opinions are valuable

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

Gravity is a harsh master.

Oso Negro said...

It’s extremely pleasing as a man to share your bed with two women, especially if they also enjoy each other. This is MY preferred sexual deviancy but I feel sure it’s not for everyone. I didn’t put the goalposts of sexual morality in play in this society, but I reject criticism of my sexual deviancy from those who did.

Bruce Hayden said...

“Whoever could have predicted legalizing gay marriage was going to lead to polyamory?”

“Pretty much every conservative commentator on this blog back before it was the law of the land. And they were pooh poohed of course. “

I claim membership in that select group. My view is that polygamous marriages, at least, have a much stronger historical justification than do homosexual marriages. Which means that I still don’t think that you can make a persuasive logical argument why homosexual, but not polygamous, marriages should be sanctioned.

rhhardin said...

Marriage valorizes the domestication of grudges, suspicions, fears, needs, desires, and narcissistic postures between men and women. The other kinds are shrieking harpies, no domestication at all.

Václav Patrik Šulik said...

When I went to law school, back in the dark ages, there were 3 elements to a marriage:

1. Two parties
2. One of which was male, one was female
3. Permanence - or semi-permanence, with divorce being extremely rare.

With the advent of no-fault divorce, the 3rd element was eliminated. With Obergefell, the second element was eliminated. Now, it looks like the first will be eliminated. What will be left? How will you define marriage - a temporary association between any number of persons?

As an aside, in law school, I recall we talked about the religious element of divorce - that a heavily Catholic town like Pittsburgh had three times the population of heavily Protestant/Pentecostal Tulsa, but had only a third of the divorces. There was a student whose devoutly Pentecostal mother (in Tulsa) had been married 15 times. And Tulsa had a 6-month cooling off period (time between divorce being granted and the next wedding).

mezzrow said...

"If you want to raise children,"
"Any society with a desire to continue to exist,"


If you remove these assumptions things become easier to understand from a rational standpoint.

AlbertAnonymous said...

Obergefell was garbage. Absolute garbage!

You can hold whatever opinions you want on the topic of gay marriage, I’m not judging. But the opinion was garbage.

gilbar said...

Another Serious Question(s), these about "maternity flight suits"

Exactly How MANY "G"s are we expecting these pregnant 'people' to pull?
Are we going to modify the cockpits, so that they can fit behind the yokes?
WHAT ABOUT that word cockpit?!?!?!? Could you Get more transphobic?

GatorNavy said...

The Han empire had polyamory with concubines. Certain African tribes allow and encourage multiple wives. The Muslim faith allows for multiple wives, but in all these societies the catch is you have to be able to support all these wives, physically, monetarily and emotionally.

Who in America can afford this enormous investment? Why the elite of course, and all you plebeians darn well better accept that fact.

Sebastian said...

"others see it as the first step toward more radical change"

Progs prefer to slide down the slippery slope, taking the rest of us with them.

After Tony K., endorsed by Ann A., who are we to complain about anyone else's conception of the meaning of the universe?

The slippery slope is all we got, and there's no stopping point.

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

Way to go Gilbar handing Nero more rosin for his bow! I see you working there.

Churchy LaFemme: said...

The Han empire had polyamory with concubines.

Country Music had polamory with cheatin'

Dan from Madison said...

Rick nailed it at 7.10am.

Also, as an employer, how does our benefit of health insurance work now if we start blurring the lines like this? Does the employee pick one of the husbands/wives? Which kids? Should be interesting.

iowan2 said...

Outside the supposed topic.
This is a great example of Academic rot. This is nothing but a group of ignorant twits awarding each other meaningless credentials.
Credentialed, not accomplished.
President Dementia Joe is as coherent, as the author of this babble.

DavidUW said...

As an alpha, high earning male, I, for one, welcome the opportunity to have a harem.

or to paraphrase our best president, regarding "progress":

But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers. . . .

Polygamy certainly is an ancient idea.

Ryan said...

Scalia was right, of course.

Next up: pedophiles.

DanTheMan said...

>>WHAT ABOUT that word cockpit?!?!?!? Could you Get more transphobic?

I'm sure Ann is heading over the OED site right now.... :)

Ann Althouse said...

"This is all about one guy who wants to have regular sex with a number of women."

King Solomon?

chuck said...

If one barefoot woman in the kitchen is good, a dozen are better.

Ryan said...

My ancestors were Mormon polygamists. I guess they were way ahead of their time.

wild chicken said...

"the catch is you have to be able to support all these wives, physically, monetarily and emotionally."

And what'll happen here is the wives will all work to support the husband.

Win-win eh?

This is all about benefits or the government would not be involved.

Ann Althouse said...

"Who knew that "valorize" was a word? I guess it's supposed to be the opposite of "stigmatize"?"

You should wonder what does it say that isn't in the verb "value"?

The OED notes the first use, with the word in quotes: "1921 Contemp. Rev. July 53 It attempted both to regulate the output and to stabilise and to ‘valorise’ the price."

Contemporary Review is a left of center British journal.

Here's another example:

"1976 T. Eagleton [Criticism and Ideology: A Study in Marxist Literary Theory] v. 164 Criticism becomes a mutually supportive dialogue between two highly valorised subjects: the valuable text and the valuable reader."

In my experience, it's a word that left-wingers tend to use. So don't just start using it unless you want to seem left-wing!

Here's a recent NYT use of the word, in an editorial called "Monuments of White Supremacy": "The memorials that are slated to be relocated belong to the cult of the lost cause and were built to valorize a treasonous war that was fought to preserve slavery — and to essentially deify generals like Robert E. Lee who fought it."

Ann Althouse said...

"Here's a recent NYT use of the word, in an editorial called "Monuments of White Supremacy": "The memorials that are slated to be relocated belong to the cult of the lost cause and were built to valorize a treasonous war that was fought to preserve slavery — and to essentially deify generals like Robert E. Lee who fought it.""

I think an ordinary native English speaker would use the word "commemorate" or "honor" in that sentence, not "valorize."

When I hear "valor," I think of courage, not valuation, so I find "valorization" irritating.

Kay said...

Interesting. They have to mention Kant in that quote to make it seem like “free love” was not also a product of the Enlightenment.

Fernandinande said...

"Polyandry provides reproductive and genetic benefits in colonising populations."

"Utah senate unanimously moves to decriminalize polygamy"

Hey Skipper said...

@Gilbar: “ WHAT ABOUT that word cockpit?!?!?!? Could you Get more transphobic?”

To get all pedantic, multi-piloted airplanes have flight decks — you walk onto a flight deck.

Fighters have cockpits into which you descend, and climb out of.

Cockpit is a naval term, referring to a sunken deck from which the ship was steered, and within which cock fights would be held.

So nothing at all to do with wedding vegetables.

Kylos said...

Making the case for the Catholic definition of a blessed union. The core purpose of marriage is to provide a stable structure for the raising of children. There is no societal concern for relationships with whatever combination of genitalia for however long they may last unless they produce offspring. The government’s only interest in relationships is that procreative relationships remain stable or can be dissolved in such a way as to care for children. Everything is just your own personal deviance.

Caroline said...

I find the instinct to solemnise one’s perverse erotic arrangement as « marriage » telling. Deep down, in the recesses of consciousness, we can still feel the pull of a created order, a natural law that is « written on our hearts. » If only....we could marry our two partners...all would be well, and my heart would no longer be restless. If only... I could change my body from male to female, I would at last have peace. Only by living in harmony with God’s order of creation can we find peace. All else leads to addiction. Cf saint Augustine.

Robert Marshall said...

Facing reality may not be considered polite any longer, so saying this might be risky:
you would think that the obvious social pathologies of the mostly-fatherless young black male cohort would, by itself, make the case for heterosexual monogamy.

iowan2 said...

Also, as an employer, how does our benefit of health insurance work now if we start blurring the lines like this?

You haven't figured out private contracts are racist, homophobic, tools of patriarchy? Private Health insurance is destined to be eliminated as the moral arc of history bends to the inevitable.

You have to understand. Insurance is a contract between two signers. The federal govt is soon going to prohibit the ability of a free people to enter into a contract, to insure against financial risk.

Owen said...

“Valorize” keeps turning into “vaporize” on my SpellWreck. How very appropriate for a word that IMHO is a convenient, instant, infallible “tell” that whatever follows is 200-proof bullshit.

John Borell said...

Left - We want gay marriage
Right - Ack, slippery slope, what's next, poligamy?
Left - Don't be dramatic.
Right - Fine, have gay marriage.
Left - Thanks. Okay, now we want poligamy.
Right - Like we said...

iowan2 said...

The core purpose of marriage is to provide a stable structure for the raising of children

That's the truth you cant get around. Marriage protects children.

Is is Chesterson? 'Never take down a fence until you know why it was built?'

Children was the reason marriage was built.

hawkeyedjb said...

"...an associate professor of women’s, gender, and sexuality studies..."

Only very wealthy, very decadent societies have or want these professorships. Bored, unproductive people need something to teach and to study.

iowan2 said...

When I hear "valor," I think of courage, not valuation, so I find "valorization" irritating.

The intent is to generate emotion. Not reason. Mission accomplished.

DanTheMan said...

>>Left - We want gay marriage
Right - Ack, slippery slope, what's next, poligamy?
Left - Don't be dramatic.
Right - Fine, have gay marriage.
Left - Thanks. Okay, now we want poligamy.
Right - Like we said...


Crazy cat ladies can fill in the next steps after polygamy for you... :)

stevew said...

Can't be true, I was told that the coming demands for recognition of polyamory and polygamy were a slippery slope fallacy. Frankly, my dear, I don't really give a damn how people choose to live their lives. Don't people do this now, just without government recognition and support? Has the Vatican weighed in?

iowan2 said...

There is no strong male role model in either case. The boys don’t get the structure and discipline they need, and the girls don’t get the male love of a father to keep them from trading sex for attention.

Yet another truth.

Male and female parents provide the psychological Balance needed to rear children. We can physically grow humans without any human contact. Just not very well.

Jamie said...

Without reading any other comments first: toldja so.

I say this as a person who doubted the wisdom of changing the fundamental structure of marriage by judicial fiat but supported the already-happening-at-the-time social evolution that could have led to popular, and then legislative, change, politics being downstream of culture and all.

Jamie said...

A woman needs a polygamous relationship like a fish needs part ownership of a bicycle.

BobBoyd is on fire!

Polygamy as a social structure (not as a kink - although maybe... What do I know? It's not my kink) creates hierarchies. I thought we were supposed to be deconstructing those guys.

Lucien said...

It always seemed to me that the interest of the State is to see each person as an individual; but that the institution of heterosexual marriage was of such long standing and so deeply embedded in the culture that it had to be tolerated. From that standpoint the State has a clear interest in preventing further erosion of the principle of individuality by refusing to recognize additional types of “union”.
But alas, no.

Jamie said...

I should have said "polyamory as a social structure."

Mr Wibble said...

Back during the gay marriage fight the socons were mocked for predicting that this very thing would happen. "SLIPPERY SLOPE!" the left mocked.

Pepperedge Farm fucking remembers.

Mr Wibble said...

Also, as an employer, how does our benefit of health insurance work now if we start blurring the lines like this? Does the employee pick one of the husbands/wives? Which kids? Should be interesting.

It's one of the unspoken goals: create so much chaos that private institutions no longer can provide the kind of support which they traditionally have, ultimately leaving the State as the sole provider.

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

And yes indeed the Vatican weighed in yesterday and this discussion is a distraction from that more important statement in support of traditional marriage.

Sam L. said...

I don't trust anything from the NY media.

Big O's Meanings Dictionary said...

slippery slope - definition

A real occurrence that some claim is just projection until the next level of the slope is reached, at which time they throw their hands up in an "Oh, well." and proclaim the rest of the slope is just projection.

n.n said...

Transgender spectrum and trans-social lifestyles are trendy.

slippery slope

A progressive (i.e. unqualified monotonic) path and grade.

n.n said...

I don't trust anything from the NY media.

The press, media, diverse social platforms, and steering engines, too. That said, signal diversity increases the probability of recovering information in data streams.

Greg The Class Traitor said...

From "How Polyamorists and Polygamists Are Challenging Family Norms/From opposite sides of the culture, parallel campaigns for legal recognition may soon make multiple-partner marriages as unremarkable as same-sex marriages" (The New Yorker).

Our society would greatly benefit if every single person who said "that slippery slope argument is total garbage" would be permanently removed from public life whenever the argument came true.

With the sole proviso that if that person is spending the entirety of their pubic life fighting against said expansion, they get a pass.

n.n said...

Polygamy as a social structure

And a kink: friends with "benefits".

n.n said...

How Polyamorists and Polygamists Are Challenging Family Norms/From opposite sides of the culture

Pride parade: a lion, his harem of lionesses, and their [unPlanned] cubs.

donald said...

“Queer theorists”. Lol.

n.n said...

Can't be true, I was told that the coming demands for recognition of polyamory and polygamy were a slippery slope fallacy.

Pedophilia, too. All constructs subject to liberalization with social, scientific, and religious progress.

Mr Wibble said...

The way to sabotage this is to associate polygamy with the Mormons. No one on the left could be in favor of something the Mormons want.

Polygamy is going to be sold to upper middle class white women as a way to get their queer cred while still having the husband and kids. Marry, get the nice house in the suburbs, and then have threesomes with a female yoga instructor.

Jack Klompus said...

I didn't notice anyone with the job title "Queer Theorist" in Afghanistan. Maybe the bacha bazi crowd had a few as part-time consultants.

narciso said...

They stone them, so no its not a groeth market.

Geoff M said...

More KY jelly for that slippery slope.

Brian said...

Conspiracy Theorist = Bad person whose opinions are worthless

Queer Theorist = Good person, whose opinions are valuable


Conspiracy Theorist = Religious Leader

Fixed it for you.

Essentially thats what the article is maintaining. Queer Theorist is proclaiming a moral and ethical imperative on how society should live their lives. Just like a religious leader.

Howard said...

Shari'a Law Now, Shari'a Law Tomorrow, Shari'a Law Forever.

mikee said...

Polyamory works as an idealized concept, but suffers from issues arising from reality, including potential polyamorous conceptions.

Lou M said...

I can't really think of a more effective way to increase the homicide rate.

Douglas B. Levene said...

Well, Toys-R-Us is no more but Perverts-R-Us is alive and thriving.

Scott M said...

Nobody (read as everyone with an ounce of sense) predicted this would happen.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

Mr Wibble,

It's one of the unspoken goals: create so much chaos that private institutions no longer can provide the kind of support which they traditionally have, ultimately leaving the State as the sole provider.

Now, see, ten years or so ago I would've derided that as a conspiracy theory. Not any more. When the social consequence facing you is as obvious as this, you are forced to wonder whether its equally obvious sequelae were not, in fact, the real point.

It's not unlike the way in which we were all told to stop breeding so much; now, when population "growth" is actually below replacement rate, we're told that the obvious solution is to let in everyone on our Southern border who obviously want to come here anyway -- win-win, easy-peasy, yes? Ditto (only more acutely so) Europe. You honestly can't say that the results of slowing or reversing population growth weren't easily foreseen, or the consequences not clearly understood.

DavidUW said...

Polygamy is going to be sold to upper middle class white women as a way to get their queer cred while still having the husband and kids. Marry, get the nice house in the suburbs, and then have threesomes with a female yoga instructor.
>>

Yep, and she doesn't even *have* to have sex with the man on yoga nights.

That's the theory.

The reality is that a guy like me will get 3-4 women, have 1 or 2 that are keepers, rotate through position 3 & 4, and spend the rest of the time mediating the cutthroat competition between primary & secondary women.

But that's better than the 50% of men who won't get a woman at all.
Then I guess I'll have to vote for wars and start new religions to get rid of unattached, angry men.

that's how polygamy works.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

Mr Wibble,

Should've addressed this as well:

Polygamy is going to be sold to upper middle class white women as a way to get their queer cred while still having the husband and kids. Marry, get the nice house in the suburbs, and then have threesomes with a female yoga instructor.

Exactly how it will be sold. Bravo!

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

DavidUW,

Yes, that is a problem, isn't it? Rather like the ones the Chinese have set for themselves with the combination of "one-child" and sex-selective abortion, only in their case, the women aren't just belonging to other men; they aren't there at all.

Chesterton somewhere (I think in An Outline of Sanity, though maybe it's in What's Wrong With the World) is describing a "capitalist" society as one where capital is universal: Everyone has capital. He points out, reasonably, that when we call a society "capitalist" when it has a very few capitalists and a vast bunch of wage-slaves (can one say "wage-slaves" any more, or is it "wage-enslaved persons"?), we're abusing the word. And jumps to polygamy: It's like saying that a society where there's one guy with a vast harem and then a lot of unattached men is a "married society." A "married society" ought to mean a society in which most people are married, not one person very much married; and a "capitalist society" ought to mean one in which most men have capital, not a few men a lot of capital.

farmgirl said...

Slippery slope? What slippery slope?

farmgirl said...

Handmaids: hahahah!!

n.n said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
n.n said...

Rather like the ones the Chinese have set for themselves with the combination of "one-child" and sex-selective abortion,

From The Great Leap (Planned Population) to one-child (minority choice) to selective-child (delegated choice) and concentration/reeducation camps for what they characterize as a "rape culture".

PM said...

"...what are the government’s interests in marriage and family?"
The same, whether it's relationships with multiple partners, animals or a blow-up doll: tax design.

n.n said...

Then I guess I'll have to vote for wars and start new religions to get rid of unattached, angry men.

that's how polygamy works.


All's fair in lust and abortion.

DavidUW said...

Yes, that is a problem, isn't it? Rather like the ones the Chinese have set for themselves with the combination of "one-child" and sex-selective abortion, only in their case, the women aren't just belonging to other men; they aren't there at all.
>>
Only a problem if you're an undesirable man or an older woman.

Oops.

YoungHegelian said...

We, as an LGBT movement, should be ethically committed to endorsing poly relations and other experiments in intimacy.'

I'm sorry, but when I hear these words said by a gay man, it means that there are bath houses & glory holes around the corner.

That, actually, would be fine if it would just be their own lives involved. But, as the AIDS epidemic showed us, it won't be just them. Promiscuous sexual intercourse is just an incredibly effective way of transmitting disease. If the bath house culture returns, there will be another AIDS-like venereal disease epidemic.

And guess who will be on the hook to pay to save these unlucky infected bastards? We, the taxpayers, that's who, all the while getting berated by them for not being pro-LGBTQ enough by not giving them even more money in their quest not be cured.

No one defends smoking anymore. Why? Because it's obviously unhealthy. Well, so is fucking a lot of different people. That's just the medical facts.

n.n said...

re: lust, abortion and cults

It's an easy sell for masculinists. And what better partners than feminists, to convince other women that voluntarily aborting their babies is a personal and social good. Cannibalizing her profitable parts for medical progress is a premeditated benefit. Then there's the environmentalists who want to sequester her carbon pollutants for renewable Green profits and climate stasis. How green people are to go along to get along with this progression. That said, keep women appointed, available, and taxable.

Inga said...

“Polygamy is going to be sold to upper middle class white women as a way to get their queer cred while still having the husband and kids. Marry, get the nice house in the suburbs, and then have threesomes with a female yoga instructor.”


Most polygamists are conservatives.

n.n said...

Most polygamists are conservatives.

Pro-Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness? One man, one woman, a couple, husband and wife, and our Posterity? Men and women are equal in rights and complementary in Nature/nature?

Patrick Henry was right! said...

Because a functioning society depends on monogamy and family and it makes no sense to destroy civilization so that the maladjusted can feel better about their maladjustment.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

Inga, how can you possibly know that?

n.n said...

We, as an LGBT movement, should be ethically committed to endorsing poly relations and other experiments in intimacy.'

The transgender spectrum (e.g. genderphobia) is adjacent to diversity dogma (e.g. racism) is adjacent to trans-socials under the Twilight faith, Pro-Choice quasi-religion (e.g. "ethics"), and Progressive Cult/Church/Synagogue/Temple/Mosque/Corporation/Agency/Clinic/Chamber/Collander umbrella.

Inga said...

“Inga, how can you possibly know that?”

Most American polygamists belong to an offshoot of Mormonism. Mormonism is conservative.

n.n said...

Because it's obviously unhealthy. Well, so is fucking a lot of different people. That's just the medical facts.

Socially liberal orientation and penetration through the back... black hole... whore h/t NAACP where digestion is completed, waste is eliminated, and disease (e.g. HIV/AIDS, SARS-CoV-2/Covid-19) is spread.

n.n said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
hstad said...

"...How Polyamorists and Polygamists Are Challenging Family Norm..." Interesting statement but both of these camps keep on issue hidden. Change the definition of "Family" and you'll accelerate the breakdown of thousands of years of cultural norms. Moreover, talk to any Psychologist, without a man bonding with a women you'll have the tearing apart of the culture. Men are tamed by family. We have seen the breakdown of the family unit for over 50 years now. Two perfect examples are out of wedlock births [a disaster for society] and the resultant lack of fathers to help guide young males. It is a disaster of 'Armageddon' proportions - far more important than the 'Climate Hustle' pushed by Politicians and Elites. The collapse of the family institution will produce massive civil unrest and result in the collapse of the 'Nation State' norm.

n.n said...

Mormonism is conservative.

Mormonism endorses one man, one woman, and our Posterity. Mormons tend to be conservative: Pro-Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. Although, some members are socially liberal and members of progressive sects.

Inga said...

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285516678_An_Exploration_of_Polygamous_Marriages_A_Worldview

https://www.christianity.com/wiki/christian-terms/what-is-polygamy-and-what-are-examples-today.html

DavidUW said...

That, actually, would be fine if it would just be their own lives involved. But, as the AIDS epidemic showed us, it won't be just them. Promiscuous sexual intercourse is just an incredibly effective way of transmitting disease. If the bath house culture returns, there will be another AIDS-like venereal disease epidemic.
>>
Contra Fraudci, the malevolent dago dwarf who enjoyed checking out the bathhouses, there was no AIDS epidemic outside of the gays in the USA.

A few in the IV drug user community, and those dependent on (pre-HIV screening) blood products, but certainly no epidemic.

n.n said...

Two perfect examples are out of wedlock births [a disaster for society] and the resultant lack of fathers to help guide young males

A third example: a State with "benefits" that forced social dysfunction on a present and progressive basis. The CCP normalized prostitution and compensated with their final solution ("one-child") and their Western peers normalized socially liberal orientations and compensated with their wicked solution ("selective-child").

Gospace said...

"How Polyamorists and Polygamists Are Challenging Family Norms/From opposite sides of the culture, parallel campaigns for legal recognition may soon make multiple-partner marriages as unremarkable as same-sex marriages"

SO how many times were we told there was no slippery slope, and that redefining marriage as any two people would never ever lead to polygamy or group marriages? Why, that was nothing more than religious and conservative paranoia!

Every social "advancement" in my lifetime has been advanced the same way, with lies. With no discernible net benefit to society And today, we have social liberals praising and academic institutions deliberately practicing segregation. Democrats have always opposed "E Pluribus Unum".

Inga said...

Biblical Families

“What We Do Here

Building the Church through Building the Family

Many Christians today are rediscovering the truth that nowhere in the Bible is plural marriage expressly prohibited or condemned. Realizing that the case for the prohibition and criminalization of polygamy is based on faulty reasoning and hermeneutics can be disconcerting and disorienting, as so much of Western culture is dependent on the assumption that legally-enforced monogamy is grounded in Christian ethics.

Biblical Families exists to support, defend, encourage, and strengthen Christians who are seeking to "be transformed by the renewing of their minds" in the area of what the scriptures teach about marriage and family. We provide online resources for education and support, we have a discussion forum here on our website that has members from around the globe, and we host regular retreats and get-togethers around the United States to encourage real 'meatspace' fellowship for like-minded families.”

DavidUW said...

Idiot Inga thinks that "many Christians" want to be polygamists.
Idiot Inga hasn't heard the New Testament verses, uttered by JESUS Himself, repeated at many, many Christian weddings and at many, many Christian services.

"But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. 7For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; 8And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. 9What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

10And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter. 11And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. 12And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery."

That's pretty much stating that marriage is one man/one woman, for life.

YoungHegelian said...

@DavidUW,

A few in the IV drug user community, and those dependent on (pre-HIV screening) blood products, but certainly no epidemic.

It certainly was & is an epidemic for both gays & straights in many countries in Asia & Africa.

The US was largely spared AIDS moving into the straight community. Not so other countries.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

Inga, are you making some sort of distinction between polygamy and polyamory? Because one is a subset of the other.

LDS ("Mormons" to you) are not Fundamentalist LDS. The numbers of the latter are very small relative to the former, who aren't polygamists and haven't been for well over a century. Not saying LDS-offshoot polygamists don't exist, but they're very rare. Also, not likely to make the pages of "queer theorists'" journals, except in exposes.

There are other polygamists in the US, I would wager. Muslim ones. But they, being both "conservative" and Brown, will probably be called Brown before they're called conservative. (I have not heard reports of them in the US, but in Toronto some years back there were multiple cases of guys applying for welfare benefits for three of their allotted four wives.)

DavidUW said...

The US was largely spared AIDS moving into the straight community. Not so other countries.
>>
By chance. Not by design, and not by anything Fraudci did.

DavidUW said...

“Idiot Inga thinks that "many Christians" want to be polygamists.”

Um...no. That’s a stupid assumption.
>>
Idiot Inga rejects her own words 18 minutes after posting them.

Inga said...


“Inga, are you making some sort of distinction between polygamy and polyamory?”

I’m speaking of polygamy, not polyamory. Polyamory doesn’t require marriage.

James K said...

Most American polygamists belong to an offshoot of Mormonism. Mormonism is conservative.

Since we're not talking about de jure polygamy (which doesn't exist) but de facto ("open marriages" and the like), I'm sure this statement is completely false. Those renegade LDS polygamists are tiny in number.

Inga said...

“Idiot Inga rejects her own words 18 minutes after posting them.”

Stupid DavidUW doesn’t realize that these were not my words. I was a quoting a Christian site that believes in polygamy. I am not saying that all Christians believe in polygamy. But most Christians tend to be conservative. You’re pretty dumb David, or you’re desperate to get into some ridiculous back and forth based on your misunderstanding.

Inga said...

“...but de facto ("open marriages"”

Open marriages are not polygamy. Open marriages are examples of infidelity.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

Inga,

I’m speaking of polygamy, not polyamory. Polyamory doesn’t require marriage.

But marriage of any sort is illegal between more than two people in the United States. So everyone you're talking about is a polyamorist.

ALP said...

I think there is an association of Divorce Lawyers behind this. Think about the business such arrangements would bring! I am not religious/spiritual at all - but even I can see that the pair bond is tough enough, by all means try to make 3, 4 or more work...have at it. As long as I don't have to hear about the drama.

YoungHegelian said...

@DavidUW,

By chance. Not by design, and not by anything Fraudci did.

Well, if "by chance" you mean social mores around sex, then you are correct.

I, too, am not very fond of Dr. Fauci, but for different reasons. Back in the Clinton administration Dr. Fauci promised President Clinton & by extension the American people he would have a vaccine for AIDS in ten years. He was installed at NIH & he filled it with his myrmidons. Ten years later, I hear him interviewed on the Diane Reihm Show and she asks him about his promise. His response: "Well, we're going in a whole new direction now..."

Basically, he promised the American people a cure, and he not only failed to deliver, but he didn't even want to admit that they had basically gotten nowhere on all the money the American taxpayer had shoveled his way. Oh, but no worry. Fauci & his buds all had nice sinecures at NIH until they retire.

After failing a promise to the president & the American people like that, an honorable man would have committed seppuku, or, if religious, retired from the public eye & dedicated himself to charitable good works (e.g. in a monastery) to atone for his great failing. Fauci did none of the above. That's because he's a putz.

Gospace said...

Inga said...

“Inga, are you making some sort of distinction between polygamy and polyamory?”

I’m speaking of polygamy, not polyamory. Polyamory doesn’t require marriage.


Nether does polygamy. Nor one man and one woman cohabitating monogamously. Nor two homosexuals living together monogamously, though in the case of two homosexual males living together "married" or not, monogamously doesn't enter the equation.

Inga said...

“But marriage of any sort is illegal between more than two people in the United States. So everyone you're talking about is a polyamorist.”

In their belief system, polygamy follows the ultimate law, God’s Law. That’s their belief system and they are not progressives, they are conservatives, which was my initial statement.

Inga said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Inga said...


“Nether does polygamy.”

A religious, conservative polygamist does not believe in sex before “marriage”. Their marriages are as serious and Biblical as yours and mine and most monogamous marriages, in their belief system.

Inga said...

“I’m speaking of polygamy, not polyamory. Polyamory doesn’t require marriage.”

“Nether does polygamy.”


po·lyg·a·my
/pəˈliɡəmē/
noun
noun: polygamy
the practice or custom of having more than one wife or husband at the same time.

Freeman Hunt said...

"Polygamy is going to be sold to upper middle class white women"

It won't sell. Maximizing resources for one's own offspring is a highly developed upper middle class skill. It's their raison d'etre.

Static Ping said...

They want to burn society to the ground. For some reason they don't think they will get burned.

Inga said...

"Polygamy is going to be sold to upper middle class white women"

“It won't sell. Maximizing resources for one's own offspring is a highly developed upper middle class skill. It's their raison d'etre.”

Very true!

Inga said...

“They want to burn society to the ground. For some reason they don't think they will get burned.”

Who? Your fellow conservatives? As I said, most polygamists are consertive.

Inga said...

“Don't social conservatives have their own core commitments that, if applied consistently, would seem to carve out a sphere for polygamous families? Aren't polygamous families in Utah engaged in the free exercise of religion? Aren't many ordering their families as they believe God would want them to? Isn't plural marriage an age-old institution with deep roots in the Bible? Confronted with social-science research that says polygamy is bad for children, don't polygamists reply that parents know better than the state what's good for their offspring, and insist they ought to have wide latitude to make decisions about child-rearing?

Polygamists would be helped by all sorts of principles that social conservatives generally champion (not that they urge that those principles be extended consistently). So what do you say, social cons. Should families be free to order themselves on Biblical patterns, according to deeply held religious beliefs, or should the state be able to interfere when its social science data says children are worse off?

Among libertarians, liberals, social conservatives, and progressives, it would seem to me that the last would have the easiest time banning polygamy without contradicting other principled stands that they take: Progressives are the most comfortable transgressing against religious liberty in the name of women's rights and substituting state judgment for parental judgment in the name of advancing child welfare. And when the progressives come to more thoroughly regulate home-schooling, as they inevitably will, I expect that the social conservatives, the libertarians, and the polygamists will invoke the same principles in opposition.”

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/12/the-strange-politics-of-polygamy/282429/

From 2013, but still relevant.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

Inga,

If you mean that the Fundamentalist LDS (and the Muslims!) who practice polygamy outside the law in the US are different from the "if it feels good, do it" types, then we have no argument. But it does seem that you're saying that Fundamentalist LDS are like Mormons, and Mormans are "conservative," ergo Fundamentalist LDS are also "conservative." To me it seems that Fundamentalist LDS are in some ways deeply anticonservative; Muslims likewise.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

Inga,

Re: the 2013 piece from The Atlantic, that last graf is indeed spot-on. Especially the little warning about "more thoroughly" regulating homeschooling, which of course has been hotting up for some time. But it remains strange for something so far out of the mainstream (emphatically including the conservative Christian mainstream) to be called, repeatedly, "conservative." These people are aligned on certain topics, but not at all identical.

And there most certainly are people who want polyamory to be codified, or at least codifiable. It has to be if it's going anywhere, else everything, starting with the custody of children, of course, but also including distribution of property, &c., will be one great legal mess. It will, you know; there are people all over this country just itching to sue someone over this.

Inga said...

“If you mean that the Fundamentalist LDS (and the Muslims!) who practice polygamy outside the law in the US are different from the "if it feels good, do it" types, then we have no argument.”

Good, we’re in agreement.

“But it does seem that you're saying that Fundamentalist LDS are like Mormons, and Mormans are "conservative," ergo Fundamentalist LDS are also "conservative."”

Fundamentalist LDS are an offshoot of Mormonism, no? Fundamentalist LDS are conservative, they retained their original Mormon conservatism, no? Are Fundamentalist LDS polygamists liberals, progressives? No.

Inga said...

“But it remains strange for something so far out of the mainstream (emphatically including the conservative Christian mainstream) to be called, repeatedly, "conservative." These people are aligned on certain topics, but not at all identical.”

They may be out of the “conservative Christian mainstream”, but they ARE still Christians and they NOT liberals or progressives. Most wives and children in polygamist marriages are treated/raised with conservative values espoused in Biblical teaching.

Howard said...

Inga you are crazy. As everyone knows most of the polygamists in the United States are living in Northern Utah and Southern Idaho. Clearly hotbeds of AOC fanboys

Inga said...

“Inga you are crazy. As everyone knows most of the polygamists in the United States are living in Northern Utah and Southern Idaho. Clearly hotbeds of AOC fanboys”

LOL!

who-knew said...

The starting point of this discussion was a quote from a Yale professor of "women’s, gender, and sexuality studies". So how it got turned into a pissing match about how it's all those (what? hundreds?) of Mormon fundamentalists (i.e. conservatives) being the ones pushing us down this slippery slope is beyond me. Unless, it's because some people out there think polygamy is icky and doesn't want to see their side of the political being blamed for it.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

Inga, you would get into a whole bunch of theological weeds if you asserted to most Christians that Fundamentalist LDS are Christians. For that matter, if you asserted that ordinary LDS are Christians.

Besides, as I've said many times, there are certainly polygamists in the US who aren't Fundamentalist LDS or Christian in any sense: Muslims. They exist. They exist in considerably numbers in this country, and they are permitted polygamy by their own religion, although (as with Fundamentalist LDS) not by our laws. Where are you putting them? Because their numbers are much, much larger than the numbers of Fundamentalist LDS in this country, and of course utterly dwarf them worldwide.

John Althouse Cohen said...

If you want to raise children, you owe it to them and to society to provide a stable nurturing environment.

But what's more "stable" and "nurturing" — polyamory or monogamy?

Are 3 people more unstable than 2 people? Isn't a larger number of caregivers good because that's stronger insurance against the risks of any one caregiver becoming unavailable (e.g. dying, being hospitalized, or having an urgent work responsibility that can't be done from home)? That could make it easier to make sure someone's around and in good condition to be "nurturing" the kids.

Is a rule of sexual exclusivity, which could be good if it's complied with but calamitous if it's broken, more or less unstable than acceptance of non-exclusivity? The answer isn't obvious — you can make an argument either way. And when the answers aren't obvious, is it better to give room for individuals to make their own decisions, or should government have more power to decide what will work best in people's personal lives?

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

"Considerable," not "considerably." Sorry.

Inga said...

“So how it got turned into a pissing match about how it's all those (what? hundreds?) of Mormon fundamentalists...”

I’d wager that 1% of Utah’s population is more than mere “hundreds”.

https://www.idahostatejournal.com/opinion/columns/big-love-in-utah-polygamy-s-big-return/article_7b6f299c-7cc8-591e-8698-8d65e3225b99.html

“Utah has a history that is tied to polygamy. Utah was settled by members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The church for several decades during the 1800s practiced, on a limited basis, polygamy. Not always, but often, polygamy was used as a social welfare tool to provide support to aged widows or those with young children. The church discontinued the practice in the 1890s. Today, members of the church who practice polygamy are excommunicated and no are longer considered members of the church.

However, some who belong to groups that broke away from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints still practice polygamy. While official numbers do not exist,it is estimated that over 1 percent of Utah’s population is part of polygamist families.”

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

JAC, my sense (and that is all it is) is that polyamory is more unstable, damagingly so. Not that it's impossible for a polyamorous grouping to raise children, but that the lines of authority are hopelessly tangled. If Mommy Helen wants me to do this and Mommy Susan wants me to do that, who decides? Daddy Rick? Or Daddy Hubert? This is the sort of thing that two parents can work out between themselves, but four might easily find it impossible to.

Your example hinges on the fungibility of parenthood -- i.e., if Mommy Helen broke her foot, we can all still go to school with Mommy Susan. But most of the time parenthood isn't fungible, and who has what authority to do what matters a great deal.

Inga said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Inga said...

“Muslims. They exist. They exist in considerably numbers in this country, and they are permitted polygamy by their own religion, although (as with Fundamentalist LDS) not by our laws. Where are you putting them? Because their numbers are much, much larger than the numbers of Fundamentalist LDS in this country, and of course utterly dwarf them worldwide.”

Most fundamentalist Muslims are conservative.

n.n said...

Polyamory doesn’t require marriage.

"marriage with more than one spouse," 1590s, from Late Latin polygamia, from Late Greek polygamia "polygamy," from polygamos "often married," from polys "many" (see poly-) + gamos "marriage" (see gamete). The word is not etymologically restricted to marriage of one man and multiple women (technically polygyny), but often used as if it were. Related: Polygamist; polygamize.

Neither does polygamy.

Polyamory, including friends with "benefits" without responsibility. Fuck them, leave them, abort any "burden" that may be conceived is a liberal lifestyle and progressive solution.

Bruce Hayden said...

“If you mean that the Fundamentalist LDS (and the Muslims!) who practice polygamy outside the law in the US are different from the "if it feels good, do it" types, then we have no argument. But it does seem that you're saying that Fundamentalist LDS are like Mormons, and Mormans are "conservative," ergo Fundamentalist LDS are also "conservative." To me it seems that Fundamentalist LDS are in some ways deeply anticonservative; Muslims likewise.”

I think that it very much depends on the definition of “conservative”. But both groups of polygamists are very conservative in one respect in that they justify their practice of polygamy on the past tenets of their faiths. In both cases it was advocated by their founders, Mohammed and Joseph Smith. The Mormons dropped it partially in trade for statehood, and probably at least partly because it no longer was needed to compensate for the loss of males fro the travails of settling the wilderness that ultimately became Utah. (Also factoring into the trade was that the Mormon leadership promised the Republicans eight Senators, should they be admitted, switching parties from a half century as Democrats, which party was never willing to risk censure to support them in return). As I understand it, the switch was accomplished through a revelation to/by their then current prophet. The fundamentalist Mormons who continued to practice polygamy didn’t accept him as their prophet and leader, believing him to have been corrupted, and selected their own, who stuck with the old ways. (Not dissimilar to how Mormons appear to view the legitimacy of the RC church - that that church had lost divine legitimacy through corruption, which tey then inherited).

Polygamy is still allowed in the Muslim faith (since their Prophet, Mohammed endorsed and openly practiced it). I don’t see that changing in the foreseeable future. It has been banned in some Muslim majority countries, and in most every country in which they live as a minority. So, while religiously legal, it has become disfavored throughout much of the Muslim world. Partly, I suspect that that is a result of living by monogamous Christians, Hindus, and Buddhists around the world. And partly because it is socially disruptive, unless there are sufficient pressures on the male populations, keeping their numbers down. The problem there is similar to the problem faced by the Chinese, who killed off so many of their girl embryos and babies - too many males. The problem is what to do with the excess males, if they aren’t going to acquire a female mate. In Muhammad’s time, that wasn’t a problem, because he lived in the middle of a harsh desert, where the various tribes were always fighting and killing each other. There weren’t any excess males, just excess females, often widows with children (the problem the Mormons faced).

Oh, and while Mitt Romney had polygamists in his ancestry, Barack Obama II’s polygamy was even closer: his namesake father was apparently already married when he came over here for graduate school, and it appears that his father went back to his first wife when he returned home.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

Inga, hmmm, that'd be, what, 32K people or so? Out of 3.2 million? Of course, some are not in Utah, but Idaho and a few other places. And, of course, Mexico; a lot of them fled there during anti-Mormon persecutions in the 19th c.

That's half the number of polygamists and polyamorists cited in Ann's New Yorker article. But Muslims are about 1% of the whole US population, not just Utah, and they are all, theoretically, polygamists, in the sense that Islam permits them polygamous marriage, as Christianity and US law do not. I don't think they can be written off so easily.

As the article points out, it's difficult to get around the hurdles the US Government places before such marriages. Bigamy and all other plural marriages being illegal, and yet welfare being out of the question if they are in fact living as a single household, what do they do?

Robert Heinlein is pretty useful for this, actually. In The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress, there are all sorts of plural marriages, all geared to the fact that Luna, as a penal colony, has about ten men per woman. Clan, line, troika (two husbands, one wife), &c. I have never quite understood how clan and line marriages differ, but both are in principle immortal, as new members are added when/as older ones die off.

Inga said...

“Because many polygamists live lives intentionally out of the spotlight, it is hard to know how many polygamists there are. But one estimate is that there are 50,000 polygamous families in the United States today.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy_in_North_America

Inga said...

“Inga, hmmm, that'd be, what, 32K people or so? Out of 3.2 million? Of course, some are not in Utah, but Idaho and a few other places. And, of course, Mexico; a lot of them fled there during anti-Mormon persecutions in the 19th c.”

Quite right, but as I said several times, fundamentalist LDS and fundamentalist Muslims are conservative. No one with a straight face can declare that either group are progressives.

Inga said...

Michelle Dulak Thompson,

To be clear, because I suspect you are thinking I’m pro polygamy, my assertion has been that these people are conservative, I’m not arguing that I am in agreement with polygamy. I’m actually unsure of the ramifications of making polygamy legal and haven’t made up my mind on the subject yet.

Lurker21 said...

That was Andrew Sullivan's idea: marriage would make gays contented, bourgeois, family-oriented homebodies. That raises the question: when were gays for the most part not bourgeois homebodies? How typical were the excesses of the 1970s of homosexuality in history?

But if your career is teaching Queer Studies, your job is based on the idea that homosexuals are different, also edgy, transgressive and dangerous. Clearly you're not going to take to the idea that gays are just like the typical suburban family across the street. If homosexuality really is being normalized, then trans and poly are the next icebergs to jump to if you're looking for edgy and transgressive forms of gender and sexuality that challenge the traditional order.

Bruce Hayden said...

Talking polygamy and Mormons, we often times take a route between Phoenix and NW MT that loops over the top of the Grand Canyon, then swings up parallel to I-15, and you then pop over a ridge for a straight shot up to just west of Butte on I-90. It has tge advantage of bypassing Las Vegas, and that used to include bypassing the Hoover Dam. It’s still faster than the Vegas route, but the drive through the desert over the top of the canyon is brutal. Normally, we take US 89, that enters Utah right above Page. But several times that route has been closed, and the alternate route, US 89A, doesn’t enter Utah until right before Kanab. Just south of there, in AZ, there is Fredonia. We were driving through there, and just had to stop at the store that offered Beer, Ammo, and Guns. Turns out the store had the same name as my kid’s fiancé’s last name, so took some pictures of it. In any case, one of the beers that they had was Polygamy Porter, which I had to, of course, buy. Unfortunately, somehow my partner decided to store it in the never used dryer in the mud room, and I accidentally hit the on switch. It was, of course, a complete disaster, and you could smell the beer a year or two later. Still haven’t figured out why she thought the dryer was a good place to store beer.

Just in case you think that the presence of that beer there in Fredonia was accidental, it wasn’t. If instead of heading north on US 89A to Kanab, and head west instead, the next town, on AZ 389, is Colorado City right on the AZ/UT border. Which is the center of polygamy in UT (and AZ). It is in the middle of nowhere, and it is easy to move state to state if the authorities show up trying to enforce polygamy laws.

Bruce Hayden said...

“Still haven’t figured out why she thought the dryer was a good place to store beer.”

Ok, asked her, and she almost had a decent excuse. We had bought the Polygamy Porter to share with a friend over in ID. Her daughter and son-in-law visited, and he isn’t good on personal boundaries. She figured that if he saw the beer, he would drink it. So, she was hiding it from him, and not me, which is the usual reason I find stuff in the washer and dryer that shouldn’t be there. That usually means carbs or chocolate.

I'm Not Sure said...

"And when the answers aren't obvious, is it better to give room for individuals to make their own decisions, or should government have more power to decide what will work best in people's personal lives?"

Do you vote for Democrats?

DavidUW said...

Idiot Inga quotes something to support her point then rejects the words 18 minutes later.

DavidUW said...

Oh, but no worry. Fauci & his buds all had nice sinecures at NIH until they retire.
>>
Indeed. That is all Fraudci is good at. Bureaucrating.

Greg The Class Traitor said...

"And when the answers aren't obvious, is it better to give room for individuals to make their own decisions, or should government have more power to decide what will work best in people's personal lives?"

By all means, make your own decisions.

But don't expect us to validate your decisions. Don't expect us to celebrate your decisions. Don't expect us to reward your decisions.

Society rewards heterosexual marriage because out society wouldn't exist without it, and because men marrying women become better, more functional, members of society.

If you demand that we give you those benefits, if you demand that society get involved in your tawdry "relationships", then we most certainly are going to judge your trash, and attack it when it fails to meet our standards.

it's what you invited when you demanded that we get involved.

You want to throw a stupid party where you "marry" your whatever? Go for it, have fun.

You want us to treat your "marriage" as real? FOAD

DavidUW said...

The only people "pushing" polygamy to be legalized in the USA, are not the "fundamentalist LDS" or even the Muslims, but leftist "academics" and such as quoted by the hostess.

Idiot Inga is just playing with the squirrels.

As for JAC, the polygamist situation IS fundamentally unstable and therefore worse for children. As I pointed out above, what inevitably happens is that 20% of the men get 80% of the women, plus or minus. The men, being men, also nearly inevitably take one or two "primary wives" while rotating out a few disposable wives. The disposable wives, with their children end up worse off. Never minding the catfights between the primary wives and the secondary wives to jockey for position/avoid getting cast out.

Inga said...

“The only people "pushing" polygamy to be legalized in the USA, are not the "fundamentalist LDS" or even the Muslims, but leftist "academics" and such as quoted by the hostess.”

Stupid David doesn’t understand that I’m not disagreeing that the left is more in favor of legalizing polygamy, he doesn’t understand that I’m amused to point out that fundamentalist LDS and Muslims are conservative. These people are in YOUR particular ideological sphere in more ways than not.

Vance said...

As a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, or what is popularly called the Mormons, I have of course something to add here.

We, that is, the mainstream church disavowed polygamy in the 1800s. But why did it exist in the first place? It's not like the 1800s were very welcoming to the practice; indeed the Republican party was founded on fighting the "twin barbarisms--slavery and polygamy." Lincoln took on the slaves, but the Republican party spent the next 50 years attacking Utah and the Church.

It's not like polygamy was easy. That's the problem with today's push for it from the left: it's sold as "hot sex and threesomes with the yoga instructor! No guilt!" But that's far from the truth. The Church had to work hard to make it work at all. Frequently, men who wanted to marry another wife were rejected because the leaders knew the guy, and knew it wouldn't work out.

Polygamy puts tremendous pressure on the families involved. This was well known. The vast majority of members of the Church were not in plural marriages. The emotional issues were staggering. Joseph Smith himself knew this all too well; his wife was not at all pleased with the doctrine, and the vast majority of the early leaders of the LDS church took some serious convincing of the practice. They knew it was going to be supremely hard.

To make a polygamous family work takes a prepared people. Much like communal living in general, it only works with a people who are able to overcome their selfishness, their jealousies, and have an enormous skill in working out differences, compromising, and so forth. The fantasy of "I have a harem" never worked out in reality, and the LDS church knew it. Today, the people I know who are still involved in plural marriage societies still have enormous issues, which are not managed well. That makes sense too, since as a faithful member of the Church we believe that God removed His authorization to enter into plural marriages in the 1800s, and thus anyone still in such a relationship is on their own without God's help. That... is not a good place to be.

As for "is polygamy better than one man, one woman?" The answer is clear: maybe. As some of the defenders of the practice put it, polygamy is usually better than serial monogamy. If you are on your fifth spouse, well, polygamy is likely better than that. If you have two women who are absolute saints and the husband is a stellar guy, it's probably better than one man, one woman.

Outside of that rare occurrence? One man, one woman is better than the debased ideas being put out there by the left. Same thing, in my opinion, with Islamic polygamous marriages... they are worse due to the peculiar nature of those relationships.

Next comment will address "So with all of that, why did they have it?"

Vance said...

So why, if all those issues exist, did the LDS Church stubbornly persist in holding onto the doctrine for 60 odd years? For that matter, why did they buck the religious tradition of the time which was firmly anti-polygamy to bring it back at all?

First and foremost, it was commanded by God. Why would God command such a practice, especially given Jesus' command to cleave together as one flesh?

The only answer we have is that God allows polygamy when He wants to "raise up seed" i.e. create a faithful community. The times polygamy has been authorized by God have been times when the numbers of the faithful are few. A strong, righteous man with multiple strong, righteous women can have enormous offspring raised in a household of faith. Indeed, many of the large polygamous marriages in the LDS church had dozens of children, who became the next generation of leaders. I think many if not most children of a polygamous marriage stayed faithful. When the Church grew large enough, the authorization for polygamy ended. Today, the Church grows through converts, not through having 40 children.

Other reasons of course exist: Joseph Smith rediscovered something I think today's churches have forgotten: sacrifice produces faith. If you are converted, you will give anything, do anything. Why would Abraham sacrifice Isaac, the son of promise? He was converted to the Lord and had faith. That same faith, if we wish to get it, requires enormous sacrifice as well. And polygamy is a pretty big ask--especially in the 1800s. Especially with the persecution going on.

Polygamy also set the LDS church apart. You knew you were a "peculiar people" when you were a member. Today, I suspect that our belief in traditional marriage will increasingly set us apart again, as the Inga's of the world tear down traditional morality and accuse us of being "bigots and haters" for not giving in to the demands of the LGBT crowd, along with other Christian groups.

All of the above is to point out the differences between the 1800s era polygamy and what is proposed today. Utah would not vote for polygamy today. Nor would the LDS church jump at the chance to bring it back. Indeed, in other countries where polygamy is legal we do not baptize people who are in polygamous relationships.

Fundamentally, there is a huge difference between today's polygamy ("everyone has sex with everyone!") and the LDS practice, which was still, one man, one woman. Just the man was in multiple marriages at the same time.. but the women did not engage in relations with each other and indeed many if not most maintained their own separate household. This is not what is proposed now. I reject the current proposed polygamy, which after all is being sold as a way to gratify your lusts, not to take on much greater responsibilities and duties.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

Inga,

Stupid David doesn’t understand that I’m not disagreeing that the left is more in favor of legalizing polygamy, he doesn’t understand that I’m amused to point out that fundamentalist LDS and Muslims are conservative. These people are in YOUR particular ideological sphere in more ways than not.

I guess I am lucky not to have graduated to "stupid Michelle" yet. You, Inga, didn't even mention Muslims until I did. Tossing them into David's, or my, "ideological sphere," makes no great sense to me, but I'm glad that it affords you amusement. Whatever gives you joy, I say.

But what was the point of this long discussion? To show that Fundamentalist LDS and "fundamentalist" Muslims are theologically "conservative"? Or to show that they are "conservative" in other ways that matter to you and/or us? The first is dubious in the case of the Fundamentalist LDS, but defensible. The other is more difficult to argue, and to give you justice, you haven't spent much time arguing it. The point appears to be to hand us the icky baby and watch it spit up.

Inga said...

“I guess I am lucky not to have graduated to "stupid Michelle" yet. You, Inga, didn't even mention Muslims until I did. Tossing them into David's, or my, "ideological sphere," makes no great sense to me, but I'm glad that it affords you amusement. Whatever gives you joy, I say.”

Michelle, look at every comment David directs at me. How many times did he refer to me as “idiot Inga”? Perhaps you could scold him for bringing on the rudeness. I don’t call anyone names unless they initiate it. You seem to consistently miss that and swoop down to pass judgment on me while ignoring your fellow conservatives.

You folks are very quick to blame all the world’s ills on liberals and progressives. It does give me a modicum of satisfaction to point out that some of the world’s ills are the fault of conservatives who jump to blame liberals for all of it.

I'm Not Sure said...

Vance said...

Today, I suspect that our belief in traditional marriage will increasingly set us apart again, as the Inga's of the world tear down traditional morality and accuse us of being "bigots and haters" for not giving in to the demands of the LGBT crowd, along with other Christian groups.

I am not a member but have known and had as friends many LDS over the years and have nothing but respect for the church and the principles it stands for. The Inga's of the world won't be happy until everybody is grubbing in the gutter with them. I hope you'll continue wear their disapproval as a badge of honor.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

Inga, I am aware that DavidUW calls you names, and I wish he would cut it out. We could all do with fewer name-calls around here. As someone who was labeled a "bitch" and "evil" just this morning, I'm in your corner on that.

And yet . . . have I "swooped down" on you? Am I one of "you folks"? (If I were Black, could you still say that, I wonder?) And what in tarnation does any of this have to do with polygamy? You mention at one point that you think I am trying to paint you as pro-polygamy. I do not know where you got that. My views on polygamy, so far as I can tell, are much like your own, except that you seem unusually eager to paint all of it as "conservative" for some reason. The New Yorker article itself gives a far more complex and interesting picture. As does Vance, just above, who knows more about the subject than either of us do.

Can we leave things on that level? Once again, I am not here to torment you or anyone else, I am not trying to worm my way into discussions here of which I have had no part, and I do not want to be conflated with those who have. I'm right-of-center, sure, but that doesn't mean All Lefties Are Poopy-Faces. We were having a perfectly civil conversation here.

Inga said...

“The Inga's of the world won't be happy until everybody is grubbing in the gutter with them.”

Grubbing in the gutter, so you say. I was happily married with four children, worked since I was 15 years old, went to nursing school, worked for 35 years as a nurse while being a widow with four children, all my children grew up to be responsible adults and my grandchildren are following in their parents footsteps. So if my life is what you consider “grubbing in the gutter”, you have very poor discernment skills. Or maybe you are just a Trumpist and like Trump’s gutter better. How many wives was Trump faithful to? Answer, none.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

I'm Not Sure,

I, too, value what Vance has posted here, which is more than I knew. And I do know many LDS (there are a fair number in Salem, along with Sikhs and Russian Old Believers and many other groups of believers else). Thanks.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

Inga, I appreciate your life as you've told it, and congratulate you on raising four successful children, among many other things. But what has Trump to do with anything? Show me proof that he's cheated on Melania, and we'll talk, but really.

Inga said...

“We were having a perfectly civil conversation here.”

Indeed we were until you decided this was worth saying to me. I’m not your child, don’t scold me for what you ignore in your fellow conservatives.

You said...
“I guess I am lucky not to have graduated to "stupid Michelle" yet.”

Why would I call you stupid Michelle? Did you insult me first? No. So I have no reason to call you any name in retaliation.

Marty said...

How many classes are there before kindergarten?

mikee said...

I, for one, look forward to the results of "other experiments in intimacy."
I recall seeing an early fictional presentation of Cenobites in the movie Hellraiser, and suspect that's about where this is heading.

DavidUW said...

“The only people "pushing" polygamy to be legalized in the USA, are not the "fundamentalist LDS" or even the Muslims, but leftist "academics" and such as quoted by the hostess.”

Stupid David doesn’t understand that I’m not disagreeing that the left is more in favor of legalizing polygamy, he doesn’t understand that I’m amused to point out that fundamentalist LDS and Muslims are conservative. These people are in YOUR particular ideological sphere in more ways than not.
>>
Idiot Inga is busy gaslighting.

If Idiot Inga were to have understood the reference to Coolidge, Idiot Inga would have understood that polygamy is reactionary, and the "progressives" pushing it are pushing ancient ideas that people deemed "conservative" like me and Coolidge would have no truck with. Our ideas are pro liberty. Polygamy is a fancy way to enslave women.

But Idiot Inga is too stupid to think that through even though I laid it out quite clearly above.

Idiot Inga is an idiot.



DavidUW said...

You folks are very quick to blame all the world’s ills on liberals and progressives. It does give me a modicum of satisfaction to point out that some of the world’s ills are the fault of conservatives who jump to blame liberals for all of it.
>>
That is because, Idiot Inga, the reactionary people you call conservatives who are polygamous have next to zero influence in larger society.

The "progressive (but really reactionary) "theorists" our hostess is quoting promoting polygamy have much more influence over society and law.

DavidUW said...

Idiot Inga is a nurse but does not understand infectious disease.

We should all be thankful she is retired.

Gahrie said...

If they win on this one, it's a coin toss as to which is next..pedophilia (If they can consent to be chemically castrated why shouldn't they be able to consent to sex?), or bestiality (of course animals have the right to consent!).