Why should polygamy be illegal?

[Rasmus]

Actually, I think it is a slippery slope. Marriage is traditionally defined as between one man and one woman of the same skin colour, caste and/or socio-economic status as well as religion.

Fixed it for you.

If we are going make one change to the definition, how can you argue against another (again, assuming that everyone involved is a consenting human adult)?

Because it is patently dumb to stick to one way of doing things regardless of the arguments made for a change and just because it's always been done that way.

Other ways can be better or worse, and have to stand or fail on their own merits. If they stand and are better, we should welcome the change. If they fail and are worse, we can either stick to the status quo or look for an alternative.

Something is not inherently good or better than a proposed alternative just because it's the status quo.

Oh, never mind those constitutionally arguments about gender equality and stuff like that ...

You did something because it had always been done, and the explanation was "but we've always done it this way." A million dead people can't have been wrong, can they -- (Terry Pratchett, The Fifth Elephant)

 

[Sun Countess]

In Canada, it's legal for two consenting adults to marry, regardless of their gender. If you decide you don't like it, you're allowed to end the process through a divorce and start all over again with someone new.

When we talk about consenting adults and polygamous marriage, whose consent should be required? If Woman A is married to Man B, does she also need to give her permission for him to marry Woman C? If A has built up a household with B, sharing a marital home and marital finances, should he be allowed to bring C into their shared situation? A is now effectively giving up some of her joint income with B, along with their shared property, and is gaining nothing, unless she's a consenting party to this new contract.

If C is also married to D, and he just happens to be very rich, is A entitled to some of D's money in a divorce? After all, what's D's is C's, what's C's is B's, and what's B's is A's, even if neither A nor D ever consented to the marriage of B and C in the first place. So yeah, I'd say that more than a few laws would have to be rewritten to protect everybody's interests. The marriage contract isn't just about showing everybody who you love, but does give both parties legal rights and responsibilities. How do you separate all that out if each party is married to several different people, who are also each married to several different other people? Heck, maybe there's even some overlap.

I don't have a problem with whatever consenting adults do in their own sex lives, but legal contracts are a completely different kettle of fish, and I think the government would be wise to stay out of this one.

If Muslim men want the right to have more than one wife in western societies, are they willing to give their wives the right to more than one husband? Because that's what the western societies would have to do.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Actually, I think it is a slippery slope. Marriage is traditionally defined as between one man and one woman. If we are going make one change to the definition, how can you argue against another (again, assuming that everyone involved is a consenting human adult)?

Wrong marriage is traditionaly between two men over the ownership of a woman. The slippery slope started with womens rights.

 

[Z]

I agree with the sentiment that the government doesn't belong in the marriage business.

I also don't have any moral problem with polygamy, assuming that all the participants are consenting adults.

I agree with this post, but also with PlumJam - to a degree. Marriage, in general, ought to be illegal due to mental health issues.*

And that's all I have to say about that.






*Having both been married and been in a plural relationship... Am finally in recovery for same.

 

[AWPrime]

Why is everyone assuming "polygamy" automatically equals "polygyny"?

History has shown that that it tends to be that way.

 

[Lonewulf]

Actually, I think it is a slippery slope. Marriage is traditionally defined as between one man and one woman. If we are going make one change to the definition, how can you argue against another (again, assuming that everyone involved is a consenting human adult)?

Define "traditionally". Where do you put the arbitrary scale for what's "traditional" or not?

History has shown that that it tends to be that way.

History shows a lot of things. If I looked at history alone and shut out all other possible factors, I would think that it would be nearly impossible to have a large-scale society without any form of slavery. Yet, look around.

 

[El_Spectre]

All this stuff about "well, it's just people loving each other in unconventional ways" is simply nonsense. There's no point to "addressing an argument" that has no connection to reality.

It matters not at all whether polygamy could in theory -- in the sense of "not logically contradictory" -- be consistent with women's rights. What matter is whether polygamy ever is in reality consistent with them. It never (or so rarely as to make no difference) is.

Yeah, see... the problem is, an awful lot of people make it work. You're comfortable denying that "reality", because it contradicts your notions, but its true.

For what its worth, I know of several poly relationships in my group of friends; In every case, all parties seriously respect each other. Is this true of all such relationships? No, just like its not true of all monogamous relationships. The ones without respect tend not to last too long.

These situations can and do happen, and refuting that because it is inconvenient or inconsistent with a personal belief structure is a bad idea.

 

[Lonewulf]

All this stuff about "well, it's just people loving each other in unconventional ways" is simply nonsense. There's no point to "addressing an argument" that has no connection to reality.

I know of those that are connected to reality and do "love each other in unconventional ways". Just because it doesn't agree with your narrow vision of the world, doesn't mean they don't exist. Sorry to disappoint you, "skeptic".

 

[AWPrime]

History shows a lot of things. If I looked at history alone and shut out all other possible factors, I would think that it would be nearly impossible to have a large-scale society without any form of slavery. Yet, look around.

Actually we call those slaves robots now. And in many countries old style slavery still exists.

 

[Lonewulf]

Actually we call those slaves robots now. And in many countries old style slavery still exists.

"In many countries"?

In Germany? No.

In the United States? No.

In France? No.

Bulgaria? Tunisia? Hungary? Spain? Italy? Ukraine? Czech Republic?

I see what you do; you just shift the vocabulary away and name a victory. You also point to a minority of countries and act as if it refutes my point somehow. How "honest".

Hey, I know three people, two males and one female, that are in a relationship. Ergo, by your logic, I know "many people" that aren't in a polygyny relationship. There. Refute that.

And the robots are an outside factor (and you really think that your toaster is a "slave"? Seriously?) You were the one that seemed to be suggesting that we should look at history alone, and no other factors, including the kind of society we're living in currently as opposed to the past...

 

[AWPrime]

"In many countries"?
In Germany? No.
In the United States? No.
In France? No.
Bulgaria? Tunisia? Hungary? Spain? Italy? Ukraine? Czech Republic?

In prosperous nations its mostly limited to sex slaves. In less prosperous countries there are still sweatshops, 'underage house servants' and worse.

Hey, I know three people, two males and one female, that are in a relationship.

Can you see that working in large scale?

And the robots are an outside factor (and you really think that your toaster is a "slave"? Seriously?) You were the one that seemed to be suggesting that we should look at history alone, and no other factors, including the kind of society we're living in currently as opposed to the past...

You misinterpret history, the correct interpetation would be that "large-scale society can't exist without cheap labor (preferably the kind that can't refuse work)". Both slaves and robots meet this criteria. In a sense we replaced slaves with automated manufacturing (robots).

 

[Lonewulf]

In prosperous nations its mostly limited to sex slaves. In less prosperous countries there are still sweatshops, 'underage house servants' and worse.

Really? So there's a lot of sex slaves in the developed countries, such as Germany, Italy, France, the U.S., the UK, etc? It's a standard practice in many of these countries? Nothing illegal about it? This is news to me!

Can you see that working in large scale?

Yes, about as much as the average marriage works. What, you can't?

You misinterpret history, the correct interpetation would be that "large-scale society can't exist without cheap labor (preferably the kind that can't refuse work)". Both slaves and robots meet this criteria. In a sense we replaced slaves with automated manufacturing (robots).

Meanwhile, there's no other considerations to take into examining polygamous relationships? They necessarily would work today as they always have worked in the past, regardless of cultural considerations?

 

[AWPrime]

Really? So there's a lot of sex slaves in the developed countries, such as Germany, Italy, France, the U.S., the UK, etc? It's a standard practice in many of these countries? Nothing illegal about it? This is news to me!

I hope you don't sprain your back moving those goalposts.

Yes, about as much as the average marriage works. What, you can't?

No, you see there is this human emotion called jealousy. It can be a very powerful force in human relationships.
And of course I don't think that there are enough people with the required bisexual attraction to make it three way equal. Heck I would be surprised if most people manage to have a functional 'couple+sex buddy' combo.

Meanwhile, there's no other considerations to take into examining polygamous relationships? They necessarily would work today as they always have worked in the past, regardless of cultural considerations?

I am sure there are many but only a few are enough to sink this idea.

 

[toddjh]

No, you see there is this human emotion called jealousy. It can be a very powerful force in human relationships.

Not only this, but increasing the number of people means increasing the number of interpersonal combinations (see the "handshake problem"). Simply put, the more people you add, the more likely that two of them are going to find something to fight about sooner or later.

In a couple, you only have one person whose flaws and annoying habits you need to be able to tolerate, and even then most relationships end. Even among relationships that survived long enough to reach the "marriage" stage, over half fail eventually. In a threesome, you double the odds that you're not going to be compatible with one of your partners in the end.

That's not to say that poly relationships can't work, but instability is inherent in them, for strictly mathematical reasons.

 

[El_Spectre]

Not only this, but increasing the number of people means increasing the number of interpersonal combinations (see the "handshake problem"). Simply put, the more people you add, the more likely that two of them are going to find something to fight about sooner or later.

In a couple, you only have one person whose flaws and annoying habits you need to be able to tolerate, and even then most relationships end. Even among relationships that survived long enough to reach the "marriage" stage, over half fail eventually. In a threesome, you double the odds that you're not going to be compatible with one of your partners in the end.

That's not to say that poly relationships can't work, but instability is inherent in them, for strictly mathematical reasons.

As a wise woman once told me, "it's hard, because it's worth it"

 

[ponderingturtle]

As a wise woman once told me, "it's hard, because it's worth it"

It isn't an issue of hard, it is an issue of improbable. Most relationships fail and end. If it is several interconnected relationships then one failing can cause stresses that cause others to fail.

Take this case

A, B and C are all seeing each other. A and B break up. Does C not break up with either A or B, that seems more difficult, depending on how the breakup went, so it will likely drag down some of the other relationships as well.

And the pro poly people here have not made a point of what solution they are looking for, is it permitting people to be in multiple binary marriages, or expanding individual marriages to more people or both?

No one here is making proposals of how to change laws to make poly marriage make sense.

 

[Lonewulf]

I hope you don't sprain your back moving those goalposts.

What goalposts? It's been my contention that developed societies have practically a complete lack of slavery. You're the one trying to convince me that sex-slavery is in large enough quantities to qualify. I apologize if I don't consider cultures that have values pulled out of the medieval ages to qualify for comparison to the U.S. -- you know, the same place that we're discussing allowing polygamy in, in the first place. You also said "many" countries, suggesting that slavery is this huge epidemic globally. I contend that there's far more countries, of far superior size and population, where slavery is not that big a deal, especially anywhere compared to the past.

No, you see there is this human emotion called jealousy. It can be a very powerful force in human relationships.
And of course I don't think that there are enough people with the required bisexual attraction to make it three way equal. Heck I would be surprised if most people manage to have a functional 'couple+sex buddy' combo.

I'm afraid that I don't trust your imagination or experiences enough to consider you an authority for all mankind.

I am sure there are many but only a few are enough to sink this idea.

I don't agree. Looking at the divorce rate for heterosexual couples, even when the majority don't work out, we still keep marriage around. Stating that it will collapse because some of the groupings will fail, is... pretty weird, really.

 

[Cavemonster]

Not only this, but increasing the number of people means increasing the number of interpersonal combinations (see the "handshake problem"). Simply put, the more people you add, the more likely that two of them are going to find something to fight about sooner or later.

In a couple, you only have one person whose flaws and annoying habits you need to be able to tolerate, and even then most relationships end. Even among relationships that survived long enough to reach the "marriage" stage, over half fail eventually. In a threesome, you double the odds that you're not going to be compatible with one of your partners in the end.

That's not to say that poly relationships can't work, but instability is inherent in them, for strictly mathematical reasons.

But if you look at why two-person relationships break up, some of the most common causes are rooted in the exclusivity.

People in relationships expect one person to fill all of their sexual needs, as well as a specific chunk of their emotional needs. For these reasons, a larger relationship group can actually increase the stability of a relationship by addressing some of the core problems that haunt relationships.

 

[toddjh]

People in relationships expect one person to fill all of their sexual needs, as well as a specific chunk of their emotional needs. For these reasons, a larger relationship group can actually increase the stability of a relationship by addressing some of the core problems that haunt relationships.

Well, yes and no. First, not many people are emotionally equipped to be happy with that kind of relationship. And second, even with multiple partners, there's no guarantee that sexual incompatibility won't be a problem. Or maybe two of the partners are too compatible, and the third feels left out. It can create compatibility problems as well as solve them.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Whether there exists something equally complicated already is not, in itself, justification for adding another system with that level of complication. And I am not convinced polygamy is less or even equally complicated. Just for starters, you have to completely overhaul divorce laws, child custody laws, including child support, and tax law. Then there are the countless little places marriage pops up all over the map that have to be taken care of. I offered the example of federal financial aid eligibility (since it's an area I'm familiar with), but there are many more. Marriage is bloody everywhere, and everywhere it is, the statutes would have to at least be considered, and most likely changed considerably, were polygamous marriages recognized.

You could require the selection of one spouse to take first position, which would get all the benefits of a single spouse. You could say that the first spouse is automatically first position. Or you could say that if you choose to have multiple spouses, none of them incur any of the benefits granted a single spouse unless otherwise granted by statute. Then you could take your sweet time creating whatever legislation you feel is necessary. Or maybe we repeal all the legislation regarding marriage. That might be fun.

We need a can-do attitude.

On top of all that, polygamous marriage is open to significant abuses, which would have to be legislated and policed, adding yet more cost. For example, we allow people (with considerable red tape) to bring in a marriage partner from farn parts. Ideally, we don't want people getting married just to get into the country.

Already handled with existing laws or by my suggestions above.

How big of a problem would that be? Again, I don't know. As with all of the problems, it is admittedly not insurmountable on its own. Solutions and policies could be enacted. Add all of the problems together, though, and you have quite a lot of work to get done and quite a lot of money to spend to do it.

Fine. Tax 'em. Or follow one my cost-effective solutions above.

Ultimately, it comes down to the status quo. The status quo is not necessarily right, but if people want to change it, it is their responsibility to propose a compelling reason to do so and at least suggest workable solutions to the problems so created by the change. Merely stating that it could be done and that you want it done is not good enough. State how it could be done, and why it should be.

I say that the state needs a compelling reason to prohibit the citizenry from doing what they should be permitted to do in the first place. I'm funny like that.