Is monogamous marriage outdated?

[H-Dawg]

I decided to post this new topic in response to a sub-argument that arose in the "Gay Marriage Rights" string that I found really interesting and wanted to pursue, but it didn't really fit into the other topic. So, to get things rolling and everyone up to date, here is the exchange that sparked the sub-topic:

At 4/15/04 02:01 AM, ReiperX wrote: Dawg just summed up the enitre thing quite nicely [regarding gay-marriage being a human-rights issue, and not allowing gays the right to marry = calling them less human than heterosexuals]. At the same time you opened up the argument for the following things, :
People wanting to marry their pigs and have beastiality
-Animals cannot consent to sex, therefore still illegal and will remain illegal.

Pedophiles
-Children cannot consent to sex, or entire contracts (besically what a marriage is) so no go on this one either.

Polygomists
-Everyone is equal due to thay can only marry 1 person, therefore limiting someone who wished to do polygomy wanting to one person is keeping them equal to everyone else therefor not treating them as a second class citizen.

Intriguing, and actually, there was a professor at a college in Toronto ONtario who was pushing for exactly the rights for pedophiles that you mention, and he got fired for it. Again, the limits of my concept of "rights" is who is included in the category of "the human," which would exclude rights for people wanting to practice bestiality. And more than that, in terms of animal rights, can a "beast" ever really be seen to "consent" to sex in the same way that humans do? And as for children, I think children are, in one sense, less fully formed "humans" since they generally are seen as people that have to be protected and thus given special status and rights apart from other humans. For example, you can't send a small child to the same prison or give them the same legal punishment as an adult here in Canada, or in the US. So in light of the inequality between adults and kids, an adult shouldn't be given the "right" to take sexual advantage of the inequality of a child, and a child, given their legal status as "inexperienced," shouldn't be allowed to make the decision to engage in sex with an adult, as their inherent inequality might make them regret that decision later on. As for polygamy, as long as everyone knows about everyone else and agrees, why shouldn't we have polygamy? Other countries do. As far as I'm concerned, serial monogamy is just an outmoded, protestant "bourgeois racist" form of sexual prohibition, and should be gotten rid of.

Any different viewpoints or reactions to this?

[MadMax501]

I don't view polygamy as evil or anything, but this sure would make the situation all the more confusing

[Fiend-Lore]

you do realize that kids have sex with eachother ALL THE TIME, right?

[AbstractVagabond]

I don't see Polygamy as evil, but I don't think it should be legal as it's just cheating the system. Since there's more than 2, would they be getting more government benefits than a regular marriage if polygamy was allowed? I'm trying to figure out how that would work.

[Fiend-Lore]

i doubt it would at all. Techniqualy, it would go against the majority rule.

[RedSkunk]

At 4/17/04 12:45 PM, H-Dawg wrote: For example, you can't send a small child to the same prison or give them the same legal punishment as an adult here in Canada, or in the US.

Sure they can. At least in the US.

As far as I'm concerned, serial monogamy is just an outmoded, protestant "bourgeois racist" form of sexual prohibition, and should be gotten rid of.

You've got to be kidding me.

[H-Dawg]

At 4/17/04 03:08 PM, RedSkvnk wrote:

At 4/17/04 12:45 PM, H-Dawg wrote: For example, you can't send a small child to the same prison or give them the same legal punishment as an adult here in Canada, or in the US.

Sure they can. At least in the US.

As far as I'm concerned, serial monogamy is just an outmoded, protestant "bourgeois racist" form of sexual prohibition, and should be gotten rid of.

You've got to be kidding me.

Nope. Of course, I'm not sure I personally could get my head around polygamy being "normal," since I was raised with and programmed so completely with the "serial monogamy" ideal, but that doesn't mean I agree with it, or think that it has any logical basis.

[RedSkunk]

At 4/17/04 03:32 PM, H-Dawg wrote: ... or think that it has any logical basis.

So what's the logic behind polygamy?

It's all social constructions, sure. But that doesn't make it 'protestant bourgeois racism.'

[Dagodevas]

I too don't see polygamy as being "evil", but it sure does look expensive. I remember seeing a documentary on a Utah man named Tom Green (no relation to the Tom Green we all know and love/hate). The man has about 4 or 5 wives and well over 20 children! The thought of getting into a life like that is chilling to me.

[Dagodevas]

At 4/17/04 03:40 PM, RedSkvnk wrote: So what's the logic behind polygamy?

The philosophy behind it is that God wants you to have a large, fruitful family and that the best way to achieve that is through multiple partners.

[H-Dawg]

At 4/17/04 03:40 PM, RedSkvnk wrote:

At 4/17/04 03:32 PM, H-Dawg wrote: ... or think that it has any logical basis.

So what's the logic behind polygamy?

It's all social constructions, sure. But that doesn't make it 'protestant bourgeois racism.'

I'm refering to Michel Foucault's 1974 book _The History of Sexuality_ in which he warns against "sexual liberation" because any "marginalized" category of sexuality is only marginal because it is refering to (at least in the Western world) a heterosexual, bourgeois "norm" of monogomous marriage of one woman and one man for the purpose of raising productive middle- to upper-class children. He points to the example of the invention of the term "homosexual" which didn't need a term at all before the "norm" became heterosexuality and middle class, and homosexuality was invented as a category of "perversion." Foucault is against categorizations of sexuality all together, and endorses the free possibilities of "bodies and pleasures" outside of the categories and prohibitions of the bourgeois, western heterosexual "norm." He says all of these prohibitions and "knowledges" about sex came about roughly in the 17th century and still persist. So, sexual categories, for Foucault, is really just an expression of "power dynamics" between privileged and non-privileged groups.

[RedSkunk]

At 4/17/04 04:00 PM, H-Dawg wrote: So, sexual categories, for Foucault, is really just an expression of "power dynamics" between privileged and non-privileged groups.

And what is polygamy? Chopped liver?

There have been very few instances of polygamy with multiple male partners and one female throughout history. I can only think of one gorup offhand - a particular caste in India.

So polygamy would boil down to men with multiple wives. Thus it would simply extend the 'power dynamics' between the privileged and non to men and women.

Furthermore, you still haven't reasonably explained why monogamy is 'outdated', nor why polygamy is more appropriate, or should be socially acceptable, et al.

There is no reason to introduce vastly different societal values into ours with no benefits. It's like us westernizing Iraq and Afghanistan.

[H-Dawg]

Hmmmm, I'll try to make that simpler. Even "polygamy" isn't really a "liberation" of one's "natural" sexual tendencies, since without monogomous, heterosexual marriage being the "norm," there isn't any need for calling it "polygamy." So in a sense, being a polygamist is really not liberating anybody, but reinforcing the normalcy of "heterosexual monogamy." I guess my point is, the only thing that seems to makehaving a bunch of "husbands" or "wives" wrong is the status of monogomous, heterosexual marriage as being the "norm." And Foucault says that it was the European bourgeois class in the 17th century that made it the norm. So, it is a form of "bourgeois racism" in that it excludes, for no good reason except the centrality of one group in making the laws, any other way of being married, or entering into sexual unions.

[H-Dawg]

At 4/17/04 04:07 PM, RedSkvnk wrote:

At 4/17/04 04:00 PM, H-Dawg wrote: So, sexual categories, for Foucault, is really just an expression of "power dynamics" between privileged and non-privileged groups.

And what is polygamy? Chopped liver?

There have been very few instances of polygamy with multiple male partners and one female throughout history. I can only think of one gorup offhand - a particular caste in India.

So polygamy would boil down to men with multiple wives. Thus it would simply extend the 'power dynamics' between the privileged and non to men and women.

Furthermore, you still haven't reasonably explained why monogamy is 'outdated', nor why polygamy is more appropriate, or should be socially acceptable, et al.

There is no reason to introduce vastly different societal values into ours with no benefits. It's like us westernizing Iraq and Afghanistan.

These are good points, and if Foucault is right and polygamy is really just an expression of a bourgeois racist sexual "norm" by way of a difference from that norm, then maybe polygamy too is outdated and doesn't really express anyone's "true" sexuality or desires (unless those desires are being shaped by the law itself).

[H-Dawg]

At 4/17/04 04:12 PM, H-Dawg wrote:

At 4/17/04 04:07 PM, RedSkvnk wrote:

At 4/17/04 04:00 PM, H-Dawg wrote:

There is no reason to introduce vastly different societal values into ours with no benefits. It's like us westernizing Iraq and Afghanistan.

These are good points, and if Foucault is right and polygamy is really just an expression of a bourgeois racist sexual "norm" by way of a difference from that norm, then maybe polygamy too is outdated and doesn't really express anyone's "true" sexuality or desires (unless those desires are being shaped by the law itself).

Although.....can we just get rid of the law? Does the law have a function - for example, to guarantee the rights and freedoms of citizens under the law? If the law is necessary to guarantee people's rights, then perhaps categories like "polygamy" become necessary if we are trying to protect the rights of people involved in multi-partner relationships. Just as in gay marriage, should multiple spouses have access to loved ones who are in hospital? What about divorce settlements? And I DON'T think that denying people who have a genuine desire for multiple marriage partners the right to do so just because it is legally more "complicated" is a valid answer. Or that "monogamous marriage" has "always been the norm so why change it?" - that is denying anyone but heterosexual, serial monogamists the right to express their own sexual desire.

[Jlop985]

It seems that some people blame the bourgeois for everything .

[YellowDogD]

Although.....can we just get rid of the law? Does the law have a function - for example, to guarantee the rights and freedoms of citizens under the law?

I say we can get rid of the law, because this particular set of laws on marriage function as an extension of religous principles--and we live in a society dedicated to the seperation of church and state (at least in theory).

Whether you're a Protestant thinking one spouse to every man/woman, or take the Morman view of "spread and multiply", the whole idea of marriage is mired in religion.

Speaking as a Christian, this is not a bad thing--I fully intend to get married into a monogomous relationship one day. But forcing these ideas of the "sanctity" of marriage or "family values" onto the general American public is like making the Bible required reading in school--it's forcing a particular worldview which under our Bill of Rights we have no obligation or compulsion to accept, legally anyway.

Marriage--monogomous, polygamist (one man, many wives), and polyandrist (one woman, many husbands)--has always been about economics--if a man was only sleeping with one woman (or at least a certifiable group of women, or a bunch of brothers sleeping with one woman), there could be no doubt as to the paternity of the child, and that child's place as the rightful heir of the father's land. The whole idea of marriage as a sacred ordained by God or what have you is fairly recent in western culture (though in Judeaic and Hindi culture, it stratches back a good deal farther).

The point is that we should really "divorce" marriage and the law--no tax breaks, no insurance benefits, no nothing. You should gain no more benefit from marriage than you do from going to Church every Sunday, which means some people are going to do it because they gain a deep, spiritual fulfillment from the act, whereas others won't see any reason to bother.

So, to sum up: The current view of marriage is a holdover of Puritan virtues, and thus marriage of any type (excepting the original post's exceptions--children and animals) should be neither encouraged, nor discouraged by our laws and government.

And that's my opinion,
YDD

[Der-Ubermensch]

It seems to me that in this day and age, many core morals and values seem to become "outdated". Where will society draw the line? Homosexuality is no longer taboo ( Don't get me wrong, I respect same-sex relationships, am just using the argument to show how far we're straying from our old mores), adultery and divorce have almost become normal parts of the marrital process, etc.. What is right and wrong in today's society? Where do we turn to establish proper behavioral standards? People are turning their backs on religion, government or any form of structure in general, so what do we have left to turn to? I could go on a tyrade, debating that what feels good isn't necessarily right. We need to keep at least SOME norms of social behavior for crying out loud..

[bumcheekcity]

At 4/18/04 03:11 AM, Ruination wrote: ...We need to keep at least SOME norms of social behavior for crying out loud..

Why so? Just because we used to like them or believe in them, doesn't mean that we should still do so. Slavery was a norm of Social Behaviour. Times move on.

[Dirdmister]

I think monogamous relationships are the right thing because say if a couple still openly slept around with other people....now say if these to have a kid. think of what this would do to that kid seeing his/her parents bringing home different people every night and taking them into the bedroom.
People who are for not having monogamous relationships are just looking for a way to cheat without being in trouble!

[Der-Ubermensch]

At 4/18/04 06:04 AM, bumcheekcity wrote:

At 4/18/04 03:11 AM, Ruination wrote: ...We need to keep at least SOME norms of social behavior for crying out loud..

Why so? Just because we used to like them or believe in them, doesn't mean that we should still do so. Slavery was a norm of Social Behaviour. Times move on.

Hmm... maybe then in 50 years or so, we'll be buying fresh human fetus by the pound instead of veal. Baby... the other other white meat. :)

[bumcheekcity]

At 4/18/04 07:00 AM, Dirdmister wrote: I think monogamous relationships are the right thing because say if a couple still openly slept around with other people....now say if these to have a kid. think of what this would do to that kid seeing his/her parents bringing home different people every night and taking them into the bedroom.

If it was socially acceptable to have a monogomous relationship, then the child wouldn't have any problems, because it would be common.

[H-Dawg]

At 4/18/04 02:59 AM, YellowDogD wrote:

I say we can get rid of the law, because this particular set of laws on marriage function as an extension of religous principles--and we live in a society dedicated to the seperation of church and state (at least in theory).

[...] , nor discouraged by our laws and government.

And that's my opinion,
YDD

This is an interesting and well thought out perspective. However, I wonder if, as another contributor pointed out earlier, marriage - even if it started out being primarily a religious institution - hasn't become more of a financial and social institution? I think that remembering this institution's early roots in the church, but particularly as a property arrangement whereby women were exchanged, as property, from father to new husband - an arrangement sanctioned by the church which states in the Christian bible that woman is man's "helpmeet" - is a valuable excercise, but only insofar as we are genealogically looking back to see how we have arrived at what we now understand as marriage in the here and now. I think that "globalization," which many critics of globalization see as synonimous with "transnational capitalism" or the "financialization of the world" (see Gayatri Spivak "Diasporas old and New" or Frederic Jameson), has largely emptied much of the religious significance from marriage, particularly since there is such an incredibly complex transpolination of cultures and traditions around marriage these days given our globalized world, such that the underlying connection that we all recognize about marriage at the end of the day is a legal and financial one.

[Locke666]

At 4/18/04 03:11 AM, Ruination wrote: It seems to me that in this day and age, many core morals and values seem to become "outdated". Where will society draw the line?

What is right and wrong in today's society? Where do we turn to establish proper behavioral standards? People are turning their backs on religion, government or any form of structure in general, so what do we have left to turn to? I could go on a tyrade, debating that what feels good isn't necessarily right. We need to keep at least SOME norms of social behavior for crying out loud..

It's called progress ruination. You may have heard of it.

[H-Dawg]

At 4/18/04 09:19 PM, Locke666 wrote:

At 4/18/04 03:11 AM, Ruination wrote: It seems to me that in this day and age, many core morals and values seem to become "outdated". Where will society draw the line?

What is right and wrong in today's society? Where do we turn to establish proper behavioral standards? People are turning their backs on religion, government or any form of structure in general, so what do we have left to turn to? I could go on a tyrade, debating that what feels good isn't necessarily right. We need to keep at least SOME norms of social behavior for crying out loud..

It's called progress ruination. You may have heard of it.

I agree with your statement about going too far in getting rid of structures of any kind - kind of like hyper-poststructuralism that Jean Baudrillard calls "simulacra," or surface without depth. But I do think its important to retain the idea that structures, while useful for "doing" things (and really inescapable), are never "originary," "right or wrong," and are always subject to change. And ethics is one such structure, in that our ethical understanding of things is a cultural negotiation - an important one - and therefore we can't rely on older or static ideas of what is "right" or "wrong" in order to judge the usefulness or debaseness of other social structures, like marriage, governments, human rights, etc. But we do have to make decisions and judgments.