Polygamy / Group Marriages

[KrazyGlue]

Ok, so we all know what people here think about homosexuality. But what of polygamy? This issue provides several interesting facets to consider, so stay tuned.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Polygamy / Group Marriages​

The Issue

Should polygamy be legal? Should group marriages be legal? How many people should a person or group be able to marry if they should be legal?​

Definitions

Polygamy: when one person marries multiple spouses. When a man has multiple wives, it is known as polygyny. When a woman has multiple husbands, it is known as polyandry.
-
Group Marriage: when a marriage includes multiple husbands and wives.​

Points to Consider

1. Polygamy is yet another challenge to the traditional definition of marriage. First, interracial marriage challenged this, but is now widely accepted. Now, gay marriage is also bucking tradition, and is the current hot conversation. Polygamy could very well be the next "new" expansion of the definition of marriage. I think all of us here support interracial marriage, and probably over half support gay marriage. If you support gay marriage but not polygamy, how would you argue that gays should be accommodated but not polygamists?

2. If you support polygamy, how many spouses should a person be able to have (or should this be capped at all)? It sounds ridiculously arbitrary to just say "ok, you have your 3 wives now; you're done." However, some people have deliberately had many wives as a money-making scheme. Rick Ross reports: "Welfare is often how polygamist communities like Hildale in Utah and Colorado City in Arizona substantially support themselves. Polygamists often use food stamps to feed their families. Former polygamist Benjamin Bisline said, 'If it wasn't for government subsidies, these people couldn't survive. There are people here with 15 wives on welfare.' Bisline still lives in a polygamist town." More can be found here.

3. These same arguments can be extended towards group marriages. Would you ban this practice if you support gay marriage or even polygamy? If so, how would you rationalize this? Would you cap the amount of spouses? If so, how could you find a way to make it slightly less arbitrary? If not, you're essentially saying everyone can marry everyone, which defeats the purpose of marriage.

4. Many people think of polygamists as crazy fringe groups. This is sometimes true, but many polygamist families are composed of completely kind and reasonable people. Let's try to avoid generalized personal attacks against polygamists, especially the question of why polyandry is so much less common than polygyny. That's not the aspect of the issue I'd like to discuss. This is a debate on the legality of polygamy and group marriages, not the demographics and personal beliefs of polygamist families.​

With all that said, happy debating to all! Let's keep this clean and fun.

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

I will be taking the position of "it is ok as long as every member of this agreement will treat every one else equally."

The reason I hold this idea is that I can not see anything morally wrong with the act in its self. It does not hurt anyone (If every one treats everyone equally) and I do not see it encouraging an immoral act. So I really can not see a problem with it. That is the reason I hold the position that I do.

As for how they should get benefits from the government that is an economic issue, not a moral one.

The reason why this is an important point it that it is an economic benefit to not allow gay, polygamy, or even strait marriage. (we do allow 1/3 of those on the list) The case for one of those can not be moral and just have one as economic for the sake of argument. Why? Because marriage gay strait or rectangle has the exact (as far as I am aware) economic formula with the change being who is involved and the number.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

To be honest, I don't see anything wrong with polygamy or group marriage. As long as everyone involved consents to the marriage, and no-one is hurt by it, there is nothing wrong with it.

However, the welfare issue, appears to be a little bit of a scam, and it could be dealt with, by legalising polygamy/group marriage, and giving them the welfare benefits appropriate. So instead of giving out welfare benefits to the women as if they were single and supporting children, they should be given welfare benefits as if they were married and supporting children. A change in welfare policy may be necessary to tackle this issue though, because financially, being married to one person is very different to being married to 3 or more.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Well, this issue is a bit tricky for me. I do think polygamy and group marriages should be legal, just as I believe gay marriage should be legal.

Bob, I agree with your idea that welfare should be adjusted for polygamist/group families. The only reason it hasn't so far is because people can't legally call themselves a polygamist family (even though there are quite a few of them). There should be a scale of some sort based off of how many people are involved in the marriage.

One of the problems I see is when you guys propose there should be no cap on how many could be married. Yes, it would be extremely arbitrary, but it seems absurd that an uncapped group marriage could technically mean everyone in the entire country marrying everyone else. That's where the issue can get a bit sticky.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Bob, I agree with your idea that welfare should be adjusted for polygamist/group families. The only reason it hasn't so far is because people can't legally call themselves a polygamist family (even though there are quite a few of them). There should be a scale of some sort based off of how many people are involved in the marriage.

Exactly.

One of the problems I see is when you guys propose there should be no cap on how many could be married. Yes, it would be extremely arbitrary, but it seems absurd that an uncapped group marriage could technically mean everyone in the entire country marrying everyone else. That's where the issue can get a bit sticky.

Yeah, but I really don't see the problem with uncapped grouped marriages. I mean, as long as the people involved are happy with it, there isn't really anything wrong. Sure you could have a marriage with 12 people involved, but I don't care, I don't see the problem with that. And anything reaching the 2 digit barrier is probably very unlikely.

 

[KrazyGlue]

I just feel like some level of responsibility is needed. I know the government should avoid invading people's personal lives as much as possible, but it seems like one man won't be realistically able to take care of 20 wives and 50 kids. It just seems like the government should have some power to intervene if conditions are out of control to the degree that some family members will not receive the care they need.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

I just feel like some level of responsibility is needed. I know the government should avoid invading people's personal lives as much as possible, but it seems like one man won't be realistically able to take care of 20 wives and 50 kids. It just seems like the government should have some power to intervene if conditions are out of control to the degree that some family members will not receive the care they need.

I'm sure such problem could exist, but it's probably fairly rare. I think the government could break up the whole arrangement under the grounds of negligence of the parents, but I don't think every case of negligence is going to be dealt with appropriately. It just sounds very hard, you're going to have to break up a large family, and then make sure the fragments are well-looked after. It's going to be a costly business, and the government already has larger fish to fry when it comes to children not receiving basic care.

 

[KrazyGlue]

As for the rarity, that's probably true, but when you're 90 years old with 100 wives and 160 children, something needs to be done.

Homeless children are obviously an issue as well, but that doesn't mean insufficiently cared-for children in polygamist families shouldn't receive help either.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

As for the rarity, that's probably true, but when you're 90 years old with 100 wives and 160 children, something needs to be done.

Homeless children are obviously an issue as well, but that doesn't mean insufficiently cared-for children in polygamist families shouldn't receive help either.

Yeah, I see your point, it's perfectly possible, and the second point is true as well. However, I think that at the moment, the government has larger fish to fry than taking care of the extreme cases of polygamy that may or may not go wrong.

 

[DoH]

Ok, first of all, polygamy isn't defying traditional marriage; it is traditional marriage taken to its extreme. It's an accumulation of property; one man acquires the wombs of several women to produce more of his spawn. It's the antithesis of gay marriage. Gay marriage is the natural extenuation of marriage equality, this time extending it to a gender neutral partnership. Polygamy is just the opposite, where gender inequality is celebrated. No liberal democratic society has ever been polygamous because polygamy spits in the face of societal progress. As capitalism introduced more freedom to nations, so did their attitudes change. Marriage was no longer the traditional definition, where one man made the gift of property called daughter to another man which became the property called wife. People were able to marry by choice and for love, something that runs very contrary to the traditional definition of marriage. As times have changed, the current definition of marriage has changed as well, as it has become a partnership of equals, to the point in which it makes no logical sense to exclude same-sex couples from making that same level of commitment. In the polygamous compounds that have been discovered, there have been numerous problems, such as domestic abuse, child marriages/child ****, and the abandonment of male children as they are seen by the group elders as competition for the women.

Polygamy also has severe impacts for society. If one man has two or more wives, it stands to reason that another man has no wife. This leads to several problems. For one, one of the benefits of marriage is that it stabilizes men. Without families, these men may become restless and ultimately may turn to criminal activity to ease their ache. An analogous situation is in China; there they have a big problem with sex-selected abortions, due to the one child policy. Families abort females because China places great pride in having a son. This has resulted in a skewed demographic, with not enough women to support the burgeoning male population. This means that the males who have wealth, power, and looks will attract the dwindling female population, while those without those resources will be left out in the cold; these men are generally already poor, and therefore are even more at risk for turning to crime. Marriage turns into a zero-sum game, which is bad for society as a whole.

Lastly, monogamous marriage has the arguments of biological necessity going for it; gay men are attracted to other men, straight women are attracted to men, so they must marry that type of partner. No one is biologically forced to be attracted to multiple people. There's no warrant as to why polygamy should be legalized.

 

[th3kuzinator]

Ok, first of all, polygamy isn't defying traditional marriage; it is traditional marriage taken to its extreme. It's an accumulation of property; one man acquires the wombs of several women to produce more of his spawn. It's the antithesis of gay marriage. Gay marriage is the natural extenuation of marriage equality, this time extending it to a gender neutral partnership. Polygamy is just the opposite, where gender inequality is celebrated. No liberal democratic society has ever been polygamous because polygamy spits in the face of societal progress.

Spot on.

Polygamy also has severe impacts for society. If one man has two or more wives, it stands to reason that another man has no wife. This leads to several problems. For one, one of the benefits of marriage is that it stabilizes men. Without families, these men may become restless and ultimately may turn to criminal activity to ease their ache.

Though this may be true for very secluded, non-cosmopolitan communities, this does not accurately reflect the majority of polygamist groups. You cannot deny the legitimacy of polygamy by assuming that an alpha-male community may evolve leading to the inevitable delinquency of some of its members.

Marriage can also bring about just as many problems as it can actually helps stabilize a family unit. I don't see how marriage is the deciding stabilizing factor which keeps people away from criminal activity.

However if we were to imagine a community where your conditions were true, legalizing group marriage may be a decent alternative solution to just outright banning both practices.

This means that the males who have wealth, power, and looks will attract the dwindling female population, while those without those resources will be left out in the cold; these men are generally already poor, and therefore are even more at risk for turning to crime. Marriage turns into a zero-sum game, which is bad for society as a whole.

Lets assume there was a village with 10x more men than women (or vice a versa) and that polygamy was legal. This would be sexual selection at its finest. The women would go for the handsomest, wealthiest, most powerful men for a reason: to pass down these traits to their offspring.

Though on the surface it may seem that the woman is looking for a partner superficially, there are many other factors behind her decision. In terms of the wealth and power category, she may sub-conciously gauge that, but her picking this partner, she has a greater chance of sustaining a nurturing and affluent environment for her child. In terms of looks, she may realize that the same traits that she finds attractive in the father could be passed down to the offspring and would thus benefit him when the time to find a mate comes. Also, if such a powerful, wealthy, handsome man did exist, it would just prove the legitimacy of his good genes and thus make him more desirable in the first place. In this way, she takes the least amounts of risks to preserve the lineage.

After sexual selection takes hold, the non advantageous traits get lost/die out and the prominent ones continue on while mutations help create different gradients.

Would this be a bad thing in such a community? I say no. While the less fortunate males would not be able to prosper and thus not copulate, the average gene quality of this community would only improve. Although polygamy may not favor those with bad character traits, it would certainly benefit the offspring of the alpha males which leads to an ever increasing higher standard of traits. In a certain sense, I would call this beneficial to society as a whole.

Lastly, monogamous marriage has the arguments of biological necessity going for it; gay men are attracted to other men, straight women are attracted to men, so they must marry that type of partner. No one is biologically forced to be attracted to multiple people. There's no warrant as to why polygamy should be legalized.

Biological necessity for woman and men? Copulate. That is legitimate.

Biological necessity for men and other men? Pleasure, happiness, enjoyment etc. Not exactly a necessity now is it.

Biological necessity for polygamy? Pleasure, enjoyment, happiness, financial benefits etc. I do not agree with the loophole in the welfare system, but, when compared with homosexual marriage, these reasons seem legitimate enough to me.

I am sure there are people who are biologically actually attracted to more than one person, even if they do not necessarily have to marry both of them to satisfy this need. A bisexual male may end up marrying either sex even though he has a biological preference for both. If you support the legalization of gay marriage and all the necessities that it stands for, why not polygamy?

 

[KrazyGlue]

Read this a while ago but just forgot to respond.

Ok, first of all, polygamy isn't defying traditional marriage; it is traditional marriage taken to its extreme. It's an accumulation of property; one man acquires the wombs of several women to produce more of his spawn.

What you're talking about here is polygyny, not polygamy.

It's the antithesis of gay marriage. Gay marriage is the natural extenuation of marriage equality, this time extending it to a gender neutral partnership. Polygamy is just the opposite, where gender inequality is celebrated. No liberal democratic society has ever been polygamous because polygamy spits in the face of societal progress.

Polygamy can go either way; a male can marry multiple females and a female can marry multiple males. I'd appreciate if you'd read the definitions in the OP.

People were able to marry by choice and for love,

And now you'd propose to take that right away from polygamist families?

In the polygamous compounds that have been discovered, there have been numerous problems, such as domestic abuse, child marriages/child ****, and the abandonment of male children as they are seen by the group elders as competition for the women.

You know, I specifically asked for people to not discuss this aspect of the issue. And even then, this point is wrong. I don't know where you got this information (no sources provided), but there are plenty of perfectly functioning polygamist families.

I can't find the actual video, but they had this perfectly well-functioning polygamist family on Oprah. Source

Polygamy also has severe impacts for society. If one man has two or more wives, it stands to reason that another man has no wife. This leads to several problems. For one, one of the benefits of marriage is that it stabilizes men. Without families, these men may become restless and ultimately may turn to criminal activity to ease their ache. An analogous situation is in China; there they have a big problem with sex-selected abortions, due to the one child policy. Families abort females because China places great pride in having a son. This has resulted in a skewed demographic, with not enough women to support the burgeoning male population. This means that the males who have wealth, power, and looks will attract the dwindling female population, while those without those resources will be left out in the cold; these men are generally already poor, and therefore are even more at risk for turning to crime. Marriage turns into a zero-sum game, which is bad for society as a whole.

Again, this may be true for a society that only includes polygyny, but I'm talking about polygamy as a whole. And I've said I don't want to discuss polygyny and polyandry individually.

No one is biologically forced to be attracted to multiple people. There's no warrant as to why polygamy should be legalized.

No people are biologically forced to be attracted to people of a different race.

 

[ballin4life]

The thing about polygamy (both the polygyny and polyandry versions) is that it is VOLUNTARY.

If people are being FORCED to marry, then that is wrong. Likewise, cases of domestic abuse, child ****, etc should not be allowed obviously. But if you simply choose to marry someone who already has multiple spouses, then that is your choice and you should be free to make it.

Another point I want to bring up: From the perspective of law and society at large, marriage should be nothing more than a contract saying "We will share our stuff". There's no reason to prevent people from signing such a contract multiple times.

Now, many people and organizations view marriage as a religious experience as well, but in that case I say that it should just be up to the specific church (not the government) as to whether they will allow polygamy.

 

[DoH]

Though this may be true for very secluded, non-cosmopolitan communities, this does not accurately reflect the majority of polygamist groups. You cannot deny the legitimacy of polygamy by assuming that an alpha-male community may evolve leading to the inevitable delinquency of some of its members.

If polygamy is the direct cause of this impact, then yes, that's just one more reason not to legalize it. We outlaw things all the time, even if there's been asserted a right to it, because there's a rational basis for it. Additionally, what is to gain by legalizing polygamy?

Marriage can also bring about just as many problems as it can actually helps stabilize a family unit. I don't see how marriage is the deciding stabilizing factor which keeps people away from criminal activity.

However if we were to imagine a community where your conditions were true, legalizing group marriage may be a decent alternative solution to just outright banning both practices.

Why would polygamy solve any problems? There's no warrant to that statement. Monogamous marriage does stabilize men and families.

Imagine a society of 40 adults, 20 males and 20 females (actual sex ratios at birth favor males but put that aside). Suppose these 20 males vary from the unemployed high school drop outs to CEOs, or billionaires (there are 425 billionaires in North America). Let's assume that the 12 men with the highest status marry 12 of the 20 women in monogamous marriages. Then, the top five men (25 percent of the population) all take a second wife, and the top two (10 percent) take a third wife. Finally, the top guy takes a fourth wife. This means that of all the marriages, 58 percent are monogamous. Only men in the top 10 percent of status or wealth married more than two women. The most wives anyone has is four.

This degree of polygynous marriage is not extreme in cross-cultural perspective, but it creates a pool of unmarried men equal to 40 percent of the male population who are incentivized to take substantial risks so they can eventually participate in the mating and marriage market. ... The evidence indicates that unmarried men gather in groups, engage in personally risky behavior (gambling, illegal drugs, alcohol abuse), and commit more serious crimes than married men, including ****, murder, theft, property crimes, and assault.

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Polygamy+harmful+society+scholar+finds/3290757/story.html

Your arguments about free market and competition ignores what happens with the surplus men after they are left without wives. They don't just die out. They will do stuff to try and be competitive, which to magically acquire more resources to be competitive means a turn to crime. This is being seen right now in India and China with their surplus of men. Additionally these arguments you make about polygamy being good for competition also justify eugenics and sterilization, because hey, that'd be good for society if we just purged anyone with unwanted traits, like down syndrome, homosexuality, and Jews.

Biological necessity for woman and men? Copulate. That is legitimate.

Biological necessity for men and other men? Pleasure, happiness, enjoyment etc. Not exactly a necessity now is it.

Biological necessity for polygamy? Pleasure, enjoyment, happiness, financial benefits etc. I do not agree with the loophole in the welfare system, but, when compared with homosexual marriage, these reasons seem legitimate enough to me.

I am sure there are people who are biologically actually attracted to more than one person, even if they do not necessarily have to marry both of them to satisfy this need. A bisexual male may end up marrying either sex even though he has a biological preference for both. If you support the legalization of gay marriage and all the necessities that it stands for, why not polygamy?

No one is necessarily attracted to multiple people in the way that people are sexually oriented towards a certain gender. Gay people are necessarily attracted to their own gender. That is a necessity. I support gay marriage because it is good for society and progress, and there's no reason to ban it because it doesn't harm anything. Polygamy on the other hand does. It is not about some libertarian 'do as you want as long as you don't inflict on other people's rights' because polygamy is inherent detrimental to society; we have freedom of speech but with limits, like you can't shout fire in a crowded theater. Rights are not absolute in this sense and can (and should be) curtailed when there's a rational basis to. The Supreme Court doesn't even recognize it as a religious right because of its impacts. Just because you are attracted to every Tom, **** and Jane doesn't mean you get to marry them. Marriage has now evolved to be a partnership between two people - our marriage laws are structured to reflect this - not a contract between multiple parties. To claim that you can have the level of trust between even three people is preposterous.

Polygamy can go either way; a male can marry multiple females and a female can marry multiple males. I'd appreciate if you'd read the definitions in the OP.

Please, there has never been practical polyandry. Here, Topanga shows us why;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIDXGD1YrmI

In practice, polygamy is always polygyny. It's about property accrual for men. Women don't practice polygamy for several reasons; they traditionally lack the wealth and capital to support it, monogamy has been better for women, and men don't like to share. The sister wives are not the norm.

And now you'd propose to take that right away from polygamist families?

Except that's not a right, there's no claim to a right, and it's not a marriage. Marriage has evolved to be between two people. Polygamy flies in the face of that standard as well as the fact that marriage works best when it's two equal partners.

Here are tons of stories/sources about the harms these polygamous sects have done to the young men they cast out;

http://www.childbrides.org/boys.html

Frequency of Marriage Types Across Cultures from the Standard Cross-Cultural Sample of pre-industrial societies (Murdock & White 1969)

You can pretend all you want that legalized polygamy would result in both polyandry and polygyny, but it wouldn't. There's a reason anthropologists describe polyandry as rare, because it doesn't really exist. It's usually something to do with property, like the woman is marrying brothers to keep ownership of land or something. Polygyny is the dominant face of polygamy, and most of the evidence dealing with polygamy comes from polygyny.

If you're claiming that my position denies polygamists their right to happiness, your position denies the man they take a wife from the happiness he's entitled to, as well as the next man's happiness when your polygamist takes on a third wife, and so on and so forth. I'm sure you could find some perfectly functioning incestuous couples but that would not be a warrant for legalizing incest, because like polygamy incest has severely detrimental societal impacts.

No people are biologically forced to be attracted to people of a different race.

This isn't really an argument, but interracial marriage, like gay marriage, is really all along the same logical path of marriage equality. There's no rational basis for preventing mixed couples, while there are plenty of reasons for banning polygamy.

You can not want to talk about the sects and all that comes with it, but when you get down to it polygamy is a backwards idea, and those who practice it are generally either crazy religious or from pre-industrial societies, and as I mentioned before, capitalism and liberal democracy are key components in ending polygamy.

We have laws governing secular marriage for a reason; as a monogamous partnership, it is the bedrock of our modern society.

 

[ballin4life]

You ask - What is there to gain from legalizing polygamy?

The answer is that the people that want to practice polygamy are better off because they now can.

It's like saying - What is there to gain from legalizing gay marriage?

In fact, if you take your post and replace the word polygamy with the words gay marriage, then it seems like the majority of your arguments still hold.

Ultimately, it's about your freedom to associate with others in the ways that you want to. Polygamy is voluntary and does not cause harm to anyone else.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Those are some very good points you've raised there. I'm beginning to reconsider my stance.

At the same time D'oh, you have to understand that polygamy does currently occur despite the fact that it's illegal. So, legalising it will mean it's not hidden and we can deal with it better. In some ways, it's kinda like drug use. Then again, I see this as a weak point.

 

[DoH]

You ask - What is there to gain from legalizing polygamy?

The answer is that the people that want to practice polygamy are better off because they now can.

It's like saying - What is there to gain from legalizing gay marriage?

No.

That's like saying that five year olds are going to be better off if we lower the driving age. You're only looking at that side of the coin, not the tremendous negative impacts that come with legalizing their happiness. That one positive does not outweigh the negative impacts of polygamy. Whitney Houston would be better off if we legalized cocaine, but that doesn't mean we should. Gay marriage not only has the benefits that I've stated of more monogamous marriages - which are key to stable societies - but also continuing along the path of marriage equality. Legalizing polygamy would be a step backwards because the partnership of multiple people is not the same as the bond between two.

In fact, if you take your post and replace the word polygamy with the words gay marriage, then it seems like the majority of your arguments still hold.

Then you must lack the ability to read. All of my arguments are unique to polygamy and the damage it does to society; gay marriage is an entirely separate issue. Gay marriage does not result in skewed gender ratios, it doesn't spit on feminism or cultural advancements, and its impacts aren't inherently negative.

Ultimately, it's about your freedom to associate with others in the ways that you want to. Polygamy is voluntary and does not cause harm to anyone else.

You don't get to do anything in society. We have rules and laws for a reason. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater, you can't go 90 mph in a school zone, your teachers don't get to praise Jesus in public schools, and you can't sleep with your sister. All these things are restricted freedoms for rational reasons, as is polygamy. The idea that, if gay marriage is allowed then polygamy should be too is a fallacious slippery slope, and ignores the fact that each right needs to have a similar justification. Just because you can categorize them into a similar issue (freedom of association) doesn't mean they have equal justification, especially when that's not the argument gay marriage advocates are taking (14th amendment - equal protection, which has already been established doesn't apply to polygamy). If you think polygamy is fun, games, and sister-wives, wake up from your naivete.

At the same time D'oh, you have to understand that polygamy does currently occur despite the fact that it's illegal. So, legalising it will mean it's not hidden and we can deal with it better. In some ways, it's kinda like drug use.

So let's legalize PCP and crack then, because we can deal with it better? No, because the effects of these are destabilizing to society they should not be tolerated. Polygamy isn't benign. It's not comparable to marijuana use; plus we don't even get the economic benefit of taxing it.

I cannot believe that I am the only one who is actively arguing against polygamy. This idea of "it's ok as long as it is practiced within reason" is nonsensical. Once the cat is out of the bag, who are you to say how many wives someone may have? Any sort of regulation would be flimsy and arbitrary, which make for poor laws. People needs limits in place.

 

[Sucumbio]

there's something to be said about the emotional impact of having to share your spouse. It ... contradicts one of the foundations of spousal relationship. Which means polygamy isn't really multi-marriage in the traditional sense of the word "marriage." I know this is a can-0-worms but Marriage (with a captial "M") should be defined specifically, and part of the definition should preclude having more than one spouse. If you want to take a non-traditional approach to marriage, then okay, but you'd be asking a lot of everyone involved, and I don't personally believe that adults consenting or otherwise are generally capable of the immense pressure on stability of emotion/mental health required to maintain a working polygamist family.

 

[ballin4life]

You are all just projecting your own preferences onto others. Just because you wouldn't want to share a spouse doesn't mean that others cannot do so and have a perfectly healthy relationship.

No.

That's like saying that five year olds are going to be better off if we lower the driving age. You're only looking at that side of the coin, not the tremendous negative impacts that come with legalizing their happiness. That one positive does not outweigh the negative impacts of polygamy. Whitney Houston would be better off if we legalized cocaine, but that doesn't mean we should. Gay marriage not only has the benefits that I've stated of more monogamous marriages - which are key to stable societies - but also continuing along the path of marriage equality. Legalizing polygamy would be a step backwards because the partnership of multiple people is not the same as the bond between two.

Children are a different subject - we have the notion that they can't take care of themselves. Polygamy is between adults - they can take care of themselves and make their own decisions.

Cocaine should be legalized again because it is a victimless crime. You might bring up things like "Oh what about people driving on cocaine and endangering others?" Well punish them for THAT, punish them for the action that actually endangers others.

I could argue just as well that legalizing gay marriage would be a step backwards because the partnership of two homosexuals is not the same as the bond of marriage between a man and a woman.

Then you must lack the ability to read. All of my arguments are unique to polygamy and the damage it does to society; gay marriage is an entirely separate issue. Gay marriage does not result in skewed gender ratios, it doesn't spit on feminism or cultural advancements, and its impacts aren't inherently negative.

Gay marriage could certainly result in skewed gender ratios. Many people would also argue that gay marriage is inherently negative.

Polygamy does not spit on feminism in any way - it is VOLUNTARY.

You don't get to do anything in society. We have rules and laws for a reason. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater, you can't go 90 mph in a school zone, your teachers don't get to praise Jesus in public schools, and you can't sleep with your sister. All these things are restricted freedoms for rational reasons, as is polygamy. The idea that, if gay marriage is allowed then polygamy should be too is a fallacious slippery slope, and ignores the fact that each right needs to have a similar justification. Just because you can categorize them into a similar issue (freedom of association) doesn't mean they have equal justification, especially when that's not the argument gay marriage advocates are taking (14th amendment - equal protection, which has already been established doesn't apply to polygamy). If you think polygamy is fun, games, and sister-wives, wake up from your naivete.

Yelling fire in a crowded theater and going 90mph are clearly endangering others, which puts them in a separate category from victimless crimes like polygamy.

I don't care about what some supreme court justices have ruled on the Constitution (heaven knows I disagree with plenty of those).

So let's legalize PCP and crack then, because we can deal with it better? No, because the effects of these are destabilizing to society they should not be tolerated. Polygamy isn't benign. It's not comparable to marijuana use; plus we don't even get the economic benefit of taxing it.

We should legalize PCP and crack (by the way it's not even clear that crack would be used at all in a legalized environment since the price of cocaine would be so much cheaper).

Those things are not destabilizing to society at large, just like Polygamy won't be. Each of those actions occurring is just a reflection of people's preferences in society.

Also, it won't even change your life much, because not many people at all are actually going to start doing PCP, smoking crack, or practicing polygamy.

I cannot believe that I am the only one who is actively arguing against polygamy. This idea of "it's ok as long as it is practiced within reason" is nonsensical. Once the cat is out of the bag, who are you to say how many wives someone may have? Any sort of regulation would be flimsy and arbitrary, which make for poor laws. People needs limits in place.

Marriage is just an agreement saying "we will share our stuff". There is no reason not to allow 3 people to enter such a contract.

The religious implications of marriage should be handled by the respective church of the individual.

Also, one last note: There is nothing that prevents an individual from living with two others, sharing everything, etc. The difference between them being unmarried and them being married is negligible.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

So let's legalize PCP and crack then, because we can deal with it better? No, because the effects of these are destabilizing to society they should not be tolerated. Polygamy isn't benign. It's not comparable to marijuana use; plus we don't even get the economic benefit of taxing it.

Yes. Really, I'm the sort of guy who argues in favour of legalising hard drugs because there would be benefits to society. I'd like not to turn this into a legalisation of drugs thread though.

The reason you legalise polygamy would be that, it occurs illegally, and that we'd be better able to monitor it if it was legal. It'd be easier to deal with the polygamy related cases of domestic abuse, if you knew that these relationships existed in the first place. That's all I'm saying.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Sorry for the VERY late response, DoH.

Please, there has never been practical polyandry. Here, Topanga shows us why;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIDXGD1YrmI

In practice, polygamy is always polygyny. It's about property accrual for men. Women don't practice polygamy for several reasons; they traditionally lack the wealth and capital to support it, monogamy has been better for women, and men don't like to share. The sister wives are not the norm.

Don't act like polyandry doesn't exist. It's rare and impractical, but it exists. All it takes is a quick check on wikipedia to find documented cases of it.

[collapse=Cases of Polyandry (copied straight from wikipedia)]Africa
In the Lake Region of Central Africa, "Polygyny ... was uncommon. Polyandry, on the other hand, was quite common".[17]
"the Masai are polyandrous".[18]
[edit]Europe
"According to Julius Caesar, it was customary among the ancient Britons for brothers, and sometimes for fathers and sons, to have their wives in common".[19]
"Polyandry prevailed among the Lacedaemonians according to Polybius."[20] "(Polybius vii.7.732, following Timæus)"[21]
"the matrons of Rome flocked in great crowds to the Senate, begging with tears and entreaties that one woman should be married to two men".[22]
The gravestone of Allia Potestas, a woman from Perusia, describes how she lived peacefully with two lovers, one of which immortalized her in this famous epigrafic eulogy, dating (probably) from the second century.
[edit]Asia
See also: Polyandry in India
In the reign of Urukagina of Lagash, "Dyandry, the marriage of one woman to two men, is abolished.".[23] M. Notovitck mentioned about polyandry in Ladak or Little 'Thibet' in his record of his journey to Tibet. ("The Unknown life of Jesus Christ" by Virchand Gandhi).
In Arabia (southern) "All the kindred have their property in common ...; all have one wife" whom they share.[24]
"in certain cantons of Media, ... a woman was allowed to have many husbands, and they looked with contempt on those who had less than five."[25]
Among the Hephthalites, "the practice of several husbands to one wife, or polyandry, was always the rule, which is agreed on by all commentators. That this was plain was evidenced by the custom among the women of wearing a hat containing a number of horns, one for each of the subsequent husbands, all of whom were also brothers to the husband. Indeed, if a husband had no natural brothers, he would adopt another man to be his brother so that he would be allowed to marry."[26]
"polyandry is very widespread among the Sherpas."[27]
In Bhūtan, "polyandry is the prevailing domestic custom".[28]
"A 1981 survey ... in Muli found 52% of the marriages engaged in monogamy, 32% practiced polyandry (brothers sharing a wife), and 16% practiced polygamy (sisters sharing a husband)."[29]
The Hoa-tun (Hephthalites, White Huns) "living to the north of the Great Wall ... practiced polyandry."[30]
Among the Gilyaks of Sakhalein Island "polyandry is also practiced".[31]
[edit]Pacific islands
Among the Kanak of New Caledonia, “every woman is the property of several husbands. It is this collection of husbands, having one wife in common, that ... live together in a hut, with their common wife.”[32]
Marquesans had "a society in which households were polyandrous".[33]
Friedrich Ratzel in The History of Mankind[34] reported in 1896 that in the New Hebrides there was a kind of convention in cases of widowhood, that two widowers shall live with one widow. Additionally that in New Ireland (island) and New Britain widows were claimed as common property by all the men.
[edit]South America
"The Bororos ... among them ... there are also cases of polyandry."[35]
"The Tupi-Kawahib also practice fraternal polyandry".[36]
"...up to 70 percent of Amazonian cultures may have believed in the principle of multiple paternity"[37][/collapse]

Except that's not a right, there's no claim to a right, and it's not a marriage. Marriage has evolved to be between two people. Polygamy flies in the face of that standard

Call it a "civil union" if you want, then.

Here are tons of stories/sources about the harms these polygamous sects have done to the young men they cast out;

http://www.childbrides.org/boys.html

You're just picking at cases of bad things happening in polygamous unions, it's not like these things will DEFINITELY happen in a polygamous relationship. You can find all sorts of cases of regular couples having issues.

Frequency of Marriage Types Across Cultures from the Standard Cross-Cultural Sample of pre-industrial societies (Murdock & White 1969)

Not sure what this graph is supposed to prove. Although, interestingly, it shows about 1% of marriages in underdeveloped countries being polyandrous. You know, underdeveloped countries account for billions of people in the world. If a whole 1% of marriages are polyandrous, wouldn't that mean there are millions of polyandrous marriages?

You can pretend all you want that legalized polygamy would result in both polyandry and polygyny, but it wouldn't. There's a reason anthropologists describe polyandry as rare, because it doesn't really exist. It's usually something to do with property, like the woman is marrying brothers to keep ownership of land or something. Polygyny is the dominant face of polygamy, and most of the evidence dealing with polygamy comes from polygyny.

Fairly accurate, except that polyandry does exist.

If you're claiming that my position denies polygamists their right to happiness, your position denies the man they take a wife from the happiness he's entitled to, as well as the next man's happiness when your polygamist takes on a third wife, and so on and so forth.

Well, they all agreed to be in a polygamist relationship, so it's their fault if they're unhappy when their spouse marries again.

I'm sure you could find some perfectly functioning incestuous couples but that would not be a warrant for legalizing incest, because like polygamy incest has severely detrimental societal impacts.

1. There's scientific proof that incestuous procreation leads to higher rates of births defects and deaths. If you can find actual scientific evidence that polygamous relationships result in more birth defects and deaths, that would surprise me.

2. I actually do think that incestuous relationships should be allowed as long as they don't involve procreation.

This isn't really an argument, but interracial marriage, like gay marriage, is really all along the same logical path of marriage equality. There's no rational basis for preventing mixed couples, while there are plenty of reasons for banning polygamy.

You can throw up statistics against any kind of marriage. Marriages between gay men have higher rates of AIDS, for example.

You can not want to talk about the sects and all that comes with it, but when you get down to it polygamy is a backwards idea, and those who practice it are generally either crazy religious or from pre-industrial societies, and as I mentioned before, capitalism and liberal democracy are key components in ending polygamy.

See, I specifically said at the beginning not to throw generalized and offensive insults at polygamist people. I REALLY didn't want this to be the "**** the crazy polygamists thread".

Many people think of polygamists as crazy fringe groups. This is sometimes true, but many polygamist families are composed of completely kind and reasonable people. Let's try to avoid generalized personal attacks against polygamists, especially the question of why polyandry is so much less common than polygyny. That's not the aspect of the issue I'd like to discuss. This is a debate on the legality of polygamy and group marriages, not the demographics and personal beliefs of polygamist families.

Polygamy does, unfortunately, occur in many undeveloped or very religious places, which can give it a bad name. But it doesn't have to be that way. It shouldn't be illegal just because some people who practice it happen to be bad people. What about all the polygamists that don't have the nightmarish marriages you're imagining? Do you care about them?

We have laws governing secular marriage for a reason; as a monogamous partnership, it is the bedrock of our modern society.

That's the problem. People are unwilling to accept polygamous partnerships.

 

[Rabbattack]

Whats next, animal marriage?

 

[Hyperstorm]

Morally, I have no problem with Polygamy. If 2 or more consenting adults want to be together, who am I to deprive them? However the legal problems that may arise from such a union might be more problematic.

 

[Ussi]

I don't know the benifits for multiple men to one woman.. (And there could be idk 2 men and 2 women being all married to each other, dunno what to call that, ha).

But 1 man and multiple women makes sense.
1. There are more women in the world than men. This mean if the man population was saturated, there are some women who can't get a heterosexual relationship.
2. Procreation makes sense. 1 man can inpregnant multiple women.
3. Man has to shape up. Not only does the man with multiple wives have to be more responsible, other men have to shape up because women can look at how a man treats his current wife and if she likes that, she might rather that man than a man who doesn't know what he is doing.
4. This is great for single moms as unmarried men normally don't want to marry a woman who has kids already. And this woman would most likely prefer having a good father figure for her kids, and a married man would be the best fit for that, especially when point 3 lets her know how the man is as a family man,

Polygyny always gets flak for being for being for pleasure. Polygyny is more responsiblity than pleasure as you don't magically gain more time and energy to pleasure multiple women now.. Considering a man has to work for 8 hours, make it 9 hours to account for travel and 6 hours of sleep. He has only 9 hours to give to his kids, himself, and his wives. And most of that time will be responsibilities than pleasure.

As for legal issues, just have a minimal house income law to allow for a marriage lisence for another partner to prevent welfare abuse.

 

[KageJuin]

I don't know the benifits for multiple men to one woman.. (And there could be idk 2 men and 2 women being all married to each other, dunno what to call that, ha).

But 1 man and multiple women makes sense.
1. There are more women in the world than men. This mean if the man population was saturated, there are some women who can't get a heterosexual relationship.
2. Procreation makes sense. 1 man can inpregnant multiple women.
3. Man has to shape up. Not only does the man with multiple wives have to be more responsible, other men have to shape up because women can look at how a man treats his current wife and if she likes that, she might rather that man than a man who doesn't know what he is doing.
4. This is great for single moms as unmarried men normally don't want to marry a woman who has kids already. And this woman would most likely prefer having a good father figure for her kids, and a married man would be the best fit for that, especially when point 3 lets her know how the man is as a family man,

Polygyny always gets flak for being for being for pleasure. Polygyny is more responsiblity than pleasure as you don't magically gain more time and energy to pleasure multiple women now.. Considering a man has to work for 8 hours, make it 9 hours to account for travel and 6 hours of sleep. He has only 9 hours to give to his kids, himself, and his wives. And most of that time will be responsibilities than pleasure.

As for legal issues, just have a minimal house income law to allow for a marriage lisence for another partner to prevent welfare abuse.

Radical Feminists always think it's about having many girls to sleep with.

People who know about Polygamy know it's about building a community where support and love can grow for all members.
Alot of time-management and sacrifice are needed and you get a huge load of responsibilities as the man having to take charge and make sure all is okay.
It's not exactly a walk in the park where someone decides they just want to have pleasure with 3 different women so they get married. That's absurd.

 

[Sparklepower]

Whats next, animal marriage?

Animal marriage isn't comparable to multiple consenting adults choosing to live their lives together. The difference is that one brings harm to animals, and the other brings no harm because it's just multiple people living together in a way that makes them comfortable.

 

[Rabbattack]

Animal marriage isn't comparable to multiple consenting adults choosing to live their lives together. The difference is that one brings harm to animals, and the other brings no harm because it's just multiple people living together in a way that makes them comfortable.

Who said I was comparing the two? I already understood what just you said.