Why is polygamy immoral?

[EsotericEnigma]

We're taking the first awkward steps toward recognizing homosexual relationships as legitimate and legal. It has taken awhile, but this civil issue is finally public enough to be addressed. We can't ignore it any more.

Soon, the legal definition of marriage will be limited only by the term "two consenting adults," without regard to sexual orientation.

But why only 2? Stable romantic relationships can, and in fact do, exist between 3 or more people. Some of the strongest and most stable families in history were those that involved several people all bound by marriage. Where did this social stigma come from, then?

There are obviously many cases where polygamy is oppressive to women, but the only cases that I would be concerned with giving legitimacy to are ones in which every member of the marriage union is consenting with every other member, and which do not force anyone into the relationship against their will.

What moral issues can you raise that argue against this case?

"Because the bible says so." is obviously not good enough. That argument will work exactly as much as it does in gay marriage debates, which is "not at all". Don't bother bringing that argument to this thread, because it will be ignored.

The idea of polygamy is distasteful to me personally, as I'm sure it is to many of the people reading this, but do we have the right to inflict our personal tastes on the entire country, by making it illegal to do Things We Don't Like?

[SentientMeat]

As long as the principle of informed consent is satisfied, I see no particular moral problem with it (unlike most of the other 'slippery slope' hypotheticals which do not satisfy that principle). I would advocate an interview with the three or more parties beforehand to ensure that the arrangement was consensual and informed rather than the product of coercion or brainwashing, and the legal aspect of estate division upon divorce would require an involved, detailed pre-nuptial agreement by all parties, but these are issues of mere inconvenience rather than morality.

Let someone who genuinely wants to share their partner with someone else bring the case, and we'll see what happens. I do not actually believe that many such people exist.

[Ethilrist]

EE: Could we get some names of some of those strongest families in history?

SM: Seeing as how we don't currently screen two-person heterosexual marriages based on possible coercion, I think it's unlikely that they'll impose that on extended marriages...

[Giles]

One practical problem that I can see is that of divorce. If it would be difficult to obtain informed consent to a marriage of three or more people, the complications would be even worse with divorce. At least with a union of two people, if one seriously wants to get out of the relationship, the solution is to dissolve it. But with A, C and C married, what happens if A wants to divorce B and stay married with C, but B and C want to stay married to each other, regardless of whether A is part of the union or not?

[scule]

One practical problem that I can see is that of divorce. If it would be difficult to obtain informed consent to a marriage of three or more people, the complications would be even worse with divorce. At least with a union of two people, if one seriously wants to get out of the relationship, the solution is to dissolve it. But with A, C and C married, what happens if A wants to divorce B and stay married with C, but B and C want to stay married to each other, regardless of whether A is part of the union or not?

This is one of the main problems with polygamy from the start. From a moral perspective, informed consent to a polygamous union cannot reasonably be judged to be wrong in any way, so long as everyone is in agreement. In fact, no one is prevented from entering into a polygamous relationship situation now, nor would we think to limit their rights to do so.

Marriage, however, is a legal contract, and as such carries certain restrictions to go with the benefits. Between two people, divorce is easy (on paper) because there are only two voices to consider in the distribution of property. With 3+ unions, how do these issues get dealt with. As has been noted, who is left in the relationship if one wants out? And what about property ownership? What about power of attorney, or medical decisions? If a spouse is in a coma, and one wants to pull the plug and the other doesn't, who wins? Marriage as it exists now makes no distinction between genders, both have exactly the same rights and responsibilities, so it would change nothing to make them gender-irrelevant. However, in polygamous marriages, there is the potential for imbalances in power, which is unacceptable.

That said, if astute law-makers could iron out these issues effectively and fairly, I see no problem with allowing polygamous marriages. It may not be my cup of tea, but so are many other things and I have no right to force people to feel like me.

[Stonebow]

Short Answer: it's not immoral at all. As long as everyone is an adult and consents, it's all good.

Long answer: as Giles noted, it would be a nightmare to regulate. I believe that we had this discussion a few months ago, and pretty much everyone agreed that the devil was in the details. You might want to do a search on polyamoury/ polyamouraous relationships.

And never underestimate the sour taste left in our collective mouths by the US's history with institutionalized polygamy among splinter groups of the Mormon church- it tends toward the exploitation of women- child brides and the like.
There's a lot to overcome to make a good case for it in practice.

[alaricthegoth]

Originally Posted by Stonebow

Short Answer: it's not immoral at all. As long as everyone is an adult and consents, it's all good.

Long answer: as Giles noted, it would be a nightmare to regulate. I believe that we had this discussion a few months ago, and pretty much everyone agreed that the devil was in the details. You might want to do a search on polyamoury/ polyamouraous relationships.

.

polygamy? nothing immoral at all. polyandry, on the other hand, is a stench in the nostrils of the lord...

Actually, the regulatory hurdles are, I think, less real than imagined.
All of the "business"aspects; can be put outside of judicial intervention by careful prenuptual agreements. You''d want to apply partnership rather than domestic relations law, I guess, which brings up spousal support questions.

Ok I guess it would be complicated .

Not to mention (just occurred to me) pension/survivorship issues...

[Lilairen]

Originally Posted by alaricthegoth

polygamy? nothing immoral at all. polyandry, on the other hand, is a stench in the nostrils of the lord...

Tricky, that, as polyandry is a form of polygamy.

[aruvqan]

Originally Posted by Ethilrist

EE: Could we get some names of some of those strongest families in history?

SM: Seeing as how we don't currently screen two-person heterosexual marriages based on possible coercion, I think it's unlikely that they'll impose that on extended marriages...

THeoretically we do...I seem to remember a couple of questions as to whether mrAru and I took each other as lawfully wedded hubby/wife, and also a question for the huddled masses to see if anybody had any objections... and also in many states there is a requirement for officients to question either participant about sobriety if they are appearing drunk or drugged.

[aruvqan]

Originally Posted by Giles

One practical problem that I can see is that of divorce. If it would be difficult to obtain informed consent to a marriage of three or more people, the complications would be even worse with divorce. At least with a union of two people, if one seriously wants to get out of the relationship, the solution is to dissolve it. But with A, C and C married, what happens if A wants to divorce B and stay married with C, but B and C want to stay married to each other, regardless of whether A is part of the union or not?

All it would take is a pre-nup worded like a standard multipartner business organization. They have partnerships dissolve all the time and divvying up serious amounts of assets.

[aruvqan]

Originally Posted by Stonebow

And never underestimate the sour taste left in our collective mouths by the US's history with institutionalized polygamy among splinter groups of the Mormon church- it tends toward the exploitation of women- child brides and the like.
There's a lot to overcome to make a good case for it in practice.

*sniffle* but what if I want a second mrAru....pout

Honestly, it is getting to be if [i wanted to procreate and could without endangering my health] I wanted to be a stay at home mom in many areas it would take the incomes of 2 hubbys or a hubby and second wife to let me stay home....some areas of the country are seriously expensive to live in, and kids are *not* cheap to raise!

[Ethilrist]

Originally Posted by aruvqan

THeoretically we do...I seem to remember a couple of questions as to whether mrAru and I took each other as lawfully wedded hubby/wife, and also a question for the huddled masses to see if anybody had any objections... and also in many states there is a requirement for officients to question either participant about sobriety if they are appearing drunk or drugged.

Oh. I thought you were talking about laws rather than traditions. Never mind.

[Giles]

Originally Posted by aruvqan

All it would take is a pre-nup worded like a standard multipartner business organization. They have partnerships dissolve all the time and divvying up serious amounts of assets.

I don't think that property is a serious problem here. I think the problem is if the group disagree about adding new partner(s) to the group, or about partner(s) leaving the group. There could also be problems about dependent children, and who gets custody if the group splits up. These things can be complex enough in a marriage of two people -- they could be considerably more complex in a polygamous marriage.

[Zagadka]

I'll just reiterate what everyone else said -

Immoral? Between consenting adults, hey, whatever gets you off.

Legal? This is where you get more questionable, because the legal definition of "marriage" carries certain rights along with it - opening up one person to "marry" a thousand immigrants coming into the country, for instance, would be a Bad Thing.

[EsotericEnigma]

Originally Posted by Zagadka

I'll just reiterate what everyone else said -

Immoral? Between consenting adults, hey, whatever gets you off.

Legal? This is where you get more questionable, because the legal definition of "marriage" carries certain rights along with it - opening up one person to "marry" a thousand immigrants coming into the country, for instance, would be a Bad Thing.

This does indeed sum up many of the arguments above, so I'll respond to this one.

It seems like many people are willing to live and let live when it comes to deviant sexual behavior, but draw the line when it comes to actually giving them the same rights as us according to the law. Isn't this logic exactly what the majority of anti gay-marriage arguments are based on? "Whatever they want to do behind closed doors is their business, just stay out of the way and keep it to yourself."

There are benefits and complications in marriages and divorces, whether its theoretically between 2 or more than 2 people. People marry immigrants to make them "legal" and quickly get divorces now. This is a problem that's addressed by laws right now. Why would we deny rights to group marriages because it's inconvenient to incorporate into law?

[Zagadka]

Originally Posted by EsotericEnigma

This does indeed sum up many of the arguments above, so I'll respond to this one.

It seems like many people are willing to live and let live when it comes to deviant sexual behavior, but draw the line when it comes to actually giving them the same rights as us according to the law. Isn't this logic exactly what the majority of anti gay-marriage arguments are based on? "Whatever they want to do behind closed doors is their business, just stay out of the way and keep it to yourself."

I don't mind giving polygamous marriages most of the rights. It is just that it is not legally realistic to give marriage rights to an infinite number of people. As I mentioned, this would allow the instant nationalization of everyone who wanted to immigrate to this country.

The anti-gay argument is: "This is wrong, and we don't want to recognize your rights as equals"

The anti-polygamy argument is: "Hey, whatever, but doing what you want would be a flippant violation of the legal status of marriage"

There are benefits and complications in marriages and divorces, whether its theoretically between 2 or more than 2 people. People marry immigrants to make them "legal" and quickly get divorces now. This is a problem that's addressed by laws right now. Why would we deny rights to group marriages because it's inconvenient to incorporate into law?

*shrugs* Go ahead. If you can write up a reasonable polygamy law without massive loopholes, go ahead, I'll vote for it.

[AZCowboy]

From the OP:
"Because the bible says so." is obviously not good enough.

It is obviously not good enough because the Bible doesn't say so. The Bible practically endorses polygamy. Polygamy was accepted among most societies of biblical times, and Christianity didn't begin to disdain polygamy until the ascetic tradition crept into the Roman Catholic Church hundreds of years after Christ's lifetime.

In fact, Martin Luther endorsed polygamy based on his interpretation of the sacred texts.

So, yes, you are right, the argument won't work.

[Mr2001]

Originally Posted by Zagadka

The anti-gay argument is: "This is wrong, and we don't want to recognize your rights as equals"

The anti-polygamy argument is: "Hey, whatever, but doing what you want would be a flippant violation of the legal status of marriage"

Hasn't that also been an anti-gay-marriage argument? You know, "We can't let two men get married because then guys might marry their roommates just so they can get tax benefits or cheaper rent."

[Zagadka]

Originally Posted by Mr2001

Hasn't that also been an anti-gay-marriage argument? You know, "We can't let two men get married because then guys might marry their roommates just so they can get tax benefits or cheaper rent."

Well, in that case, we'd better just not let anyone marry!

[Pashnish Ewing]

Originally Posted by AZCowboy

In fact, Martin Luther endorsed polygamy based on his interpretation of the sacred texts.

Yep. And his dream was a lot sexier than MLK's.

[astro]

Originally Posted by Stonebow

Short Answer: it's not immoral at all. As long as everyone is an adult and consents, it's all good.

Long answer: as Giles noted, it would be a nightmare to regulate. I believe that we had this discussion a few months ago, and pretty much everyone agreed that the devil was in the details. You might want to do a search on polyamoury/ polyamouraous relationships.

And never underestimate the sour taste left in our collective mouths by the US's history with institutionalized polygamy among splinter groups of the Mormon church- it tends toward the exploitation of women- child brides and the like.
There's a lot to overcome to make a good case for it in practice.

What Stonebow said. Polygamous marriages in the US are not "immoral" in an of themselves as a contract between adult men and women, but in practice you tend to get stuff like child brides, along with coercive, cult like environments and family structures. Thee's also the potential for violent conflicts between patriarchs of polygamous famlies, or between patriarchs and the family of daughters the group is trying to recruit. It's just not a practicularly good deal all around.

[Lilairen]

Originally Posted by astro

What Stonebow said. Polygamous marriages in the US are not "immoral" in an of themselves as a contract between adult men and women, but in practice you tend to get stuff like child brides, along with coercive, cult like environments and family structures. Thee's also the potential for violent conflicts between patriarchs of polygamous famlies, or between patriarchs and the family of daughters the group is trying to recruit. It's just not a practicularly good deal all around.

Child brides are not a problem if age of consent for marriage is enforced.

Cultlike, abusive marriages exist with monogamy, and nobody uses that as an argument against them.

Most of the "patriarchs" out to "recruit" get soundly laughed out of most communities for people practicing multiple relationships.

And as many women are interested in multiple relationships as men.

In brief, religiously-influenced patriarchal polygyny is a poor model for the general case of polygamy, and almost certainly not the majority among people who prctice some form of multiple-adult relationship in the West.

[dangermom]

What Stonebow said. Polygamous marriages in the US are not "immoral" in an of themselves as a contract between adult men and women, but in practice you tend to get stuff like child brides, along with coercive, cult like environments and family structures. Thee's also the potential for violent conflicts between patriarchs of polygamous famlies, or between patriarchs and the family of daughters the group is trying to recruit. It's just not a practicularly good deal all around.

Those effects do come along with the particular brand of polygamy practiced by the splinter groups; but I think it's more a result of the secretiveness, control, and general ickiness of a tightly controlled separatist atmosphere than the polygamy itself. I think polygamy is fraught with potential complications, and that it must be very difficult to practice in most cases--but I don't agree that it automatically results in abused child brides and violence.

[tracer]

Originally Posted by AZCowboy

It is obviously not good enough because the Bible doesn't say so. The Bible practically endorses polygamy. Polygamy was accepted among most societies of biblical times,

You ain't just whistlin' Dixie there. The Book of Samuel described King David as having 4 simultaneous wives, and the Book of Kings (or was it Chronicles?) described King Solomon as having 700 wives and 300 concubines. The Pauline Letters in the NT state that deacons and ministers in the Church should limit themselves to one wife apiece, but place no such restriction on the general congregation.

However, Biblical polygamy was a one-way street. A man could have more than one wife, but a woman could not have more than one husband. Adultery was defined as sex between Man 1 and a woman who was married to Man 2; the marital status of Man 1 didn't enter into the equation.

[Aeschines]

I think it's a great idea. Here's basically the same OP, started by me awhile ago.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...d.php?t=234605

[BrainGlutton]

I once read an anectdote about Abraham Lincoln. At a social gathering, he got into an argument with a Mormon over polygamy. Finally the Mormon said, "But can you point to any Scripture which expressly forbids polygamy?" "Certainly," Lincoln replied. "'No man can serve two masters.'"

[AZCowboy]

Not Abraham Lincoln, but Mark Twain.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by AZCowboy

Not Abraham Lincoln, but Mark Twain.

It does sound more like Twain than Lincoln . . . I'll look it up next time I'm at the library.

[Loopydude]

I don't see anything "immoral" if it's among consenting adults. Certainly, it's illegal, and as mentioned above, the complications that arise as more people get introduced into the marriage contract, the more difficult it becomes to litigate that contract.

Simple solution: Do away with the marriage contract as a legal entity, and let people commit whatever consensual acts in their bedrooms they damn well please, short of breaking other laws (like those against homicide, or bestiality, for instance). Children are the legal responsibility of the two parents. Who owns the property? Well, who's name is on the mortgage? And so on. It shouldn't have to be complicated.

[dangermom]

It does sound more like Twain than Lincoln . . . I'll look it up next time I'm at the library.

The anecdote can be found online, and it is indeed supposed to be Mark Twain. On the webpage, it was attributed to A treasury of laughter by Louis Untermeyer, which I assume to be a garbled version of the Treasury of Great Humor; Including Wit, Whimsy and Satire from the Remote Past to the Present. You can find it in the library under 808.87.

Abraham Lincoln didn't have much contact with the Mormons, though he did practice law in a courthouse where Joseph Smith once went for a case. By the time Lincoln became president, the Mormons were established in Utah.