Talk:Polygamy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is the subject of an ArbCom ruling. Please abide by the letter and spirit of that ruling.
|
 |
Citation This page was cited by Berkeley Journal of International Law |
Note: the citation of BJIL was in 2003, citing the version of Oct. 22, 2002. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia as an academic source#Published 2003.--Mightyms 22:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 |
||||||
| Archives | ||||||
|
||||||
| About archives |
[edit] Copyright Violation
The text in the reference to Illinois state law in the 1830s was taken directly from http://www.mormonismi.info/jamesdavid/dcandlaw.htm with no accompanying citation. That page has the following notice: "Copyright © 1997, All Rights Reserved. Created by James David." I removed it to make the point that when citing a source, you cite the source from which you obtain the material, not just the source from which your source claims to have taken the material (although that source may indeed be correct). --TrustTruth 02:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Mormons and polygamy
Guys, I want that citation of Wilford Woodruff marrying a person on the high seas after his Manifesto because I see it as very unlikely. I happen to be quite aquainted with Mormon history and while I am not embarassed at the other church leaders, Wilford Woodruff is where I draw the line. This sounds a lot like anti-Mormon folklore. Starhood` 22:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I looked up the reference to the 1886 revelation to John Taylor and after reading it and doing a bit of research it seems that the revelation used by the fundamentalists is actually ambiguous rather than disputed. I am very interested in Mormon studies and can see why they are using the revelation, but the problem is the concept of the revelation has no preface - I cannot find any reason as to the purpose of the revelation, ie what was the question that brought about the revelation. I could not find any evidence this revelation was disputed and so I will change that word to ambiguous. Redrok84 (talk) 02:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Secular Oppositions to Polygamy?
I find it hard to believe that all secular social groups are perfectly fine with polygamy. Arent there some feminist, or hell, romantic opposing voices?
[edit] Polygamy in the Bible
New Testament - What do all the references people use from the bible say? Theres ones where God orders a man to marry a woman when he already has a wife. What thereferences God is against Polygamy? Im sure the bible permits and disallows it else where as it does for most things.
Does the bible say how Polygamy compaeres in sinfullness to sex before marriage or even after remarrying (After Divorce), As these are very common for christians to do!--Polygamyx4 12:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Some observations about the Asian/Chinese section
I am not a Chinese or history expert, but these are what I know from my personal knowledge.
In terms of Chinese polygamy, there are some special cases relating to the Chinese Civil War. For example, there are thousands of cases where one spouse escaped with the Nationalists to Taiwan, but the other spouse somehow were left behind in Mainland China. If either then subsequently remarried, then he or she would be technically be guilty of polygamy. However, such cases were usually quickly fixed by local courts by invalidating the old marriage. Still, it makes for old sad reunions when the two somehow meet again.
As for "second woman", or yi-nai in Cantonese, yi means "two", and nai, this word has multiple meanings and connotations. Literally, it's written the same as "milk", which means i have to get into a Chinese lesson. This word is also associate with nai-ma, or literally "milk mother", someone hired to breast feed the baby when the mother cannot/will not do so herself, but sometimes simply referred to senior house-maid/baby-sitter. Another is "nai-nai", which is an affectionate term for "grandmother". However, the word is pronounced with a higher, rising tone, making it a separate word from "milk". The term itself describes woman, but with a negative connotation.
The term "yi-nai" has a very negative connotation to it, almost as bad as "prostitute" in some circles such as women's rights groups. It's also sometimes seen as a perverse status symbol among the men, as it's a way to flaunt one's wealth and taste in women. Yi-nai's are usually well-cared for, as the man are expected to pay for everything, from the housing to the expense accounts. Therefore, some housing complexes where a lot of yi-nai's congregate are known as yi-nai-chung (or second woman village, literally). Such villages are usually in the southern parts of China, but recently expanded to most major cities with International airports, where the rich merchants who can afford such luxuries, can reach easily. It started in the South as that is closest to Hong Kong, the primary doorway to China for hundreds of years.
Traditional Chinese marriage is monogamous. Taking concubines are NOT considered marriages for the most part. Indeed, in some cases the "groom" doesn't even need to show up. If they are rich enough, they just send a limo (or the period equivalent) and a lot of dowry/money to the "bride" residence to pick her up and drop off the gifts. Obviously, someone have to "arrange" the terms, but there's minimal "paperwork" involved. The "wife" is sometimes refered to as "yuan-pei" (mandarin) which seems to say "first match partner". Tai-tai, on the other hand, just means "female spouse". Indeed, wife can be refered to as "da-tai-tai" (big/first wife), first concubine, or 2nd wife, is "er-tai-tai", and so on.
Relationship among polygamy wives can vary greatly. Some are friendly, as if they are "sisters", some are merely cordial, while others can be outright hostile. Indeed, a lot of period drama plays on the theme of a young innocent girl pressured into being a concubine for an old rich merchant, who has an extremely jealous wife, and the tough life she faces. A typical plot is she falls for the young handsome son of her "husband". In the worst cases, the most junior of concubines may be little better than the servants.
--Kschang77 08:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Wrong Information
- For example, polygamy is prohibited by law in Turkey, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Syria, and Lebanon.
This statement is wrong, polygamy is allowed in both Syria and Lebanon. Also, this statement:
- In the modern Islamic world, polygamy is mainly found in traditionalist Arab cultures, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates for instance
Is POV, there is nothing to prove that. I would genuinely be interested in seeing any statistics that proove that polygamy is more widespread in Saudi Arabia than it is in Morocco, Egypt or Syria as an example (not to mention other countries such as India or Indonesea). Countries where it is against the law (such as Turkey) don't count because people do not have the same freedom. --Maha Odeh 10:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Request for Bibliographic Inclusion
Cool Hand has requested that I petition the user community to evaluate our newly published book, Polygamy: The Mormon Enigma, to determine whether or not it sufficiently adds to the discussion of this and other articles. If it is found to be of value, the book would be added to the bibliography. The reason for his request is that because I am the publisher and my father is the author, our submission of the book to the bibliography violates WP:COI. Interested reviewers can request a galley copy of the book by contacting me Howick. The book specifically discusses the legal and religious history of polygamy, its political impact, the LDS perspective, and its future. Tou can view an excerpt (including the table of contents) via this link: EXCERPT. WindRiver Publishing (talk) 22:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- I oppose. No sources mention this book, and it doesn't even appear to be released. The "bibliography" section is not pre-release publicity for new title. I would favor including only when the book is released with reviews which suggest it's a valuable addition to the field. It's listed under "politics" rather than "history" or "sociology," so I have my doubts. Cool Hand Luke 20:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Response: The book is new (publication date: Dec 8, 2007). The book's printed and published genre is BISG REL084000, Religion/Religion, Politics, and State. Despite offering a galley of the book free of charge to any interested party, no one (including Cool Hand Luke) has asked for one. Judging a book about polygamy to be valueless because it hasn't had substantial review (see example, below) or focuses on the legal and political aspects of the practice (especially when the article has a section about legal issues) seems disingenuous. However, we're happy to submit to the criteria determined by this group, so long as it is applied fairly to everyone in the Bibliography.
For example, the first book listed in the Bibliography, Modern Polygamy and Mormon Fundamentalism... by Brian Hales, has had no discussion on this talk page or in any of the archives. It was published March 29 of this year and, after searching through *all* of its Google entries, has had one article in the Deseret News (seven months before its publication date), one podcast (published Nov 12, 2007 — two months after the title was posted in the Bibliography), and a couple of blog entries. I can't find any sources that mention the book. The book doesn't seem to meet Cool Hand Luke's criteria, but it was added on 9 September 2007 by 71.219.132.70 apparently without complaint.If this forum is to do the thing that Tori said to use our book as a test case for establishing policies for bibliographic inclusion, that's fine, so long as the forum remains unbiased until making its decision, and then applies that decision fairly. Meaning, incidentally, that either all of the books in the Bibliography that don't meet the forum's current policy be removed, or that all submitted books (including ours) be included until a decision is made.WindRiver Publishing (talk) 05:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- Thanks for the tip regarding the non-notable Hales book. It's now removed from this article's bibliography. Binksternet (talk) 18:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Polyamory
I have removed the following, it is unreferenced and poorly written. A polygamous marriage doesn't have to involve romance or love at all, so the definition is inaccurate. I will add a link at "see also".
- Polyamory refers to romantic or sexual relationships involving multiple partners at once, regardless of whether they involve marriage. Any polygamous relationship is polyamorous, and some polyamorous relationships involve multiple spouses. "Polygamy" is usually used to refer to multiple marriage, while "polyamory" implies a relationship defined by negotiation between its members rather than cultural norms. It is also seen as a modern euphemism (replacing the older term "swinging") to attempt to avoid the social stigma attached to polygamy. [citation needed]
[edit] 'rampant extramarital affairs'
I think we need a quotation for that. What does 'rampant' mean here? Is it more than in other countries? 'rampant' is an unscientific term. Please rephrase the paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.87.235.91 (talk) 22:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Jurisdiction
What happens if some moves from a country, like Saudi Arabia, that does allow polygamy to a country, like the United States, where it's illegal? Are all marriages recognized or is the person forced to only accept the first spouse as legal? Emperor001 (talk) 18:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] New Testement view on polygamy
I added to the "Christianity" section, the chapters and verse that promote monogamy.
Also, is there a term for a marriage where both the husband and wife in a marriage, are leagally or illegally married to multiple spouses? Or does that just fall under bigamy and polygamy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vivify (talk • contribs) 22:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
MORE ABOUT THE CHINESE/HONG KONG SECTION
1. It was not clear why beginning from Han Dynasty, the Chinese could only take one wife. Chinese could take a wife and numerous concubines as long as he could, and that was BEFORE Han Dynasty, during Han Dynasty and after Han Dynasty.
2. If I remember correctly, Repulic of China banned polygamy (not to mention Taipeng Rebellion), but this was not enforced.
3. In Hong Kong, the former British Colonial Government did not really allow polygamy. What the 1973 law did was to grant legality to former polygamous marriages (under traditional Chinese context), and after that date, all polygamyous marriages, Chinese style or not, were to be illegal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.246.124.11 (talk) 05:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Why is it illegal?
It doesn't explain anywhere in the article why polygamy is illegal in modern countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bothtotally (talk • contribs) 01:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Some secular arguments against polygamy
1. The various complications in dissolution of the marriage such as determining community property and child custody.
Mediating divorce is generally the province of the legal system and is frequently very contentious. Legal marriage in a largely secular society such as the US is the province of the legal system. Similar for inheritance upon death of a spouse, particularly the husband in a polygynous relationship.
2. Although one can imagine happy, balanced, polygamous marriages in practice, the oddball small tribe excepted, the practice tends towards male dominated societies and polygyny exclusively (Islam, fundamentalist LDS.) One could argue that this is no accident.
3. As seen in the recently publicized case (FLDS) polygamy seems to be reasonably associated with sexual predation particularly of children. The reasoning is that tearing down the simple boundaries of monogamous marriage leads to a blurring of other sexual norms (if you'll admit that not forcing young girls into sexual marriages is a "norm".) One could argue that this doesn't have to be a result of polygamy, but it's difficult to argue against actual incidents which may involve thousands of complicit adults with hypotheticals.
4. Polygamy by its nature restricts the gene pool. The FLDS and other related polygamous communities have a startling incidence of fumarase deficiency, a genetic defect which seems to have been present in the founding two families. Fumarase deficiency is essentially fatal. Victims are almost always profoundly mentally retarded, can't care for themselves or even sit up, have up to half of their brain mass missing, and don't live very long after birth. One could argue that a polygamous relationship makes such children easier to care for (multiple caregivers in a household) but that seems rather cynical if that's also the cause. So one can argue that laws against polygamy are related, pragmatically, to laws against incest.
5. Polygamy is often organized around a notion of a first wife being special or in charge of the other wives, or a favorite wife (chosen by the husband for personal reasons) with that role.
Some might find this acceptable while others might view the marital discord potential with some trepidation. Perhaps it shouldn't be up to the state to use its powers to enforce what it sees as propitious marriage pairings; consider the history of the miscegenation laws as a terrible example of the state meddling in this area. But as described above at some point if it's a legally recognized marriage then mediating its dissolution or more severe disputes often falls to the state.
One could counter-argue that by this reasoning the state should prohibit marriages where one or both partners are unrehabilitated habitual substance abusers or have failed in several other serial marriages or a myriad of other preconditions which might make the proposed marriage likely to fail.
Divorce and serious marital discord (e.g., requiring legal intervention) should be investigated in polygamous vs. monogamous marriages.
6. The FLDS community may not be representative but it is interesting that the mothers have refused to identify the fathers of the children they claim are theirs (do they even know?) and the children don't seem to know who their fathers are either. Perhaps this is acceptable to some, but again here we have this real life example to study and there seems to be tremendous social and role confusion. Is it inherent? Or just their particular choice? It certainly would be difficult to confuse parentage so thoroughly in a purely monogamous society. I said purely, extra-marital affairs notwithstanding.
P.S. I don't represent the above as research quality. It's completely devoid of references for one thing. But I thought it might be useful to list some secular arguments against polygamy which try to stay within reasonable bounds of discourse.
Bshein (talk) 00:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- There needs to be sources for anything added. Point 2 seems speculation and dubious - there are plenty of people who practice happy balanced multiple relationships (e.g., see polyamory, it's just that the laws of the land prevent them from marrying, i.e., practicing polygamy), and on the other hand, there are plenty of examples of dysfunctional monogamous marriages (from divorce, to forced arranged marriages). Similarly for point 3 - the same flawed argument that doing one thing outside of the norm means accepting other things outside of the norm is used against same sex marriages. Points 2-6 all seem specific to the FLDS, and are not inherent properties of polygamy.
- If there are notable people who make these criticisms, I'd say they can be added, but it should not be done in a way that presents these criticisms as true, and ideally we should find opposing points of view. Mdwh (talk) 01:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Big Love
The article states: Big Love is an HBO series about a polygamous family in Utah in the first decade of the 21st century. In the series, Bill Henrickson has three wives and seven children, who belong to a fundamentalist Mormon splinter group.
To the best of my knowledge, this family, in fact, does not "belong" to any organized group as stated by the father figure (Bill Paxton) in both the pilot and episode 1 Season 1. They appear to adhere to some of their teachings (i.e. polygamy and sometimes prayer), but don't actually belong to either "The Brotherhood" or to the mainstream Mormon church. Felinity (talk) 12:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] cite mess
Something wierd is going on after Benefits of polygamy Bachcell (talk) 21:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Polygamy
Polygamy was started in utah by the mormons because the lord told Brigham Young (The prophet of the LDS Church) to take care of their people because most of the men were killed off when lived in Missouri and Nauvoo. The LDS church stopped doing polygamy when the U.S. wanted them to stop so they could make utah a state. The people who still believed that polygamy was the right thing to do are the people in the FLDS religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.33.208.47 (talk) 22:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Same-Sex Marriage and Polygamy
I was just curious about this, as i just thought up about this, that if Same-Sex polygamy ever has happen. I'd like to know about that as i think in some way its kinda interesting but maybe probably to some of you, Morbid. But i don't mean to gross anybody out, really. And to tell you a example about this, like a man having two husbands and so on. So please answer as you can and as i might have told you earlier, that i think it'd interesting to talk about in some form or another.Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.243.40.125 (talk) 19:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think it has been legal anywhere, at least not in modern times. The areas where the two are legal tend not to overlap. But surely there are people out there living in same-sex polyamorous relationships (though I don't know any examples personally). NisJorgensen (talk) 21:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] FLDS not Mormons or LDS Church
The Associated Press Guide of Style instructs journalists to use the term "Mormon" to refer to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and those who claim official membership. Early Mormon leaders ended the practice among its members and members are sanctioned with excommunication if they practice polygamy. The term "Mormon offshoot" is a misleading term for the FLDS church, even if some members of this organization claim affiliation with the LDS church in any form. See http:\\www.lds.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.226.104.225 (talk) 16:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Someone just deleted this comment and I've undeleted it. Personally, I find it odd that LDS get to bar other groups from calling themselves Mormon, but still get to call themselves xtian, but if the AP has really made this style than I think it should be respected. "Mormon offshoot" on the other hand, makes perfect sense. FiveRings (talk) 16:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Same-sex marriage proponents and pedophilia
I find this bit from the article a little problematic:
Many proponents of same-sex marriage are also in favour of maintaining current statutory prohibitions against polygamy, arguing that while same-sex marriages do not involve toleration of pedophilia amongst practitioners, the same is not true of most polygamists in the United States.
The problems are multiple: - Akward wording, "do not involve toleration ..." - Unsubstantiated claim that most polygamists in the US _do_ "involve toleration of pedophilia" - or rather that some ssm-proponents claim this. - "Many proponents ..., arguing ..." I consider weasel words, since not all people mentioned in the first half subscribe to the argument. Also, "many" is vague in itself.
Since I have a feeling that the first half of the sentence is correct, I have just changed the linking of the two parts, and added a "citation needed" for the claim made in the second half. If I had better knowledge of the different positions in the US debate, I might have rewritten the second half completely. NisJorgensen (talk) 21:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
