Is Polygamy Really Wrong?

[Jim B.]

People assume so. But is it really?

Is it, for example, anti-christian? The Bible seems to endorse it in fact. Early Christian Charlemagne had more than one wife. And it apparently was at least a non-issue then.

Is it wrong "morally"? I covered the Christian part. And most other moralities, at least that I am aware of, focus on the harmful aspects of things*. So how does polygamy harm anyone?

Thank you in advance to all who reply

_________________________________________________________________

*I'm sorry, I probably won't be able to offer a cite for this. But it's true. Most moralities (other than Christian) focus on the harm things do. Prove me wrong.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Jim B.

So how does polygamy harm anyone?

• In practice, polygamy is largely polygyny, which if practiced widely leads to a shortage of women for men. Either you have large numbers of frustrated men with no chance at a relationship with a woman (which leads to social instability), or you have "excess" males being outright discarded like the radical Mormons do to boys.
  
  
• It has a common correlation with the poor treatment of women.

[Odesio]

I don't think it's an inherently immoral system and it probably makes good sense in the proper context. However, Der Trihs listed two valid criticisms of polygamy in the modern age. From a legal standpoint it seems like polygamy would be quite a headache when it came to divorce and what to do with the children.

[MrDibble]

Polygamy is harmful and morally wrong when it happens in a social context of unequal gender power dynamics, as is usually the case. Between consenting, informed, more-or-less equal adults, there isn't anything wrong with polyamory - Freak Freely.

[Ruminator]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

• It has a common correlation with the poor treatment of women.

Seems one could argue that monogamy is a poor treatment of men.

[Jonathan Chance]

Huh?

Pardon my grunting there but you're going to have to explain that one. It's not hard to find examples of polygyny leading to adverse outcomes for females. Can you make examples of your thesis?

[Gyrate]

Originally Posted by Odesio

I don't think it's an inherently immoral system and it probably makes good sense in the proper context. However, Der Trihs listed two valid criticisms of polygamy in the modern age. From a legal standpoint it seems like polygamy would be quite a headache when it came to divorce and what to do with the children.

Originally Posted by MrDibble

Polygamy is harmful and morally wrong when it happens in a social context of unequal gender power dynamics, as is usually the case. Between consenting, informed, more-or-less equal adults, there isn't anything wrong with polyamory - Freak Freely.

These. I've no objections in theory to polygamy (or polyamory); the problem is that in practice it tends to get very nasty to one or more of the parties involved very quickly, simply because there is often a fundamental inequality involved in the relationship that cannot easily be mitigated through any formal or legal means.

Also, as noted, before polygamy can be made legal there would have to be significant issues to be resolved over things like division of property, child custody, powers of attorney and medical decisions, divorce or legal separation of one or more members of the marriage, and so forth.

[BigT]

Wrong, not exactly. Suboptimal, yes, in my opinion. It's a very rare person that can handle it without having much more problems than in a traditional marriage. An open marriage would work better, and they aren't usually so hot, either.

[Bozuit]

I don't think it's fair to talk about what might come up as well as polygamy. Polygamy in itself does not promote anything other than polygamy. When it comes to poor treatment of women is polygamy the cause or effect of that society? I'd guess both.

I don't see any reason to consider it morally or ethically wrong if we're just talking about polygamy and not adding in issues relating to how polygamy is practised currently.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Ruminator

Seems one could argue that monogamy is a poor treatment of men.

Not really. It benefits men by ensuring that the great majority of men have a woman at some point, instead of of the old days where the wealthy & powerful accrued the majority of women. If anything it's historically been against the interests of women, since a portion of a rich man's resources would benefit them more than a full share of a poor man's.

[GreasyJack]

While I agree there's nothing intrinsically wrong about marriages involving more than two people, the rationale that actually drives most polygamy in practice is that women are baby factories that need to be utterly dependent on men. Polygamy "makes sense" to women in societies where their standard of living is completely dependent on the wealth of their husbands, and so it might make more sense to share a wealthy man than get all of a poor man. Having a career or anything like that doesn't factor in.

A modern marriage is supposed to be more of an equal partnership, and while a three plus person relationship based on mutual respect is entirely possible, in practice the vast majority of "secular" polygamous marriages would be Hugh Hefner types maintaining a bevel of floozies because they're financially able to. Since everyone in that situation is a consenting adult, I wouldn't necessarily say that should be illegal, but it definitely wanders into my definition of "not right". I do think polygamy as it is practiced in places like Colorado City in virtually all cases isn't entirely consensual and should be illegal and cracked down on.

[tapu]

I've always thought that if we made polygamy legal, most of the concomitant problems we see with polygamy would disappear. Well, not disappear exactly, but they'd be pretty much the same problems we have with respect to monogamy.

When there is abuse in a relationship, a wife in monogamy has recourse to the law; a polygamous wife does not. When there is a custody dispute, the court systems are set up to decide for the child, in monogamous marriages. There is no outside power now to regulate in a polygamous situation with children.

It's like the argument many of us hold in our minds for legal abortion; the consequences are appalling. That's where polygamy in the US stands today. (And marriage of consenting relatives, as far as I'm concerned.)

[Ruminator]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

Not really. It benefits men by ensuring that the great majority of men have a woman at some point, instead of of the old days where the wealthy & powerful accrued the majority of women. If anything it's historically been against the interests of women, since a portion of a rich man's resources would benefit them more than a full share of a poor man's.

But what about the women that could benefit from multiple husbands? She marries 5 husbands, gets 5x the bride price (or in modern terms... "5x the widow's inheritance".)

Maybe some "Sex in the City" type of liberated women would make out better by hedging their bets with 5 outstanding inheritances vs 5 serial sequential marriage-and-divorce settlements. (This may hurt the value of ugly undesirable women so the total net benefit to society might be less. I don't know.)

There has to exist some positives in all this for both men and women.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Ruminator

But what about the women that could benefit from multiple husbands?

That's pretty much limited to regions with extreme poverty, to the extent that it takes more than one man to support a woman and children. And I understand that typically none of the people in such a marriage actually like it.

[GreasyJack]

Originally Posted by tapu

I've always thought that if we made polygamy legal, most of the concomitant problems we see with polygamy would disappear. Well, not disappear exactly, but they'd be pretty much the same problems we have with respect to monogamy.

When there is abuse in a relationship, a wife in monogamy has recourse to the law; a polygamous wife does not. When there is a custody dispute, the court systems are set up to decide for the child, in monogamous marriages. There is no outside power now to regulate in a polygamous situation with children.

I'm not sure I really agree with this. The way the courts handle custody with a divorcing couple and pair of single people who had a kid (which is how the courts would view the kids of the wives other than wife #1) is pretty much the same. Ditto with domestic violence laws and such-- they're all geared toward "partner abuse" and I can't think of any situation where things would be different with a married couple.

Most of the problems with polygamy as practiced in the US today is that those who do so are members of religious groups where physical and mental abuse are endemic and women are brainwashed and treated as virtual prisoners. I don't see any way legally recognizing those marriages would help. (Although one way it might help is that supposedly a big part of what supports those communities is that most of the wives are technically single mothers with many children and so get lots of public assistance-- maybe if they were legally married that loophole could be more easily closed)

[Acid Lamp]

The OP really needs to clarify their position. The question is simply too broad to answer adequately. Certainly in historical context polygamous relationships have allowed abuses of power, but then so have monogamous ones. In and of itself there is no reason that a balanced relationship should be any more ethically suspect simply because it involves multiple partners.

Cindy is Married to Frank and Mark. Everyone contributes to the household in some manner, and While Frank provides the bulk of emotional support to Cindy in just the ways she needs, his sex drive is very low and was a frustrating factor in their relationship. Mark is in many ways, Frank's opposite. He is charming and a pleasant man, but is not really there for Cindy in the manner that Frank is. He does however, provide frequent physical affection for Cindy and is a great friend and occasional lover to Frank who is bi-sexual. Collectively, they have 3 children, and due to the fact that Mark travels often for work, Frank is able to be a stay-at home Dad and telecommute.

In this case, everyone benefits from the arrangement; If you take the basis of ethics to be that the creation of harm or suffering is "wrong", then this relationship is not ethically suspect. You could create any number of other scenarios With any combination of genders and reasons and get the same results. Our current objections are more a creation of historical bad memories and religious baggage than anything else.

[tapu]

Originally Posted by GreasyJack

I'm not sure I really agree with this. The way the courts handle custody with a divorcing couple and pair of single people who had a kid (which is how the courts would view the kids of the wives other than wife #1) is pretty much the same. Ditto with domestic violence laws and such-- they're all geared toward "partner abuse" and I can't think of any situation where things would be different with a married couple.

Most of the problems with polygamy as practiced in the US today is that those who do so are members of religious groups where physical and mental abuse are endemic and women are brainwashed and treated as virtual prisoners. I don't see any way legally recognizing those marriages would help. (Although one way it might help is that supposedly a big part of what supports those communities is that most of the wives are technically single mothers with many children and so get lots of public assistance-- maybe if they were legally married that loophole could be more easily closed)

My point is that when polygamy is illegal, its practice goes underground. Polygamists have no regulation and no rights then, neither by society or law. They can't go to a counselor or a lawyer with any problems--they'll go to jail. It's the illegality that allows the abuse, brainwashing, and imprisoning to go on. Before the extent of domestic abuse in the world came to light, and laws and centers were put into place, it was a lot easier to beat your wife and get away with it.

[dngnb8]

Originally Posted by Jim B.

People assume so. But is it really?

Is it, for example, anti-christian? The Bible seems to endorse it in fact. Early Christian Charlemagne had more than one wife. And it apparently was at least a non-issue then.

Is it wrong "morally"? I covered the Christian part. And most other moralities, at least that I am aware of, focus on the harmful aspects of things*. So how does polygamy harm anyone?

Thank you in advance to all who reply

_________________________________________________________________

*I'm sorry, I probably won't be able to offer a cite for this. But it's true. Most moralities (other than Christian) focus on the harm things do. Prove me wrong.

I dont have a cite, but I believe it was the Catholic Church who defined monogamy. If I remember correctly, it was because the rich were getting all the women. To spread out the gene pool, as it were, they decided 1 wife per Christian male. I have over simplified the issue, but that was the gist of it.

The Bible has numerous examples of polygamy. Where fidelity is concerned, the Bibles examples mention "wife" (not plural), but I am not convinced they meant one.

Remember, the penalty for bigamy is not just 2 wives, but 2 MILs as well

[The Hamster King]

Originally Posted by Acid Lamp

You could create any number of other scenarios With any combination of genders and reasons and get the same results.

Then lets see real-life examples of relationships like this that work. There were lots of examples of gay couples in stable, long-term relationships long before anyone even began to talk about gay marriage being legally sanctioned.

Similarly, if polyamorous relationships can create stable, viable family units that don't oppress the women involved, let's see some evidence of that such family units actually do exist in significant numbers. Then we can start talking about whether it's desirable to expand marriage laws to encompass them. But there's no point in fighting to expand marriage laws to accommodate an idealized theoretical construct. We're not moving toward gay marriage because, hypothetically a gay couple might form a long-term stable bond. We're doing it because in reality there are huge numbers of gay couples who have. Changing the laws is just recognizing the reality of a situation that already exists.

[Acid Lamp]

Originally Posted by The Hamster King

Then lets see real-life examples of relationships like this that work. There were lots of examples of gay couples in stable, long-term relationships long before anyone even began to talk about gay marriage being legally sanctioned.

Similarly, if polyamorous relationships can create stable, viable family units that don't oppress the women involved, let's see some evidence of that such family units actually do exist in significant numbers. Then we can start talking about whether it's desirable to expand marriage laws to encompass them. But there's no point in fighting to expand marriage laws to accommodate an idealized theoretical construct. We're not moving toward gay marriage because, hypothetically a gay couple might form a long-term stable bond. We're doing it because in reality there are huge numbers of gay couples who have. Changing the laws is just recognizing the reality of a situation that already exists.

Take look around at any number of boards for polyamorous people. There are loads of people living in such arrangements currently. I suspect that the lack of law to encompass this is far more the weight of history combined with the cumbersome nature of Western law that lack of good examples. Also in many states here in the US, simple cohabitation can run afoul of strict bigamy laws.

[tapu]

Originally Posted by The Hamster King

Then lets see real-life examples of relationships like this that work. There were lots of examples of gay couples in stable, long-term relationships long before anyone even began to talk about gay marriage being legally sanctioned.

Similarly, if polyamorous relationships can create stable, viable family units that don't oppress the women involved, let's see some evidence of that such family units actually do exist in significant numbers. Then we can start talking about whether it's desirable to expand marriage laws to encompass them. But there's no point in fighting to expand marriage laws to accommodate an idealized theoretical construct. We're not moving toward gay marriage because, hypothetically a gay couple might form a long-term stable bond. We're doing it because in reality there are huge numbers of gay couples who have. Changing the laws is just recognizing the reality of a situation that already exists.

Geez, have you never seen Big Love??? As long as polygamy is a punishable offense, you'll never see those examples.

Hmm... wait. It's only an offense when there's a marriage, right? And the marriages aren't legal... so how do they ever get anyone for polygamy? (I'm not talking about a bigamy situation where one partner gets legally married to more than one.)

[Ulfreida]

If you can find any women who think polygamy would be great for them personally, who aren't saying that out of powerlessness and poverty, then you have a case. Otherwise, it's just the same old thing men have always wanted, that women have had to accept.

[Kobal2]

Originally Posted by Ulfreida

If you can find any women who think polygamy would be great for them personally, who aren't saying that out of powerlessness and poverty, then you have a case. Otherwise, it's just the same old thing men have always wanted, that women have had to accept.

You're thinking of polygyny, which is a specific subset of polygamy. OK, so historically polygamy has mostly been synonymous with it for various reasons (property rights & heirlooms mostly).
But I don't see any particular reason why, if we're considering polygamy today as modern enlightened apes, we couldn't consider polyandry just as valid (or any combination of x husbands, y wives e.g. the family units described inCourtship Rite)

[GreasyJack]

Originally Posted by tapu

My point is that when polygamy is illegal, its practice goes underground. Polygamists have no regulation and no rights then, neither by society or law. They can't go to a counselor or a lawyer with any problems--they'll go to jail. It's the illegality that allows the abuse, brainwashing, and imprisoning to go on. Before the extent of domestic abuse in the world came to light, and laws and centers were put into place, it was a lot easier to beat your wife and get away with it.

It's not really underground, though. The crime of polygamy is trying to get more than one legally-recognized marriage, whereas the polygamist groups are married to their wives past #1 in the eyes of God only. It's not the illegality that leads to these groups being secretive and insular, but their need to control their members.

[Morgenstern]

Originally Posted by Ulfreida

If you can find any women who think polygamy would be great for them personally, who aren't saying that out of powerlessness and poverty, then you have a case. Otherwise, it's just the same old thing men have always wanted, that women have had to accept.

I guess you've never seen Sister Wives. They claim they appreciate a part time husband over a full time husband. That sort of destroys your powerlessness and poverty argument.

[Ulfreida]

Originally Posted by Kobal2

You're thinking of polygyny, which is a specific subset of polygamy. OK, so historically polygamy has mostly been synonymous with it for various reasons (property rights & heirlooms mostly).
But I don't see any particular reason why, if we're considering polygamy today as modern enlightened apes, we couldn't consider polyandry just as valid (or any combination of x husbands, y wives e.g. the family units described inCourtship Rite)

My guess is, if power and wealth was completely equally distributed between the sexes, and there were no strictures upon polygamy, it would be an occasionally advantageous combo for a small subset of people, only. Much more common would be serial monogamy. You know, like now.

The reason is basically jealousy. Unless one or more persons in the group is unusually non-possessive or low-needs, there would be constant friction. The way polyGYNY worked is that women were little different than slaves.

Put it this way: can you easily imagine happily sharing your wife with three or four other men who live in the same house? If not, there's your answer.

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by dngnb8

I dont have a cite, but I believe it was the Catholic Church who defined monogamy. If I remember correctly, it was because the rich were getting all the women. To spread out the gene pool, as it were, they decided 1 wife per Christian male. I have over simplified the issue, but that was the gist of it.

I suspect that Christianity was doing nothing more than enforcing the cultural mores of the time without any consideration for wealth distribution and, certainly, no interest in a broader gene pool.

Christianity developed and flourished under Roman law which did not permit polygamy and the Greek states had a tradition of not practicing polygamy even before Roman conquest. Judaism, from which Christianity had originally sprung, held an ideal of monogamy, but permitted polygyny, so while several Patriarchs and kings in the bible were polygynous, the moral statements regarding marriage throughout scripture always spoke of a monogamous union.
With that background, expanding into a society in which monogamy was already the norm, both in culture and law, Christianity simply carried on the tradition in which it had come to be.
(Rome tended to not interfere with local laws, so polygamy was permitted under those statutes in conquered lands, but anyone living under direct Roman law was going to be monogamous. In Roman society, even concubines were expected to live separately from the husband, more like mistresses than secondary wives.)

[tapu]

Originally Posted by GreasyJack

It's not really underground, though. The crime of polygamy is trying to get more than one legally-recognized marriage, whereas the polygamist groups are married to their wives past #1 in the eyes of God only. It's not the illegality that leads to these groups being secretive and insular, but their need to control their members.

Hmm.... Interesting take. I'll have to look into that. I did just read that polygamy is not defined only as 2 or more legal marriages, but that it can just be "cohabiting as one family, with multiple partners." Wow, that threw me. I think I might have done that once!

[Simplicio]

Originally Posted by tapu

Hmm... wait. It's only an offense when there's a marriage, right? And the marriages aren't legal... so how do they ever get anyone for polygamy? (I'm not talking about a bigamy situation where one partner gets legally married to more than one.)

I don't think anyone does get arrested for polygamy anymore. Usually polygamists for welfare fraud or statutory rape or the like.

So far as I know, there isn't really anything stopping you from getting a few (consensual) sister-wives and setting up yourselves as a polygamous family. You won't get the legal benefits of marriage, but the FBI won't come bursting in your door either.

[GreasyJack]

Yeah, I don't think anyone has actually been prosecuted for polygamy in the US since the early days of Utah statehood. People like Warren Jeffs get prosecuted for rape and kidnapping and other crimes they commit in the process of running their groups, but not for the polygamy itself.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by Odesio

From a legal standpoint it seems like polygamy would be quite a headache when it came ... what to do with the children.

If they're girls, marry them off when they're 15.

If they're boys, find some excuse to get rid of them when they're 15.

[Tristan]

Originally Posted by GreasyJack

Yeah, I don't think anyone has actually been prosecuted for polygamy in the US since the early days of Utah statehood. People like Warren Jeffs get prosecuted for rape and kidnapping and other crimes they commit in the process of running their groups, but not for the polygamy itself.

Agreed. Which I always find interesting, as even living as a family with more than one spouse is against state law in Utah, though it never seems to be prosecuted or acted upon. Go figure.

The problem with modern Polygamy in the public eye is that it is associated with young girls (14,15, 13, whever puberty kicks in really) being forced to marry older men with no say in the situation. This is wrong.

However, if my wife and I wanted to move a woman in with us and act as if we were all 3 married, with equality and love, there is no problem. And there are a lot of folks living like this (though often not, in my experience, without a lot of drama and weirdness... the fault of the people, not the circumstances).

The model is there, and lawyers are paid exactly to figure out the social issues that a 3 way (or more) divorce would create. Let them figure it out.

[aruvqan]

Originally Posted by Ulfreida

If you can find any women who think polygamy would be great for them personally, who aren't saying that out of powerlessness and poverty, then you have a case. Otherwise, it's just the same old thing men have always wanted, that women have had to accept.

<raises hand> In the past I had lived with 2 men at a time, and once with another couple. I could do with a second husband or second wife. I know mrAru would have no issues with it either, we have discussed it at a number of times, but when he was military it would have seriously fucked his career, and now it would screw with his ability to keep a job even without the need to keep a security clearance.

[DrCube]

Originally Posted by The Hamster King

Then lets see real-life examples of relationships like this that work. There were lots of examples of gay couples in stable, long-term relationships long before anyone even began to talk about gay marriage being legally sanctioned.

My wife and I have been married for 11 years. I've been with my girlfriend for 3 and she's been with her boyfriend for a year and a half. We've also had some more casual dates and short term relationships in that time frame as well.

We don't live together, but my girlfriend is at our house a little under half the time, and she is like a second mom (or maybe more like a beloved aunt) to my 5 year old son.

It's not actually a marriage, but it is polyamory and it works for us. I personally don't have any desire to "make it official", but if someone else does, why should we stop them? However, the "bureaucratic nightmare" argument is pretty powerful.

[Acid Lamp]

Originally Posted by DrCube

My wife and I have been married for 11 years. I've been with my girlfriend for 3 and she's been with her boyfriend for a year and a half. We've also had some more casual dates and short term relationships in that time frame as well.

We don't live together, but my girlfriend is at our house a little under half the time, and she is like a second mom (or maybe more like a beloved aunt) to my 5 year old son.

It's not actually a marriage, but it is polyamory and it works for us. I personally don't have any desire to "make it official", but if someone else does, why should we stop them? However, the "bureaucratic nightmare" argument is pretty powerful.

I'll add in another data point.

Nashiitashii and I are married, and maintain a semi-open marriage. We occasionally have a third partner, and we could see making a person permanent, should the fit be good enough.

[Jim B.]

Originally Posted by Acid Lamp

The OP really needs to clarify their position. The question is simply too broad to answer adequately. Certainly in historical context polygamous relationships have allowed abuses of power, but then so have monogamous ones. In and of itself there is no reason that a balanced relationship should be any more ethically suspect simply because it involves multiple partners.

If it's not too late to reply, I mean polygamy per se. That includes polygyny, polyandry and everything in-between.

[FixMyIgnorance]

Originally Posted by DrCube

My wife and I have been married for 11 years. I've been with my girlfriend for 3 and she's been with her boyfriend for a year and a half. We've also had some more casual dates and short term relationships in that time frame as well.

We don't live together, but my girlfriend is at our house a little under half the time, and she is like a second mom (or maybe more like a beloved aunt) to my 5 year old son.

It's not actually a marriage, but it is polyamory and it works for us. I personally don't have any desire to "make it official", but if someone else does, why should we stop them? However, the "bureaucratic nightmare" argument is pretty powerful.

What does your wife think of that setup?

I've always been curious how these relationships stay together. People tend to not like sharing with others.

[Zeriel]

Originally Posted by Ulfreida

If you can find any women who think polygamy would be great for them personally, who aren't saying that out of powerlessness and poverty, then you have a case. Otherwise, it's just the same old thing men have always wanted, that women have had to accept.

Er, meet my wife, who is quite happy with her boyfriend.

[Zeriel]

Originally Posted by FixMyIgnorance

People tend to not like sharing with others.

I find that's much less universal than is typically assumed.

[Kimstu]

Originally Posted by FixMyIgnorance

I've always been curious how these relationships stay together. People tend to not like sharing with others.

I've never been in one, but I have friends who are in a long-term poly (trio) marriage, and they seem to be fine with it.

I think a key part is that people DO like sharing with others, when those others are people they personally know and care about. As a trivial analogy, you'd be pretty pissed off if somebody told you you had to give half your sandwich to a random stranger, but you would quite happily give half your sandwich to a beloved family member.

Not that a spouse is a sandwich, but you know what I mean.

The poly people I've known aren't thinking of their sex-partner-spouse(s) as "mine" and their non-sex-partner-spouse(s) as "rivals", which is the mindset you seem to be assuming. They're not just a bunch of individuals competing with each other for the chance to be part of a couple.

Rather, they see themselves as in a close relationship with all their spouses, so the happiness of all the various couple arrangements in the marriage is important and gratifying to them.

[redtail23]

Another poly checking in. 15 year relationship.

We have had some major issues at times, but we're still here.

And one reason you won't get stats on poly families is the threat of losing jobs, children, etc. Most poly's are seriously in the closet.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Simplicio

I don't think anyone does get arrested for polygamy anymore. Usually polygamists for welfare fraud or statutory rape or the like.

So far as I know, there isn't really anything stopping you from getting a few (consensual) sister-wives and setting up yourselves as a polygamous family. You won't get the legal benefits of marriage, but the FBI won't come bursting in your door either.

Technically, it's illegal to "live a polygamous lifer style" in Utah, so although it won't bring the FBI to your door, it could bring the local police. Not sure if this is ever enforced, or if it would stand up in court, either. But it is the law of the land in that state for now.

[Thudlow Boink]

Originally Posted by Ulfreida

Put it this way: can you easily imagine happily sharing your wife with three or four other men who live in the same house? If not, there's your answer.

In at least one sense, sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gander here: having to share her husband with other women does not necessarily limit the number of successful offspring a woman can have.

If you look at it from an evolutionary psychology perspective, where the "goal" is having one's genes survive and thrive, polygyny can, in some circumstances, be a decent deal for the women involved. The real losers are the non-alpha males.

[redtail23]

I believe the "Sister Wives" people relocated from Utah under serious threat of prosecution, although I think the case was later dropped. They also were having severe personal repercussions from the publicity (lost jobs, etc.).

What I find entertaining about "Sister Wives" is how completely normal they are, compared to most of the reality TV families.

[jackdavinci]

Polygamy isn't inherently immoral. But it's inherently complicated and therefore probably harder to manage successfully. And in certain contexts, it can be used as an excuse for sexism.

[Simplicio]

Originally Posted by redtail23

I believe the "Sister Wives" people relocated from Utah under serious threat of prosecution, although I think the case was later dropped. They also were having severe personal repercussions from the publicity (lost jobs, etc.)

Wikipedia supports this. That's about the closest thing I can find to someone in the last fifty years being charged in the US with polygamy where there weren't more severe charges filed at the same time (fraud and child-rape) against the same person.

But even in the Sister-Wives case, where the accused basically filmed and broadcast their "crime", in a state that probably has a harder anti-polygamist stance of any in the country, the charges were dropped.

So I think its pretty clear that people can live a polygamist life-style in the US without fear of legal repercussions (though of course there still maybe social repercussions).

[Sitnam]

The religious right often defends their opposition to same sex marriage arguing it will lead to the legalization of polygamy.

I agree, and I'm ok with that. Adults should be able to enter into any kind of marriage they see fit, and that marriage should have all the protections and rights a common heterosexual union does.

[Weeping Wyvern]

Originally Posted by Sitnam

The religious right often defends their opposition to same sex marriage arguing it will lead to the legalization of polygamy.

I agree, and I'm ok with that. Adults should be able to enter into any kind of marriage they see fit, and that marriage should have all the protections and rights a common heterosexual union does.

If same-sex marriage becomes the law of the land throughout the USA, as it seems will happen eventually, I wonder if the Mormon church will eventually decide to revive plural marriage. Right now, with their big push against same-ex marriage, the last thing the Latter-day saints want to do is to appear sexually deviant to the public. But if that battle is ever totally lost, then they will have nothing to lose by returning to their polygamous roots, assuming it wold be legal.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by tomndebb

I suspect that Christianity was doing nothing more than enforcing the cultural mores of the time without any consideration for wealth distribution and, certainly, no interest in a broader gene pool.

Actually, I understand that it was the opposite; that in many places for a long time monogamy was a practice imposed in name only by Christianity that was in practice ignored. The kings and other wealthy/powerful men just went from having official harems of wives/courtesans to having a large staff of "handmaidens".

[The Hamster King]

Originally Posted by Sitnam

Adults should be able to enter into any kind of marriage they see fit, and that marriage should have all the protections and rights a common heterosexual union does.

I agree that consenting adults should be able to choose to arrange their romantic affairs however they see fit, but that doesn't mean that society should create a formal legal framework that's capable of accommodating every possible permutation. The vast majority of people are only interested in being married to one person at a time, so it makes sense for any standardized legal framework to be designed around that relationship. The small number of individuals who are interested in other variations would be better served by unique contracts that capture the idiosyncrasies of their particular situations.