# Is it time to finally recognize polygamist marriages?? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [September 21, 2015, 7:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-time-to-finally-recognize-polygamist-marriages/732080 "2015-09-21T07:32:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2015, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-time-to-finally-recognize-polygamist-marriages/732080/41 "2015-09-21T23:53:13Z")
> [@kenobi\_65](#): > > I’d be curious to see how bilaterally / equilaterally structured those laws are. In the US, at least today, most (if not all) laws regarding marriage and divorce treat each entrant into the marriage equally (i.e., neither sex is at an advantage or disadvantage). In countries which have legal polygamy today (which has been noted above, is nearly always “one man / multiple women”), is this the case? (For that matter, is it the case in those countries with a one man / one woman marriage?) Well, she was probably over-sharing, and I didn’t have the chance (or the inclination) to into this in depth, but my understanding is that she brought a dowry to the marriage which she didn’t get back if she initiated the divorce, but would if he did. He clearly had no reason to, having a hot new wife to play with. That kind of thing is why I’m against polygamy. A man tired of a woman for whatever reason can more or less go into a second marriage without the bother of getting out of the first one. He can do something similar today but when the wife starts divorce proceedings he is going to be in a position of weakness as the bad guy. It could work the same way with one woman, two men. ---
**Author:** ![Mikeisskeptical](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c0e974/32.png) [@Mikeisskeptical](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mikeisskeptical)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2015, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-time-to-finally-recognize-polygamist-marriages/732080/42 "2015-09-21T23:54:48Z")
Polygamy is not remotely comparable to SSM (let alone slavery, sheesh). The point is that prior to SSM, a man was able to marry a woman, so a woman should be too. A woman was able to marry a man so a man should be too. It’s about legal equality. Now I broadly in favour of allowing polyamerous marriage, but the fact is it entails granting rights which nobody currently has. That’s not an argument against granting them, but it’s an important difference. If men were currently allowed to take multiple wives, I would consider it a no-brainer that women should be allowed multiple husbands. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2015, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-time-to-finally-recognize-polygamist-marriages/732080/43 "2015-09-21T23:59:30Z")
> [@aceplace57](#): > > This is basically the path that lead to gay marriage. Homosexuality was decriminalized first. Allowing gay couples to openly live together. Then eventually a movement began to build for gay marriage. It was a long process but it finally got done. Not really. Decriminalizing the acts was good, true, but had no effect on living relationships. Remember **Three’s Company**? For many years opposite sex people in the same apartment was far more scandalous than the well accepted same sex people in the same apartment. Have two bedrooms, pretend both are used, and you were good to go. I don’t think even the most devout of the devout wants to ban same sex roommates. ---
**Author:** ![Icarus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/icarus/32/72_2.png) [@Icarus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Icarus)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2015, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-time-to-finally-recognize-polygamist-marriages/732080/44 "2015-09-22T00:29:39Z")
For me, I have a squick reaction to the idea because I believe polygamist marriages to be exclusively patriarchal. And that is the aspect I find revolting. However, I can not see that as an argument against legality. Yes, they would be unequal relationships, but how many people in “traditional” M/F marriages are also in unequal relationships? Show of hands! Thought so… However, an aspect that has not been mentioned in this thread - are we limiting polygamist marriages to a one-to-many structure? (One husband-to-many wives, or vice versa.) Because if you are saying it should be legal for a person to marry more than one spouse, then wouldn’t that allow for John to marry Jane and Sue, and Sue to also marry Bob, and Jane to marry Sam, and maybe Sam also marries Lisa, who also marries Ted, who marries the Miller sisters… OK, write laws for that, I dare ya! ---
**Author:** ![kopek](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kopek/32/337_2.png) [@kopek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kopek)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2015, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-time-to-finally-recognize-polygamist-marriages/732080/45 "2015-09-22T00:38:08Z")
Simple answer is – sure! The few people I know who would want to take advantage of such recognition aren’t doing it for religious reasons (the aren’t any form of Mormon) and have always struck me as responsible and reasonable people already living in group relationships. If they want a legal form of marriage or state recognition, I think they should have it. ---
**Author:** ![Great\_Antibob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Great\_Antibob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_Antibob)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2015, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-time-to-finally-recognize-polygamist-marriages/732080/46 "2015-09-22T01:38:39Z")
> [@Claverhouse](#): > > [1853]_Head-shaking_: It’s going to be mighty difficult to get rid of slavery: As things currently stand, there is, at best, a minor imposition on personal freedoms if polygamy is not allowed. And scoff as you like at the laws surrounding polygamy but considerations regarding children of such unions is a big deal. Carelessly changing the current laws potentially introduces some sticky questions about how to support those children if and when such marriages (or even part of one) fails. Worse, history is no guide here. Historically, it was one man to many women, the women themselves were little more than property, and kids had little protection should the father toss them out. With slavery, you had people who had some major impositions placed on their personal freedoms as long as they were slaves. Carelessly freeing slaves may impose some financial hardships on a few, but it frees a lot of people in the meantime. There’s not much of a comparison there. Blind pedantic arguing of supposedly equivalent principles is fine in theory but I prefer looking at the actual human costs. ETA: I guess I should state my own stance. I’m ok with the concept in theory. Actually, I think government shouldn’t have been involved in marriage in the first place. But now that taxes, property, etc are involved, there are some wrinkles that need to be ironed out first. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2015, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-time-to-finally-recognize-polygamist-marriages/732080/47 "2015-09-22T01:45:28Z")
Seems to me that however complicated the legal issues around plural marriage are, decriminalizing it should be a no-brainer. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2015, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-time-to-finally-recognize-polygamist-marriages/732080/48 "2015-09-22T01:46:10Z")
> [@Icarus](#): > > For me, I have a squick reaction to the idea because I believe polygamist marriages to be exclusively patriarchal. And that is the aspect I find revolting. However, I can not see that as an argument against legality. Yes, they would be unequal relationships, but how many people in “traditional” M/F marriages are also in unequal relationships? Show of hands! Thought so… > > However, an aspect that has not been mentioned in this thread - are we limiting polygamist marriages to a one-to-many structure? (One husband-to-many wives, or vice versa.) Because if you are saying it should be legal for a person to marry more than one spouse, then wouldn’t that allow for John to marry Jane and Sue, and Sue to also marry Bob, and Jane to marry Sam, and maybe Sam also marries Lisa, who also marries Ted, who marries the Miller sisters… > > OK, write laws for that, I dare ya! That’s why I suggested all the current members of a marriage should have to unanimously approve any additions. For example, the patriarchy thing where guys collect wives would be toned down if all the current wives had a veto over any additions. Likewise, the unanimous requirement for multiple marriage would force any “chain” marriages to be closed loops. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2015, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-time-to-finally-recognize-polygamist-marriages/732080/49 "2015-09-22T01:47:05Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > “It would take effort to get the laws in place” is not a “reasonable” argument against it. It’s a reasonable argument that it might take time to implement, but that’s a different point. Besides, he was just playing devil’s advocate. If you read his entire post, he wants the government out of the marriage business altogether. I wasn’t playing devil’s advocate. I’m against polygamy under our current legal system. It wouldn’t just take a small effort to get the laws in place–it would take a _monumental_ effort. And no one would agree on what is fair. I think the government should get out of the marriage business, true. With society and relationships changing so much, I don’t think government should incentivize one type of relationship over another at this point. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2015, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-time-to-finally-recognize-polygamist-marriages/732080/50 "2015-09-22T01:59:05Z")
> [@Claverhouse](#): > > [1853]_Head-shaking_: It’s going to be mighty difficult to get rid of slavery: don’t get me wrong, it’s probably a laudable enough aim; but the paperwork ! As I said, there are already some pretty vocal supporters of plural marriage. I’m sure there _was_ a lot of paperwork and labor associated with getting rid of slavery, but thing is that it was totally worth it. It was a huge injustice and evil, not a mere social nuisance. If you think the lack of plural marriage in our society is an evil equal to slavery, well, you’re totally wrong. In fact, _having_ plural marriage could be seen as a backward step for society. Anyone like Donald Trump can have a harem on the side, but he has to keep it secret. Do we want to push society in the direction of every Trump having a bunch of wives openly? Even in ancient Rome that wasn’t permitted, no matter how powerful you were. The point of such social strictures was to give every man a chance at having a woman to marry. We are so used to talking about individual rights in the US that we see society as having none at all, nor do we consider the common good. Polygamy is bad news, and the West has been wise for over 2,500 years to reject it. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2015, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-time-to-finally-recognize-polygamist-marriages/732080/51 "2015-09-22T02:00:45Z")
Traditional polygamy is bad news, I agree. Multiple marriage, however, in the modern sense, is not. In fact, not allowing multiple marriage is oppression against bisexuals. You’re telling them they have to pick one and stick with it. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2015, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-time-to-finally-recognize-polygamist-marriages/732080/52 "2015-09-22T02:03:18Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > I wasn’t playing devil’s advocate. I’m against polygamy under our current legal system. It wouldn’t just take a small effort to get the laws in place–it would take a _monumental_ effort. And no one would agree on what is fair. No, it wouldn’t take a “monumental effort”. We already have LLCs and Corporations that have the exact same issue. Just model it after those institutions, and require that all parties be consenting (including the existing spouses). This is not rocket science. Throwing that out there is just a smoke screen for “I don’t like it”. ---
**Author:** ![Ambivalid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a5b964/32.png) [@Ambivalid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ambivalid)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2015, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-time-to-finally-recognize-polygamist-marriages/732080/53 "2015-09-22T02:04:53Z")
> [@Claverhouse](#): > > Presumably the millions of polygamous marriages before solved these — rather arcane — questions. Is even a single one of these millions of polygamous marriages one that features multiple husbands? > [@Lumpy](#): > > If it were up to me, polygamous marriages would have to be _unanimous_: all of the current members would have to approve any newcomers. Right. Otherwise, legalizing them would be a huge step backwards. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2015, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-time-to-finally-recognize-polygamist-marriages/732080/54 "2015-09-22T02:35:30Z")
Why not do like Heinlein describes in _The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress_ and _Friday_? In those books marriages are contractual arrangements between interested parties\*, with everything laid out on paper and signed by everyone involved. Seniority, succession, inheritance, etc. \*(Okay, except for the Canadian trio who have an agreement amongst themselves but no formal legal documents because it was still illegal in their country.) ---
**Author:** ![Claverhouse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/13edae/32.png) [@Claverhouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Claverhouse)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2015, 6:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-time-to-finally-recognize-polygamist-marriages/732080/55 "2015-09-22T06:14:41Z")
Some are confused about that post, it wasn’t about slavery. Nor comparing the unfortunate polygamists to slaves. It was regarding the mental convolutions needed by people seizing the most remote justification for refusing a change. And insurmountable difficulties that can be fixed by any legislature, no matter how feeble-minded it’s members. Objecting to change is fair and mostly a good thing: but that’s good enough as a reason without elaborate casuistry. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2015, 6:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-time-to-finally-recognize-polygamist-marriages/732080/56 "2015-09-22T06:43:11Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Throwing that out there is just a smoke screen for “I don’t like it”. Really? On the incredibly liberal SDMB? You think that the majority of posters in this thread are, when you come right down to it, just intolerant and squicked out by polyamorous relationship? That’s just so weird. Where would you possibly have gotten that idea? I mean, it just wouldn’t even _occur_ to me that that might conceivably be the case. This is the SDMB, where we bend over backwards to be tolerant of EVERYTHING (other than intolerance). ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2015, 6:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-time-to-finally-recognize-polygamist-marriages/732080/57 "2015-09-22T06:45:44Z")
> [@Claverhouse](#): > > Some are confused about that post, it wasn’t about slavery. Nor comparing the unfortunate polygamists to slaves. The next time someone compares you to a child pornographer or Adolph Hitler, remember, they’re not saying you’re LIKE a child pornographer or Adolph Hitler, they’re just trying to make an analogy. There are certain topics that are so emotionally wrought (for quite good reason) that you can’t just use them as analogies and then try to back off from their essential nature and try to just analogize to, you know, stuff surrounding them. Slavery is certainly on that list, along with Nazis, the holocaust, child pornography, and rape. If you would like to start over and try to make your point again, go for it! But seriously, it will require a fresh start. ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2015, 7:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-time-to-finally-recognize-polygamist-marriages/732080/58 "2015-09-22T07:34:02Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > If it were up to me, polygamous marriages would have to be _unanimous_: all of the current members would have to approve any newcomers. The problem with this is that with current Mormon (using that to convey all Mormon traditions, and not simply the LDS one) women are placed under strong religious and cultural pressure to submit to the patriarchal authorities. Getting a signature accepting the newcomers would not be difficult, despite however much a wife disagrees. That said, one of arguments for legalizing polygamy is that it takes it out of the shadows and shines a light at it. There are a significant number of children in polygamous households and since it was – up until recently – criminalized in Utah they were legally at a disadvantage. > [@Claverhouse](#): > > Presumably the millions of polygamous marriages before solved these — rather arcane — questions. > > Americans really overthink life. No. If we’re going for over generalizations here, Americans want the institution to be fair, if we’re going to legalize it. The millions of polygamous marriages so far have typically been tilted in favor of the man. I don’t believe there would be a rush for formal recognition if legalized. Some Mormon scholars believe legal recognition would actually contribute to somewhat of a decline by taking the practice out of secrecy. I donno. ---
**Author:** ![Senegoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senegoid/32/6606_2.png) [@Senegoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Senegoid)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2015, 8:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-time-to-finally-recognize-polygamist-marriages/732080/59 "2015-09-22T08:03:19Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > We’re not ready for polygamy, and I don’t know when, if ever, we will be. There are thousands of questions that need good answers first. If Alice marries Bob, does Bob then need Alice’s consent to also marry Carol? If he does marry Carol, then are Alice and Carol married to each other? If Bob dies, does there remain any relationship between Alice and Carol? Can one member be divorced from another individual member, or only from the entire marriage? . . . > [@Icarus](#): > > However, an aspect that has not been mentioned in this thread - are we limiting polygamist marriages to a one-to-many structure? (One husband-to-many wives, or vice versa.) Because if you are saying it should be legal for a person to marry more than one spouse, then wouldn’t that allow for John to marry Jane and Sue, and Sue to also marry Bob, and Jane to marry Sam, and maybe Sam also marries Lisa, who also marries Ted, who marries the Miller sisters… > > OK, write laws for that, I dare ya! I am picturing multi-party marriages being defined by a connection matrix (also called an [incidence matrix](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incidence_matrix) or an [adjacency matrix](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adjacency_matrix)), of arbitrary dimensions and with any configuration of incidences. There is a body of established matrix algebra theory pertaining to these (as summarized in the linked Wiki pages), so the new laws we would need could be based on that, for starters. ---
**Author:** ![Claverhouse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/13edae/32.png) [@Claverhouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Claverhouse)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2015, 8:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-time-to-finally-recognize-polygamist-marriages/732080/60 "2015-09-22T08:05:13Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > If you would like to start over and try to make your point again, go for it! But seriously, it will require a fresh start. Not really, the unemotional intelligent will have grasped the points. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-time-to-finally-recognize-polygamist-marriages/732080.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-time-to-finally-recognize-polygamist-marriages/732080.md?page=4)