Why should polygamy be illegal?

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

As you said, polygamy has often been used to abuse and degrade women. When having many wives is a symbol of power and wealth, a system is implanted that teaches a man that a woman is a collectible and a status symbol and that the more wives he takes, the more God and society favors him. This is regardless of whether they love him or not, whether he can take care of them or not or whether he can provide for two or three children with each wife.

Some of the practices in polygamous societies are unbelievable. Mark Twain once wrote of a middle-aged Mormon in Utah who married both a 12-year-old and her widowed grandmother (in addition to the multiple wives he already had) and made the grandmother a virtual slave to her granddaughter.

Anecdotally, people who have grown up in polygamous households sometimes say it can be a poisonous atmosphere. When two or more women have to compete for affection and attention from their husband and compete for everything from sexual favors to household chores, it leads to constant bickering, constant fighting, constant screaming and shouting and discontent.

However, in a free society that believes in tolerance of another's religion, polygamy among Muslims, Mormons and others should be legal, so long as children aren't married to one another or to adults.

If domestic abuse, child abuse or incest occurs in a household, it may be the fault of polygamy or linked to it in some way but it may not be neccessary to ban polygamy all together.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Okay, I can honestly see that viewpoint. The benefit isn't immediately obvious, although I do have personally one friend (that I know of) that's poly amorous, and in a lasting relationship with two females, all of whom enjoy their relationship and find it closer than a monogamous one. Of course, even with this anecdote, he'd still be in the minority, so benefits are minor.

I don't know any (openly) polyamorous people in my daily life. There are a few members here who I greatly like and respect, however, who have indicated that they are in such relationships. My objections (too strong a word, really; they are more like concerns) are not on moral grounds at all. Polyamory, I have no problem with at all. Legal recognition is another matter.

The costs would be the same as any cost for a new bill being proposed (and they're proposed almost all the time), but of course, the "moral majority" would shoot it down, so pushing it would be next to impossible anyways. Even if you did get it through the door, there would be some complicated procedures that would need to be re-written on inheritance and the like.

It seems to me that most legal polygamy advocates greatly underestimate just how complicated the legal tangles would get. Marriage suffuses our society and reworking the laws to allow polygamy would take a lot of time and effort, to say nothing of the yelling.

Just as an example that is not often considered: federal financial aid eligibility is based on a number called Expected Family Contribution. In a rare moment of bureaucratic nomenclature transparency, this means how much a student's parents, based on their income, are expected to be kicking in towards a college education. If a child comes from a home with, say, his biological parents, another man, and two more women, whose income should be considered when calculating EFC? Just the biological parents? Everyone? Everyone who can be shown to be actually putting money towards the child's other needs?

I'm not saying that question cannot be answered, or that a workable solution does not exist (indeed, with the prevalence of divorced parents with new spouses, it's already a pretty complicated matter, but it's manageable). I just offer that as an example of one of the many situations seldom considered in polygamy debates which would have to be worked out were polygamy recognised. There are loads of them, and every one of them makes the whole deal just that much more complicated.

Beyond that are the social ramifications. It is true that there aren't an abundance of people champing at the bit to rush out and practice polygamy. I do wonder, however, if its prevalence would tend to increase over time after its legalization. If it became a prominent feature of society, it likely would lead to a lot of, as I called them above, sexual losers. Chances are good most of those losers would be young men. And I maintain that the fewer young sexually frustrated males that exist, the better, for everyone involved.

Let me be clear: when I said I do wonder in the above paragraph, I meant just that. I don't know. My little slippery slope is not something I assert the legalization of polygamy will inexorably lead to, but doing our best to think out what it might or will lead to--not just next week, but next century--is something we must do before we go monkeying around with the status quo.

 

[GreNME]

The same argument could be made of polygamy; it increases the number of weddings.

Except that with same-sex marriage it requires no changes to the current taxation or legal code. The same benefit without the added problems.

 

[AWPrime]

Which of course, assumes that only men are marrying multiple women. Sounds rather sexist to me. (Where was the gender equality argument earlier...?)

History has shown that polygamy tends to be sexist.

And unless all partners of the single sex are bisexual, it will develop into discontent.

 

[Skeptic]

When arguing for the legal recognition of same-sex marriages, one often runs into a slippery-slope argument propped up by the opposition asserting that the recognition of same-sex marriages will inevitably lead to recognizing polygamous and polyandrous marriages.

Most proponents simply point out the foolishness of the slippery-slope argument rather than tackling the morality and legality of polygamy and polyandry (likely because it's a deviation of the argument at hand).

When I take the time to actually think about it, very few rational reasons to criminalize or even refrain from recognizing plural marriages arise.

A slippery slope argument is only a fallacy if the slope isn't in fact slippery.

But, as your own post shows, the slope IS slippery.

First we hear from gay activists that it is ABSURD to suppose that legalizing same-sex marriage could POSSIBLY lead to polygamy being recognized, just because some PARANOID RACISTS claim that if you recognize gay marriage, there is no way polygamy will not be recognized too.

Then we begin to get opinion like yours -- namely, that, on second thought, what the heck is so bad with poygamy anyway?

The last stage is to claim that polygamy is a natural step, indeed an invevitable one, and all those polygamaphobes who have anything against this are just racist, prejudicted, etc.: After all, if you recognize gay marriage, there is no way to not recognize polygamy!

In short -- the anti-gay-marriage claimant's predictions turn out to be 100% correct, but he is constantly attacked as racist and stupid.

P.S.

As to the point -- polygamy is in practice not love of many people, but simply the ownership of women and their relegation to 2nd-, 3rd-, etc. citizenship status. Just look at women's status in places that recognize polygamy.

 

[ponderingturtle]

So because you can't imagine loving two people equally, it ergo cannot happen?

I am saying that it will not work legaly. This is about rights and laws not love.

You can not recognise two people as being the both who are most close to you.

 

[pipelineaudio]

So blood relatives should always trump sex partners?

I dont understand

 

[ponderingturtle]

Okay, I can honestly see that viewpoint. The benefit isn't immediately obvious, although I do have personally one friend (that I know of) that's poly amorous, and in a lasting relationship with two females, all of whom enjoy their relationship and find it closer than a monogamous one. Of course, even with this anecdote, he'd still be in the minority, so benefits are minor.

This debate has been about the law. So make a proposal, all you are doing is saying that it is unfair. No one is saying that it is perfectly fair, but you are also not proposing anything.

You talk about love, but marriage especialy in this thread is about laws, rights and regulations. You have done nothing constructive here.

Explain to me how child custody laws will be rewritten to fit a polyamorous mariage?

The costs would be the same as any cost for a new bill being proposed (and they're proposed almost all the time),

Except that you have no proposition. You are declairing it wrong. No one here that I have noticed has been saying it is fair, but it is a sweeping change to what marriage is, it will likely effect everyones marriage, or you will end up saying that it is discriminatory having one law for binary marriages and one law for poly marriages.

This is very different from gay marraige because the legal change is simple there, and impacts no one elses marriage. It is to remove laws preventing gays for marrying. One small change that has no effect on how marriage is defined legaly. This is hundreds to a thousand laws that need to be rewritten, and as I have said there are compeating views of what view of poly should be used to rewrite them.

So, pretty much, the argument is that we go with the procedure we have; a married couple can still be poly amorous, just that any "extra" lovers, no matter how static, get no entitlement to any property whatsoever, unless a will is written out. And no tax breaks, either.

Is this fair, overall? Perhaps. Maybe it is the "most fair" decision there is (according to another's argument). I'm not too convinced on that point, but I can accept its possibility.

Complaining is not constructive, and I have never seen people who complain about this start to put forward useful suggestions for how to change marriage laws to make it fair.

There are times when you simply can not be fair to everyone, it sucks sure, but complaining does not change that reality.

 

[toddjh]

Indeed. Much like the government should not be compelled to allow two homosexuals to marry. It's not in high demand (homosexuals are the minority), there are no constitutional issues that would mandate it (that I know of)

No, that's where you're wrong. There are constitutional issues to mandate same-sex marriage (in some states explicitly, and in my opinion it's only a matter of time until the Supreme Court says the same thing at the federal level).

Banning same-sex marriage is de jure discrimination on the basis of sex, as well as de facto discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The first is a big no-no already, and the second is becoming a big no-no as well. Any law containing such discrimination needs an "exceedingly persuasive justification" to pass review, and there just isn't any good reason to ban same-sex marriage (all the objections basically boil down to "my religion says that's wrong" or "eww, gross!").

But banning polygamy is discrimination on the basis of number, and that's not a suspect or quasi-suspect class like sex or (soon) sexual orientation are. It would only need to pass what's called "rational basis" review, and avoiding lots of legal complication certainly qualifies as a legitimate government interest in my book.

 

[ponderingturtle]

It seems to me that most legal polygamy advocates greatly underestimate just how complicated the legal tangles would get. Marriage suffuses our society and reworking the laws to allow polygamy would take a lot of time and effort, to say nothing of the yelling.

Divorce will be so much simpler though, you simply give everything to the lawyers, problem solved. Well it will solve the issue of property at least, I suspect many will not have the assets to fully fund the custody battles if there are children involved.

 

[ponderingturtle]

History has shown that polygamy tends to be sexist.

And unless all partners of the single sex are bisexual, it will develop into discontent.

I have to question this, how much data is there on modern equal polygamy?

History also shows that marriage is sexist, but that is no longer the case.

 

[ponderingturtle]

A slippery slope argument is only a fallacy if the slope isn't in fact slippery.

But, as your own post shows, the slope IS slippery.

Yep and it all started with womens rights. That is the real problem.

If we had kept women as property none of this would be an issue.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I dont understand

Becuase if you prevent legal recognition of marriage then only someones blood relatives get all kinds of rights that their spouce currently gets.

It is a way to legaly add someone to your family after all.

 

[Rasmus]

Men and women can marry equally, as long as it's with each other. This sounds a bit of a stretch to me.

Black and whites can marry equally, as long as its between themselves.

If you have no problem with that, either, your stance is indeed valid.

 

[Telluride]

Are there any good reasons for objecting to another person's plural marriage?

If everybody involved is a consenting human adult, I can't imagine a good reason for objecting to any kind of marriage.

 

[Anerystos]

For a long time it has seemed to me that all societies - and all total institutions (eg the Roman Catholic Church) - have prescribed the sexual activities which their members can legitimately indulge in.

This has made no difference whatsoever to what these members actually do.

If people want to f***, they will. Once off. Occasionally. Every night. And all points in between and beyond. And there is bugger all the legal system can do about it - especially since those making the laws are doing it anyway.

As one British judge pointed out, the penalty for bigamy is two mothers-is-law. Personally, I agree that that should be sufficient deterrent for anyone. Four (or more) mothers-in-law? The mind boggles.

 

[BenBurch]

Well, its DANGEROUS. My wife would KILL me.

 

[toddjh]

If everybody involved is a consenting human adult, I can't imagine a good reason for objecting to any kind of marriage.

If marriage were really as simple as a private contract between two (or, in this case, more) people, then sure, I'd be all for it. Let them sign whatever they want, and if things get complicated down the line, well, their lawyers will make a lot of money.

But marriage isn't a simple contract like that. Some parts of marriage can be emulated with a private contract, but not all (just try to sign a contract which will let you and the other party file your taxes jointly, for example). The state is a party to the marriage contracts, just as much as the people getting married. It has responsibilities too; it has a stake in the matter, and it will share in the burden when things go south. And that means we, the taxpayers, will too.

So, in this case, no, not everybody involved is consenting. The government has said it's not interested in signing that sort of contract.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

For a long time it has seemed to me that all societies - and all total institutions (eg the Roman Catholic Church) - have prescribed the sexual activities which their members can legitimately indulge in.

This has made no difference whatsoever to what these members actually do.

If people want to f***, they will. Once off. Occasionally. Every night. And all points in between and beyond. And there is bugger all the legal system can do about it - especially since those making the laws are doing it anyway.

All true, but irrelevant. The discussion is not about whether people should be allowed to indulge in polyamorous relationships*. It is about whether the state should recognize those relationships and afford the same types of rights and privileges to them as to (purportedly) monogamous pairings.

*I would even hazard a guess that no-one who has thus far posted in this thread believes polyamory should be illegal.

 

[toddjh]

*I would even hazard a guess that no-one who has thus far posted in this thread believes polyamory should be illegal.

I do! It's naughtier that way!