Originally Posted by Ready2Fly
Agreed. I thought you were arguing that this particular family, who apparently do love each other, could not be considered polyamory.
Oh, no, the husband is definitely very loving and respectful of all of his wives and treats them as individuals. I have much more of a problem when a man has, 20, 30 or 60 wives and it seems to me he wouldn't even have the time to say "good morning" and "good night" to all of them individually, let alone spend quality time with them. And considering they each have only one husband, it makes me sad that the one husband they have has no time for them, and doesn't individually give them the love and respect they deserve.
I think my only problem when it's religious is that I wonder, do the women raised into it even consider the option of it being the other way around? Or is it to them like peeing standing, something that's a "guy thing", and even if they wish they could have someone else, it's just not possible.
When it's not religious, it seems easier for me to think the person made their own choice. When it is, it's hard to know where the personal choice starts, and when the choice that has been made for you ends.
Ultimately, I really only care that they're happy and treated well, but I always wonder if they are aware that there are other options. To some extent, I wonder the same for people in monogamous relationships. Sometimes, they had to choose between two people, and think they made the best choice, and I wonder, do they know they could have made the choice to have both? See what I mean?
Anyways, I think the law has no business in relationships that are between loving and consensual adults, and that's obviously the case here. I understand when the marriages were forced, or happened so early that there is a strong doubt, or even so early that the women were still girls, but I wish the law could be about preventing abuse. There is abuse in non-polygamous unions, too. The problem is the abuse, not the polygamy.