Polygamy

[Mediocre]

In all the gay marriage debates I see, someone arguing against allowing gay marriage will always bring up polygamy. They seem to assume that, even if I might be okay with homosexuality, I'll just agree with them that polygamy is evil and wrong.

I have yet to hear a secular explanation of why polygamy is immoral. So many people seem to insist that it is wrong, without providing any reasoning as to why it's wrong.

I'm not really interested in presenting an argument in this post, because so far I don't know what I'd argue against. However, I'm sure many people disagree with me, and I would be very interested in hearing those arguments, so that I can respond to them in turn.

 

[Eor]

In the strictest sense, Polygamy means one man with many wives, which is not something I support because I find that misogynistic. However, group marriages, aka multiple wives and husbands all married together, where everyone is married to everyone and are equal partners, is something I have no problem with. Not my cup of tea, but not my business either.

However, I'm not sure how it'd work in a legal sense. If there are 3 people in a relationship and they have to make a decision about one of them, which one gets to pick? But writing this out made me realize that crap like that already exists with two parents having to pick for their son, so nevermind. Wow that was a useless edit.

 

[Mediocre]

In the strictest sense, Polygamy means one man with many wives, which is not something I support because I find that misogynistic. However, group marriages, aka multiple wives and husbands all married together, where everyone is married to everyone and are equal partners, is something I have no problem with. Not my cup of tea, but not my business either.

You're right. This topic really ought to be called polyamory, because that's gender neutral.

I do take issue with your statement that polygamy is inherently misogynistic. I agree that it generally is, as practiced. However, that doesn't mean it has to be misogynistic. I'm confident that it's possible to having a loving, equal relationship between two women and one man, just as it would be possible to have a healthy relationship between two men and one woman without it being sexist or unequal.

 

[DoH]

This is the argument I used in my gay marriage DWYP...

The main purpose of marriage is not, and never has been, to sanctify love. If the point of marriage were to let everybody seek his ultimate amorous fulfillment, then adultery would be a standard part of the marital package. In fact, society doesn't much care whether spouses love each other, as long as they meet their marital obligations. The purpose of secular marriage, rather, is to bond as many people as possible into committed, stable relationships. Such little societies-within-society not only provide the best environment for raising children, they also domesticate men and ensure that most people have someone whose "job" is to look after them.

Polygamy radically undermines this goal, because if one man has two wives, it follows that some other man has no wife. As Robert Wright notes in his book The Moral Animal, the result is that many low-status males end up unable to wed and dangerously restless. Over time, a society can sanction polygamy only if it is prepared to use harsh measures to repress a menacing underclass of spouseless men. It is no coincidence that no liberal countries have been polygamous, and no polygamous countries have been liberal. In that respect, the one-partner-each rule stands at the very core of a liberal society, by making marriage a goal that everyone can aspire to. Gay marriage, note, is fully in keeping with liberalism's inclusive aspirations. Polygamy absolutely is not.

The rather peculiar idea underlying the "If gay marriage, then polygamy" argument is that, at bottom, there really is no very good reason to be against polygamy other than tradition — you just have to be blindly against it, and ditto for gay marriage. But there are ample grounds to oppose polygamous and incestuous marriage, grounds that have nothing to do with whether gay people will be allowed to partake of society's most stabilizing, civilizing institution. I don't ask to break the rules that we all depend on. I just want to be allowed to follow them.

 

[pyrotek7x7]

I'm not really against it. As Eor as said, legally, it might be confusing. Married people have the right to make decisions for the other if their spouse is incapacitated or has some other sort of disability that negates them from making their own decisions.

If there are multiple people making one decision, what happens? We don't know what to do, and that can lead to bad things. Decisions might not be made, and could lead to a life being needlessly lost...or needlessly kept.

I don't think it should be legal to MARRY multiple people for this reason. If you wish to not marry and instead be in a marriage-like relationship with multiple people, that works. Marriage is just a contract, you don't have to sign the contract to get the same rewards.

 

[Ryusuta]

Such little societies-within-society not only provide the best environment for raising children, they also domesticate men and ensure that most people have someone whose "job" is to look after them.

This is absolutely, quantifiably false. There has been NO correlation discovered between the so-called "traditional" two-parent household and the potential success of a child. People have tried their hardest to make one, but it is absolutely, positively NOT THERE. The statistics simply don't back this up at all.

Polygamy radically undermines this goal, because if one man has two wives, it follows that some other man has no wife.

Not only is this logically totally false, it also makes radical assumptions about relationships based on circular logic and implied premises.

Over time, a society can sanction polygamy only if it is prepared to use harsh measures to repress a menacing underclass of spouseless men.

So, let's talk about this for a moment. Even making the RIDICULOUS assumption that everyone is somehow supposed to have a spouse, what's to say that if polygamy is allowed, open marriages can't be allowed as well?

It is no coincidence that no liberal countries have been polygamous, and no polygamous countries have been liberal. In that respect, the one-partner-each rule stands at the very core of a liberal society, by making marriage a goal that everyone can aspire to. Gay marriage, note, is fully in keeping with liberalism's inclusive aspirations. Polygamy absolutely is not.

Wait, what? Do places like Africa suddenly not exist anymore?

But there are ample grounds to oppose polygamous and incestuous marriage, grounds that have nothing to do with whether gay people will be allowed to partake of society's most stabilizing, civilizing institution. I don't ask to break the rules that we all depend on. I just want to be allowed to follow them.

First of all, let's drop all of this melodramatic stuff when we're speaking about this. We've been making babies and functioning as a society long before marriage came along, and we would still be making babies and functioning as a society if the concept disappears. Our survival as a species is in no way dependent on monogamy, and can conceivably be HARMED by it.

Second, allowing other people to be polygamous in no way forces you to behave the same way. Marriage is a contract. And contracts are always subject to negotiation. If you feel your marriage should be monogamous, and you both agree to that, then that's the contact you can sign up for. Even if polygamy were hypothetically allowed, it wouldn't be forced on you.

 

[CorruptFate]

I think its fine by me as long as both sides are fine with it. I keep hearing about the FLDS and how they are born into it, forced into it, and married off at ages like 13 to people they don't even know. Butme and my X amount of wifes all are fine with it then I see nothing wrong.

I personally wouldn't do it my self but then im not everyone.

 

[Aesir]

There's definitely a secular argument, don't make this into a theist vs atheist debate.

Polygamy makes sense to us right now because we're thinking about it logically. Men and Woman can both marry how many people they like. But it fails to take into account human emotion I don't think people are really grasping this at all, humans aren't logical we're anything but logical.


Historically speaking plural marriages were only allowed to the rich male members of society, in no way was it a fair practice. Often times it was used a sign of power, the more wives/kids you had the more powerful you were.

The problem with polygamy as noted previously it only works if we assume people are logical which they're not.

Scenario between 3 people:

Husband Perfers wife B.

Wife A is madly in love with Husband.

Husband favors Wife B and their kids.

Wife A becomes Jealous.

Wife A than kills Wife B.

This is actually pretty common, most African plural wives practice witchcraft against the other wives. The whole system generally falls apart once the man establishes his favorite. (this can go either way.) Once that happens it's a nightmarish system.

 

[RDK]

You're acting like Wife A had no choice in the matter.

If Husband told her of his intentions to marry Wife B, and Wife A didn't like it, she could just divorce him (which pretty much happens anyway if we're talking about a monogamous relationship; just substitute "adultery" in).

You're making a false dichotomy when you say that it's bound to happen that way, but I do agree with you about the emotional ramifications of polygamy. I sure as hell wouldn't want to find myself in that kind of situation, and I'm sure no one else would.

 

[Aesir]

You're acting like Wife A had no choice in the matter.

If Husband told her of his intentions to marry Wife B, and Wife A didn't like it, she could just divorce him (which pretty much happens anyway if we're talking about a monogamous relationship; just substitute "adultery" in).

Thats true, if we're talking about true polygamy, Everyone has the right to marry how many people they want.

But in most cases of polygamy the female can't divorce and usually has no say in the matter.

I forgot to mention this earlier, but monogamous relationships generally help hinder the spread of STD's. In Polygamous relationships? not so much.

You're making a false dichotomy when you say that it's bound to happen that way, but I do agree with you about the emotional ramifications of polygamy. I sure as hell wouldn't want to find myself in that kind of situation, and I'm sure no one else would.

I never said it was bound to happen, I simply gave a common scenario this happened before colonial rule in Africa and continues to happen today.

It's not like I'm giving some far out scenario that can never happen it's a pretty common thing.

 

[Ryusuta]

But in most cases of polygamy the female can't divorce and usually has no say in the matter.

I forgot to mention this earlier, but monogamous relationships generally help hinder the spread of STD's. In Polygamous relationships? not so much.

This is all a perfect example of *** hoc ergo propter hoc. NEITHER of these statements are logically sound.

 

[riboflavinbob]

Isn't polygamy only illegal in order to prevent future conflict? It's a reason good enough for me.

I guess people just say its immoral because it inevitably causes some sort of familial conflict. And anything that is a definite cause of conflict usually considered immoral.

 

[Aesir]

This is all a perfect example of *** hoc ergo propter hoc. NEITHER of these statements are logically sound.

Uh, no.

you would be right if I said these things WILL happen, however I never said they would. I'm giving examples of the problems that come with polygamy.

In anycase.

Monogamous relationships are less likely to come in contact with STD's. As opposed to polygamous relationships.

Seriously if you have multiple wives, and those wives have multiple husbands it would be naive to think you couldn't come in contact with disease. As opposed to monogamy which usually will safeguard you from it.


Also about the womens right issue. In many polygamy cultures past and present the woman is usually stuck with the man. Either she can't divorce because of the strict traditions of the society. Or can but lacks the means of caring for her children.

There's never been a society that was equally polygamous (As in the right to marry multiple wives was given to the rich male.)

 

[Ryusuta]

Isn't polygamy only illegal in order to prevent future conflict? It's a reason good enough for me.

I guess people just say its immoral because it inevitably causes some sort of familial conflict. And anything that is a definite cause of conflict usually considered immoral.

This is absolutely, totally false, as well. It's circular logic to the extreme.

Uh, no.

you would be right if I said these things WILL happen, however I never said they would. I'm giving examples of the problems that come with polygamy.

They could very easily come up in monogamous relationships, as well, so I'm not sure what your point is. If you're not saying that polygamy is the cause of the problems you've indicated, then you're making no point whatsoever.

Monogamous relationships are less likely to come in contact with STD's. As opposed to polygamous relationships.

Assumption.

Also about the womens right issue. In many polygamy cultures past and present the woman is usually stuck with the man. Either she can't divorce because of the strict traditions of the society. Or can but lacks the means of caring for her children.

There's never been a society that was equally polygamous (As in the right to marry multiple wives was given to the rich male.)

Argumentum ad antiquitatem. Want to keep trying?

 

[Ryusuta]

(Edit: Sorry for the double-post. Hit quote instead of edit.)

 

[riboflavinbob]

Then this thread brings up the question: What is morality?

 

[Aesir]

They could very easily come up in monogamous relationships, as well, so I'm not sure what your point is. If you're not saying that polygamy is the cause of the problems you've indicated, then you're making no point whatsoever.

That type of behavior would defy the rules of monogamy, I think you're missing my point.

What makes monogamy a better system is it's over all stability. As opposed to polygamy which has no evidence of stability, Africa being a prime example. While it did work, it had so many problems.

Jealousy killings, favoritism by the male, ect.

Assumption.

Common Sense actually..

Argumentum ad antiquitatem. Want to keep trying?

Want to actually read my post before pinning a fallacy on it? I'm not arguing for social traditions. I'm citing that as an example on why many woman in other cultures get shafted in polygamous relations.

Woman are seen as a commodity rather than people.

 

[Ryusuta]

That type of behavior would defy the rules of monogamy, I think you're missing my point.

No it wouldn't. You said, and I quote:

But in most cases of polygamy the female can't divorce and usually has no say in the matter.

This has nothing to do with polygamy, and has happened just as often (if not more so) in monogamous cultures.

What makes monogamy a better system is it's over all stability. As opposed to polygamy which has no evidence of stability, Africa being a prime example. While it did work, it had so many problems.

Jealousy killings, favoritism by the male, ect.

Again, how on EARTH does this differ from monogamous societies? There is NO form of society in which this does not occur.

Common Sense actually.

If the only factor you're taking into consideration is the number of people involved, certainly.

Want to actually read my post before pinning a fallacy on it? I'm not arguing for social traditions. I'm citing that as an example on why many woman in other cultures get shafted in polygamous relations.

Woman are seen as a commodity rather than people.

You are explicitly saying that these are problems inherent in polygamy solely because these are problems that have occurred in the past with it. You've submitted no evidence whatsoever that polygamy itself is to blame for ANY of the examples you cited. For someone that doesn't want his logical fallacies pointed out, you seem to have a bad habit of walking right into them.

 

[Blackadder]

Ehh.

Honestly, that's it, "ehh". Keeping it short, if both sides are fine with it, I say go ahead.

Yup.

 

[KevinM]

Then this thread brings up the question: What is morality?

That's quite possibly the most bland post I've seen in this discussion. Everything that is debated will bring up that question unless the issue at hand isn't pertinent to another human being or side.

 

[Aesir]

I'm not committing any logical fallacies, thanks for actually trying to refute my argument though.

Monogamy does present similar problems with female abuses, however monogamous relations generally equal out. Where the power is split rather than the male holding all of that power.



This never happened with polygamy relations, there's no evidence to support that polygamy will progress the same way that monogamy did.

You are explicitly saying that these are problems inherent in polygamy solely because these are problems that have occurred in the past with it. You've submitted no evidence whatsoever that polygamy itself is to blame for ANY of the examples you cited. For someone that doesn't want his logical fallacies pointed out, you seem to have a bad habit of walking right into them.

You're right polygamy isn't to blame that wouldn't be fair to pin the blame on it. However polygamy thrives in equality. Aside from womens rights you have the basic math problem.

Not everyone can have two wives, the male to female ratio isn't imbalanced where two wives are needed or vice versa.

 

[Ryusuta]

I'm not committing any logical fallacies, thanks for actually trying to refute my argument though.

You've committed several, and I'm still not quite sure what the point you're getting at is.

Monogamy does present similar problems with female abuses, however monogamous relations generally equal out. Where the power is split rather than the male holding all of that power.

What!? I'm sorry... but WHAT? Males have had a tendency to hold the sway in both monogamous and polygamous societies throughout history. Monogamy doesn't do ANYTHING in and of itself to afford women any extra sway in the household.

This never happened with polygamy relations, there's no evidence to support that polygamy will progress the same way that monogamy did.

See? You just did it RIGHT THERE. You are making the argument that polygamous relationships CAN'T - in your estimation -make the same progress as monogamous ones because they haven't BEFORE. This logic DOES NOT WORK.

You're right polygamy isn't to blame that wouldn't be fair to pin the blame on it.

End argument.

However polygamy thrives in equality. Aside from womens rights you have the basic math problem. Not everyone can have two wives, the male to female ratio isn't imbalanced where two wives are needed or vice versa.

First of all let's just assume for the purposes of this argument that we're using the term in a gender-neutral sense rather than the literal one, as the topic creator intended it.

Secondly, I've already addressed this earlier on. It begins with the assumption that every person is destined to have a mate, and only one mate. It also assumes that every person is supposed to date one single person from the opposite sex.

Newsflash for you: this doesn't even work from a mathamatical standpoint. Women account for 51% of the Earth's population. It's NOT a 50-50, one-male-to-one-female deal. Males are the minority by 1% of the population, and have been for some time.

So, no. This doesn't work either.

 

[Aesir]

What!? I'm sorry... but WHAT? Males have had a tendency to hold the sway in both monogamous and polygamous societies throughout history. Monogamy doesn't do ANYTHING in and of itself to afford women any extra sway in the household.

More so than in any polygamous society, woman are shafted of most rights because they're treated like second class citizens.

The very nature of polygamy gives one gender a right over another. At least with monogamy it's consistent with equal rights.

See? You just did it RIGHT THERE. You are making the argument that polygamous relationships CAN'T - in your estimation -make the same progress as monogamous ones because they haven't BEFORE. This logic DOES NOT WORK.

Wow did you read what I said?

This never happened with polygamy relations, there's no evidence to support that polygamy will progress the same way that monogamy did.

^ You see that I said there's no evidence to support that polygamy will progress the same as monogamy. NO where in that statement do I affirm that it's impossible, only that there's no evidence of such a thing.

Secondly, I've already addressed this earlier on. It begins with the assumption that every person is destined to have a mate, and only one mate. It also assumes that every person is supposed to date one single person from the opposite sex.

Newsflash for you: this doesn't even work from a mathamatical standpoint. Women account for 51% of the Earth's population. It's NOT a 50-50, one-male-to-one-female deal. Males are the minority by 1% of the population, and have been for some time.

So, no. This doesn't work either.

You're not reading, I never said or implied that it's 50/50. The difference isn't completely imbalanced.

There's no logical counter argument for group marriage.

/discussion?

 

[arrowhead]

The very nature of polygamy gives one gender a right over another. At least with monogamy it's consistent with equal rights.

they will be equal under law

^ You see that I said there's no evidence to support that polygamy will progress the same as monogamy. NO where in that statement do I affirm that it's impossible, only that there's no evidence of such a thing.

and there never will be until a country as uh 'free' as america allows it. the situation between westernized countries and the unwesternized countries you've been comparing it to is a lot different. we have much more protection under the law than they do.


orion, it makes perfect sense that polygamy would lead to a larger spread of STDs

 

[RDK]

So would just divorcing whoever you were monogamous with in the first place and marrying someone else.

Drop the whole STD argument; it's not even pertinent. You can substitute adultery and divorce for all the supposed downsides of polygamy. The only difference is in one case they're still married.

 

[Mediocre]

More so than in any polygamous society, woman are shafted of most rights because they're treated like second class citizens.

The very nature of polygamy gives one gender a right over another. At least with monogamy it's consistent with equal rights.

I said, in my second post in this topic, that I really ought to have titled the topic "polyamory" rather than "polygamy".

Polyamory is gender neutral. It does allow for a man with multiple wives, but also for a woman with multiple husbands, or a married group made up of both multiple husbands and multiple wives.

Perhaps I should have made that clear in the first post, but I don't think it's unreasonable to expect someone to read the first three posts in a one page thread (as it was when you started posting in it) before replying to the topic.

In any case, this topic is truly about polyamory, not polygamy, and therefore your inequality argument is moot.

You see that I said there's no evidence to support that polygamy will progress the same as monogamy. NO where in that statement do I affirm that it's impossible, only that there's no evidence of such a thing.

So, in the absence of evidence that granting people the right would be harmful, you still choose to deny people the right?

To me, that seems needlessly invasive, and slightly dictatorial.

There's no logical counter argument for group marriage.

/discussion?

Does that mean you were trolling, or that you were genuinely arguing but have now changed your opinion?

I'm not familiar with you as a debater, so I don't know. I'll assume you were genuine.

 

[Aesir]

Troll/devils advocate.

I figured no one would really take on a secular argument so I figured I'd give it a shot. Usually I don't do this, but I had loads of free time on my hands. But the counter arguments were sound, so it's quite obvious the secular argument is a pretty weak argument.

My position is really no different from Eor's.

When arrowhead first brought this up in the prop 8 thread, He never separated group marriages with standard polygamy. (if he did I probably missed it.)

I'm against Polygyny, and Polyandry. However I'm perfectly fine with group marriages, would I participate in one? Nope.