Polygamy research

The articles exploring the issue include; 'Legalize polygamy' by Jillian Keenan, 'The attack on marriage' by Steven Alderman, 'Polygamy and Human Dignity, by Carson Holloway, 'The Case against Polygamy' by John Witte Jr, and 'An Illustration of Why Polygamy Is and Should Be, Illegal' by Marci A. Hamilton. Marriage is an engagement that takes place between people out of consent. Being a personal decision, marriage to one person is not any different from the one to many given that consent comes from individuals in the right state of mind. Jillian Keenan in her article admits to the drawbacks traceable from polygamous marriage but still believes in the supremacy of the law. I agree with perspective because it is difficult for a person already on the wrong to litigate against another who is aware of their unlawful weakness.

She argues that polygamy would set immigrants who practiced it at home at peace (Keenan par. In her opinion, marriage definition is plastic, and no form of marriage is superior to another. Therefore freedom has no sense unless minority groups, including polygamous marriage subjects, are considered in the United States. I do agree with this view basing on the definition of what freedom entails. The view is based on the premise that an adult has a right to speak out against whatever contravenes their will. He, however, postulates that there would be a single-man surplus, where the rich will marry as many women as they can, and the poor will lack someone to lean on. It is my opinion that freedom of expression and the right to choose for adults are embodied in law to which any kind of engagement are subject.

Polygamy and the decision related to it are not any different from these rights. Carson Holloway, in his article Polygamy and Human Dignity, elucidates why he is against polygamy. The children are entitled to his care. Therefore men lose this experience and respect for human dignity. Men lose the chance of realizing their dignity of taking responsibility for others if they cannot be fathers. I differ with this perspective of polygamy since marrying more than one wife is not a ticket to irresponsibility. The ability to recognize one's blood is enough to trigger responsibility of any kind unless the man experiences inadequacy. John says the state gives polygamy a pathway to flourishing when it seldom prosecutes and that when combining with other wrongs it is punishable by law.

I disagree with his general perspective of a polygamous marriage as a catastrophic hazard in his discussion that should be shielded from being mentioned or thought about in society. It is not the state of being polygamous that hurt women and children, but it is the lame individual character that harms them. Monogamous marriages are not necessarily immune from these lame attributes. Also, neither of the two engagements could be spared by the law. It still is not a legitimate practice to some Christians till today that it was legalized. Polygamy is not any different. She and any other critic are not any different from the Christians who never cherished same-sex marriage but had to put up with its legalization. They too have to listen to their fellow citizens' needs.

It is her opinion that the practice arouses a necessity for men to look for younger women and abandonment of some boys to make it work for them (Hamilton par. The critics of the practice base on the drawbacks already existing in law like marrying minors, excommunication of boys, undermining women. The supporters of polygamy base of the justice and consideration of others' rights the same way the rest are considered. I fall for polygamy, because marriage, by law, must be out of consent. No one can be forced into an engagement when they can render it void at their option. Why would we set laws when they can't be applied or are taken for granted? Women can still earn their dignity.