Polygamy - non-religious objections ?

Great Debates
61

Well, I was not really assuming the individuals involved as being less stable rather than the whole- each partner is a variable that increases the volitility of the mix. As in, each decision needs to be agreed to be an extra person. Think of how hard it is to adjust to joint finances, living space, etc. with just 1 partner.

I’m wary of your claims that polygamy can be more stable than monogamy. Upon what are you basing your claim? If it is your experience, can you claim that as the rule?

As for the “one size fits all” thing…the rule of law is like that at times. If there is to be state recognition of marriage, then parameters must be set. If you wish to expand them, you need to show that a) there is a need, and b) the expansion will still leave the state with clear parameters. Much of this thread has been an attempt to find out what those parameters will be, and how to deal with the resultant issues in property, custody, and inheritance law.

Though it’s not central to this discussion, I believe that advocates of gay marriage have done a good job at this.

62

There are studies. I’m at work so I can’t go look for them right now.

At this point I do not argue for state recognition of polyamorous relationship. I will be happy enough if the state decriminalizes polyamorous life. I understand that there appear to be complex problems with the legalities of polygamous marriages. However, that is no excuse for making laws that make it illegal to choose to be polyamorous even without claiming the incidents of marriage for your supernumerary spouses.

As to the “legal issues”: Property distribution is a nonstarter; we already have a century plus of business partnership dissolution law almost all of which is directly applicable. Child custody is not easy, but child custody is not easy when it’s only two people who are getting divorced. I don’t think the “complications” make it any more difficult or even change the basic rule (“the best interest of the child”). At most you just end up having to interview a few extra people. (But you often do anyway, since there are frequently boyfriends or stepparents in the picture anyway.) Inheritance isn’t as hard to change as you think; just let the surviving spouses take proportionally from the “spouse’s share” of the estate. We already do that for the children of the decedent (who take proportionally from the “children’s share” of the estate). The same for any other benefit that accrues in a fixed amount to the spouse of a person. The only hard part that I see is the tradition of giving a person’s spouse medical insurance. That’s kinda hard to divide up into fair shares. Perhaps when the benefit accrues to the spouses they have to make an election which spouse is to receive it. Still, rational accomodations are not that hard to find. I think this excuse is mainly raised by people who are opposed on principle but want a “justifiable” reason to oppose polygamy.

63

Wow, this thread been active since I last left it…

I resisted the request to describe, in detail, how legal polygamy might work, mainly because it is a heavy burden. Those suggesting that they can’t respond to the OP without defining “polygamy” need to look no further than the dictionary. I was hoping to keep the debate on a conceptual level, and not nit-picking details.

Sure, the devil is in the details. My fear is that polygamy would end up carrying a higher burden of “simplicity” than male-female marriage does. Many posters have suggested the complexity of having multiple spouses making medical decisions, even after I pointed out that even in traditional marriages, the issue isn’t as clear-cut as it may seem (take the Schiavo case).

Like KellyM suggests, I don’t think it is as complicated as it might first appear.

I agree with KellyM’s assertions related to property rights, child custody, and inheritance - I don’t think they are particularly thorny problems. I don’t believe that the insurance benefits are that difficult to address. Employer insurance benefits already suffer from some inequities - specifically, an employee with a spouse and many children typically receives a much greater financial benefit from employer-provided medical insurance than a single employee.

In a legally recognized polygamous union, I would like to see employers guarantee insurance coverage to the family, but limit the financial benefit available according to whatever formula the company sets as policy. For example, an employee with two spouses would receive the same benefit value, but could elect to cover one spouse or the other with that benefit. If they wanted to cover both, they would have to pay the value of the additional benefit. If anything, such an approach would actually yeild greater equity in the distribution of employer provided insurance benefits.

Based on the responses since your last post, jeevmon, would you care to further articulate areas that you believe polygamy offers sufficiently greater complexity (or transactional costs) that should trump the liberty of those who would avail themselves of such an institution?

And to try and clear up one previous misunderstanding with UDS, I do not believe legalizing polygamy would prevent exclusive relationships. The only way to protect exclusive relationships would be if divorce were illegal. Two people who choose to get married are presumed to be entering an exclusive relationship. But anytime after the wedding, either of them can declare their intention to marry someone else. Under current (US) law, the couple would need to divorce first. If polygamy were legal, and the other spouse did not consent to the additonal spouse, getting divorced is still available. Net net, no difference, except if polygamy was legal, and the both spouses consented to the new spouse, no divorce would be required.

To answer a couple of UDS’ specific questions - US laws on these topics vary by state, but yes, in many states, adultery, cohabitation, and bigamy (regardless of consent) is a criminal matter (rarely prosecuted, thankfully, but can still be used to justify displacing otherwise healthy children from good parents). I’m not sure some of these would pass constitutional muster based on recent SCOTUS rulings, but they remain on the books nonetheless (and yes, I think it is a human rights violation!).

To Stonebow’s question, a study by Rubin and Adams in 1986 found no significant difference in marital stability between poly couples versus exclusive couples.

64

Well, if you ever want to see laws changed then it’s a burden someone is going to have to bear.

Goodness, I never would have thought to look in a dictionary for the definition of a word!

The OP did not say he was using the dictionary definition of polygamy. He has refused to say what he means by polygamy at all. Polygamy in practice obviously means different things to different people. Lilairen has already explained as much. If you would like to go by the dictionary definition then that’s nice, but I just looked it up in Webster’s and all they have there is this:

1 : marriage in which a spouse of either sex may have more than one mate at the same time - compare polyandry, polygyny
2 : the state of being polygamous

That’s not enough for me to make a judgement call. It doesn’t tell me whether or not all the mates have legal recognition as spouses of the same person. It doesn’t tell me whether or not everyone involved is a fully consenting adult. It doesn’t tell me whether or not all parties involved know about each other. It doesn’t tell me whether or not all spouses have equal status. It doesn’t tell me whether everyone would be married to each other, or if they would only be married to certain people within the group. It doesn’t tell me whether everyone already involved in the marriage must approve of any new additions, or if their only way to object would be to leave. It doesn’t tell me whether any children would be considered the children of everyone in the marriage, or only their biological parents.

Well, judging from responses here thus far it looks like hardly anyone has a problem with polygamy at the “conceptual level”. All potential objection is in regard to the details. So if you don’t want to talk about the details then fine, but that’s going to make it impossible to have any sort of discussion or debate on the subject.

65

I disagree. I think the justification that “it’s a fine idea in theory, but it’s too hard to change the laws to actually make it work” is a rationalization for “I don’t like the idea, but I won’t admit it even to myself because it will make me look like a bigot.” I’m not saying that everyone thinks that way, but a lot of people do.

As to details: you’ve seen my posts and AZCowboy’s. I think they cover a lot of the “details” with suggestions on how to deal with them. If you can think of any other incidents of marriage that need to be dealt with, feel free to mention them.

66

Gee, if I had finished my post with what you last quoted of me, I would understand your point. But I didn’t, and I don’t.

67

Gee, if you would actually answer my questions and requests for clarification, I might believe you had some interest in a rational discussion. Instead, you seem more interested in playing “if you don’t know, I’m not going to tell you”.

If I had nothing but your posts to go on, I’d be tempted to conclude that polygamous people are part of some weirdo secret cult that wants legal recognition without having to admit to what they’re really up to – whatever that might be. (And I am sure many serious opponents of polygamy already believe just that.) It’s fortunate for the polygamous side that there are posters here like KellyM and Lilairen that are actually willing to talk about the issue instead of talking about how they don’t want to talk about it but everyone should accept it without knowing what it is.

But in re the subject question, I can’t say that anyone in this thread has managed to change my original opinion. I have an objection to any form of marriage that involves unbalanced rights or exploitation of the people involved. I do not have any moral objection to polygamous relationships that do not suffer from these problems. However, anyone looking for a change in existing law must be very clear as to exactly what those changes would be, otherwise I must object for practical reasons. No law gets my vote unless I understand what it will do and why it’s a good idea.

I think archaic laws against cohabitation, etc., could be overturned with no loss to anyone and potential benefit to many, polygamous and monogamous alike. But making polygamous marriage equal to monogamous marriage in the eyes of the law would require more than that. I would be particularly interested in who would have parental rights and responsibilties (everyone? only the bio parents? the bio parents plus anyone else in the marriage who wanted in on it?) and whether people already in the marriage would have “veto power” when it came to potential new spouses. Also, would everyone in a polygamous marriage be married to everyone else, or could A marry both B and C without B and C having any legal relationship to one another? The latter arrangement sounds like trouble waiting to happen to me, but some people would probably prefer it.

68

In my family, I absolutely want both my partners to have parental rights/responsibilities for my children; I’ve discussed with the other woman in the family how we feel about each other’s positions with regards to each other’s hypothetical biological children and are currently leaning towards a parental role somewhat distinct from ‘mother’. We talk about this occasionally; I expect by the time we get to the point of having children we’ll have sorted it out. :wink:

Personally, my relationships do not contain veto power at all. (I am highly uncomfortable with the concept and will neither grant it to others nor accept it.)

For purposes of legal contract, however, I’m in favor of marriage contracts requiring the consent of previously established spouses to be legit (and ideally the new spouse noting his/her awareness of their existence as well). I consider this important because I consider bigamy to be a form of fraud, and I see no good reason to cease prosecuting for said fraud even if concurrent marriage contracts are no longer sufficient evidence.

I would not enter into a marriage contract in which I was married to my partners’ partner(s); I would consider it entering into a contract under false pretenses, which I consider highly immoral and which I suspect may be a crime. (At the very least, I believe it would invalidate the contract.) I do not have or desire a spousal relationship with the fourth member of my family; I will not claim such a relationship exists.

I would be willing to enter into a legal contract that established that we had a familial relationship which is not marriage. It occurs to me that contracts of this sort may have uses elsewhere; I may take the idea and gnaw on it for a while. (Teine, would you remind me I wanted to ask you what you thought of that idea?)

69

Thanks for your response, Lilairen. I found this part especially interesting:

I was thinking earlier that it would be easier, from a legal standpoint, if everyone involved in a polygamous marriage were married to each other. For example, if A died then A’s spouses B and C could inherit A’s property jointly as a married couple themselves without worrying about who got what. If B and C later wanted to seperate, the divorce lawyers could handle splitting up the goods. However, I can understand that if B and C did not have genuine interest in one another as spouses then they probably wouldn’t want to be married to each other just for convenience. So you’re right, some other form of legal contract might be preferable.

IIRC, civil unions have been advanced not just as a kind of substitute for full gay marriage but to grant legal recognition to other kinds of important but non-marital relationships. Perhaps two close friends might want to enter into a civil union to better allow one to act as caretaker for the other in the event of illness or injury. I think it would be a great idea to have a kind of contract that would allow two unrelated adults to gain legal recognition as family members without having a romantic/marital relationship with each other.

70

I have not been able to track down the study in question, but I will accept it at face value. That doesn’t really back up KellyM’s assertion that they are more stable than monogamous unions, but i will concede that some of the extra factors are canceled out by extra members. On a side not, the idea that polygamy is a ‘better’ or ‘more advanced’ form of human relationship really turns off those of us that are sympathetic, but monogamous. I’m not scared of polygamy- it’s not evil to me- it’s just one of those bad ideas, like Communism. Might be good in theory, but the devil is in the details.

As for the criminalization of polygamous behavior- I’m totally against it. Frankly, serial monogamy is as bad or worse an issue, and I doubt there will be legislation against it any time soon.

And discussing state recognition, I just don’t see how the term marriage can be expanded this far without losing its meaning. And I mean this in legal terms, not moral- given the ‘perks’ given to married couples, pretty much everyone of legal age could be married- and that defeats the purpose of the perks in the first place.
Of course, if you’re going to argue for total state withdrawal from the marriage business, that’s a separate argument. I suppose we could all get along forming separate legal agreements to cover basically the same rights…but a lot of folks really like the ‘default’ option.

That, and overcoming the historical bias in the US against polygamy- for every egalitarian union you have, won’t you have a fundamentalist using these laws to promote women as a commodity? (i refer to some splinter groups of the Mormon church)

71

Please note that I said that they “often tend” to be more stable, not that they always are. I’m sure that in some cases they would be less stable, depending especially on the motivations of the parties for forming an extended union.

That particular piece of behavior exhibited by many poly advocates is rather odious. It’s also understandable, especially considering the general demonization that polyamorists face from the population in general.

As AZCowboy and I pointed out, most of those “perks” are either quantifiable or divisible, so they wouldn’t necessarily multiply in value with each added spouse. There are ways to make it work.

Indeed, anti-Mormon prejudice is still rampant in the United States; it is the source of most of the laws against polygamous living and the basis for the strong antagonism that most Americans feel toward the concept. Unfortunately, the Mormons of the middle 19th century were (apparently) such total pricks that they pissed off the populations in the states they passed through, making a lot of enemies along the way. Now, today, people who have nothing to do with Mormonism are being denied the right to live their lives in peace the way they want to as a result. Is this fair?

As to those polygamous Mormon dissidents, I think a large part of the problem of those groups is not so much that they practice polygamy, but the way in which they do it and the secrecy which (necessarily) surrounds their activities. Non-Mormon polyamorists almost certainly outnumber Mormon-like polygamists and don’t have the social problems (such as welfare fraud, child sexual abuse, and spousal abuse), at least not at any rate greater than the general population.

72

I have seen a fair number of people register the opinion that the abuses of patriarchal polygyny are rendered worse because of the secrecy that folks who do it engage in. At the very least it keeps the protections that are supposed to come from marriage from actually putting in an appearance.

I’m not sure that I have any strong belief that it would help to legalise polygamy in all those cases, though, because I suspect that a certain subset of them are so invested in the secrecy that they’d go down even deeper. (Streak of cynicism here.) I expect it’d die out eventually, but it would probably do so in generational time.

Those folks are a distinct minority, in my experience, but they’re a bedamned noisy one. I tend towards a belief that people engaging in activism while under the influence of a superiority complex would have their licenses revoked for endangering everyone else who shares their relevant adjective and generally being a jerk, but they do have as much right to spew idiocy as I do. :}

Polygamy (or the more general case of polyamory) is a way of running relationship structures that works better for some people than monogamy; monogamy is a way of running relationship structures that works better for some people than polyamory. And then there are people who don’t care and have the luck of being able to pick whichever structure suits their current situation and feelings best.

I suspect some might, especially if it were the only way they could get their family unit recognised. My personal feeling is that this case boils down to something that would fundamentally “change the definition of marriage”, to nick a popular catchphrase of the moment, and I’m not in favor of that at all.

73

Lamia, I generally concur with both KellyM and Lilairen. If you do review this thread, you will note my early attempts to avoid advocating for polygamy, but instead to refute factual errors made by other posters. In each case, I took great effort to provide citations to support my statements. Despite my intent, I did end up making some advocacy statements, and I’m now prepared to debate them.

Let me state unequivicably that I would never advocate any marital system that failed to provide for equal rights among all participants. Consent is crucial in bringing in additional spouses (but no veto power, without consent, termination of the original marriage contract would have to occur before another could be entered).

I’ve already described some of the details, as have others. Now I’ll address your specific query related to parental rights. When a woman has a child, she has the option of specifying the father for the birth certificate. Only the biological mother and the named father (if named) have presumed parental rights (just like m-f marriage or a birth out of wedlock, for that matter). The named father could contest the obligations through a paternity test (science has advanced to make this much more practical than it would have been only a few decades ago). If a paternity test proves another father, that father would then be obligated with the parental rights.

For the most part, nothing very different from the situation today (remember when I said “it need not be any different”?), except that in marriage today, the husband is automatically presumed to be the parent, regardless of actual paternity (an inequity, IMHO).

Under polygamy, I would expect to see the government allow other spouses (with the unanimous consent of those with parental rights) to adopt children in the household and accept parental rights. Likewise, with the consent of those involved, I would like to see spouses divorcing (terminating their marriage contract) claim or disclaim parental rights. As with any divorce, the courts should be charged with looking out for the best interests of the children, and have the ability to deny any disclaimer (you can only give up your parental obligations if the courts agree it to be in the best interest of the child).

Now, unlike many of the gay marriage advocates, I’m not hung up on terminology. If enough people are hung up on “marriage being sacred”, and worried about expanding the definition of marriage, then let’s use different terminology. But whatever is in place, let it apply to all equally. I’ve already stated in this thread that I think government should get out of the marriage business, and leave marriage to the churches. The equivalent legal protection I would advocate can be achieved through domestic partnership law (similar to what you describe as a civil union), much like what is being discussed in the American Law Institute’s review of these types of issues. For an interesting technical read regarding the legal issues involved generally, see this link (the discussion on polyamory issues starts in section IV, but the first sections provide useful context). If you seriously want to consider specifics of law, reading this would be a pretty good start. It also provides a pretty good explanation why simply removing archaic cohabitation laws might be less than optimal.

I can’t find a source online, but an even better description by the same author can be found in the Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, Winter 2001, in an article by Martha M. Ertman titled, Marriage as a Trade: Bridging the Private/Private Distinction. When you ask questions about if A is married to B and C, but B and C have no relationship, you may find it useful to consider existing business law to think about the implications. IOW, yes, I believe that situation could exist without any serious problems, provided B gave consent for A to marry C. In a case like this, if A died, his/her assets are split between B and C, and no further legal relationship between B and C would exist.

Stonebow,if you are particularly interested in the Rubin and Adams study, it was published in the Journal of Sex Research titled, Outcomes of Sexually Open Marriages. I also won’t advocate that polygamy/polyamory is “better” or “more advanced” than monogamy, but I do advocate that social acceptance of poly is better than shunning it. I fully believe that most people are better off in monogamous relationships, just not everybody. I also believe that many of the problems associated with the Mormon Fundamentalists are exasperated by the illegality of polygamy (much like how the War on Drugs has created a huge black market that causes many of the problems now blamed on drugs).

74

Well, because I am a bisexual female, I am all for multiple partner marriages. My dream relationship would be a married triad consisting of me, a male, and another female.

75

me too, So is mine :slight_smile: Pisses me off that is is a felony.

76

Polygamy is really a separate beast altogether when compared to gay marriage. As far as I know, current laws don’t prevent a church from practicing polygamy, it is just denied any special government sanctioned benefits. It is a law that is applied evenly to all citizens, no select group of people can practice government sanctioned polygamy. Where gay marriage is fundamentally different, is that currently our laws allow any two people who love each other to get married, so long as they are male and female. male/male, female/female couples are excluded from partaking in a right granted by the government based on the sex of the couples.

While I have no issues with polygamy, I wouldn’t feel like a hypocrite for not supporting it. It is denied to all of us, not just a select group.

77

I’m not sure about your reference to churches, but current laws prevent people from practicing polygamy.

Not so. Those two people can’t get married if either of them is already married.

78

I am new to SDMB so please bare with me. I think it is interesting that the entire debate has been focused on what kind of new legal definitions will have to be created to extend marriage to whatever group would like it. Where some have asked others who support polygamy to define these changes, the usual answer back ran along the lines of “as long as consenting adults engage in… it should not be illegal…” (sorry for my simplistic paraphrasing).

As is usual in these debates, conservatives either can’t voice their revulsion to polygamy and gay marriage (might as well throw that in too- since it was mentioned earlier) in a coherent, rational manner, or must disguise it in cleverly balanced (so as not to offend the easily-offended or be called the most horrid of words- a bigot), and legally profound prose. I was especially attracted to the one argument that asked for what the new marriage would look like and intriquied with the long pause between that and some kind of answer.

While all that is interesting, I would like to propose something that I think has been overlooked- that of the plight of the children. I know, many of you have talked about how to split the children up like the rest of the property- but I am talking about how the children will turn out once they become adults. You can quote every study showing gay parents and polygamist parents raising as good as or even better children than monogamist heterosexuals and you can also point out every fault and bad example of heterosexual couples, but I don’t think that will convince the majority of Americans that what has been in effect for at least the history of this country- if not several hundred or thousand(s) years before that- is just as good as whatever relationship anyone else can dream up.

I really would think anyone would be hard-pressed to come up with enough balanced links and citations that can convince any but those already biased that there would not be any more damage to the psyche of children raised outside of traditional (I know- bad word for many of you) families than there would be for these other “new” definitions of families- to include single-parent families. I think the jury is still out and because of that you have 2-1 Americans not in favor of gay marriage. I wouldn’t even begin to think of what the ratio would be opposing polygamist marriage- maybe 10-1?

Many of those on this board may not think it is important what the people think, but I would disagree strongly. The recognition of their marriage or family unit is what is important to them, not some law- and just as gays don’t respect the sodomy laws and look forward to their appeal, so too will the majority of Americans not respect a re-working of the definition of marriage. “Rights” and “Human Rights” are a funny thing to me, who have traveled to places in this world where they don’t exist because there is not a police force or military to make them exist. “Rights” in my opinion come from the people, bestowed for a reason, not just because “all adults should be free to do as they like”. If, as many suspect, raising kids outside of a man-woman relationship is, on the average, a worse thing than the traditional way, then that would be the best argument for not encouraging single parents, gay marriage, polygamy, or any other relationship, until it is proven, without a shadow of a doubt, that it is in the best interest of the society to encourage it.

Do I think that society should discourage it? If there is any evidence that it might be detrimental to children- then, yes, I think so, at least to the extent we are talking about these relationships interacting with children. If we are only talking about adults and no children, then no- the government shouldn’t discourage it, but I don’t think the government has to recognize it or offer financial or contractual incentives for it.

I think the example would be this: a hundred years ago- gay marriage? No. Forty years ago- polygamy? No. Today- 13 year olds getting married? No. If the definition of an “adult” is changed in our society in the next 20 years, then why can’t the marriage age be lowered? Consenting adult, right? But, I think many Americans today can see that there are reasons for keeping 13 year olds out of contracts and away from life-altering decisions without the experience one usually gets with age. What if one day animals rights groups convince courts to allow animals the same rights as humans, or that animals can be “consenting adults”? What then- polygamist-beastiality relationships where the animal has a stake in it if the hospital pulls the plug on the husband or wife?

I would propose that in the next fifty years we will see studies showing that children that come from gay and polygamist parenting relationships have more psychological problems than those coming from traditional, or even single parent families. Whether or not this happens because of the inherent confusion in these relationships (over nature or what nature has evolved into- present-day society) or whether it is because of the bias in society will be the interesting question…

79

I propose that you’re wrong.

First of all, we will not see studies showing anything about children from polygamous families because polygamy is a crime in many places and so socially disfavored in nearly everywhere where it’s not outright criminal. As a result, there will be no studies because there are few families willing to subject themselves to the risk of criminal prosecution for the sake of scientific evidence. Thus, the only “studies” will be after-the-fact demographical surveys of the children of poly families disrupted by legal action against the parents – which will, of course, show that the disruption is bad for them. But all this will prove is that making polygamy illegal (or socially disfavoring it) harms the children in such relationships, not that anything inherent in the relationship harms them.

Demanding that polyamorists prove that raising children in a poly lifestyle does not harm them before offering to legalize the conduct of raising children in a poly lifestyle is a clever trick. As it happens, the two largest problems with raising children in a poly lifestyle are protecting the family from legal intervention by people who are convinced (without evidence) that poly parenting is unsafe for children, and teaching one’s children not to talk too much about their poly parents in front of strangers, so as to reduce the risk of legal intervention. The best way to reduce these risks is to decriminalize polyamory.

Decriminalizing polyamory and removing the social stigmas associated with it is in the interest of children. Demanding studies to prove this is merely a clever way of enforcing the status quo.

Similar legal issues plague gay parenting (the risk that the nonpresent biological parent of the child will swoop in and attempt to enforce his or her “rights” and take the child away is a major one, especially in states like Virginia where a gay parent is presumptively unfit). Until the arbitrary legal impediments to gay and poly parenting are swept away, you will not get unbiased studies of gay or poly parenting.

Finally, there are already studies that show that children raised by lesbians have no significantly different incidence of psychological problems. Do you have some reason to believe that this is an anomaly, or are you just creating facts to fit your preferences?

80

I take exception with this statement. You can’t pick a small piece of history/culture, hold it aloft, and decalre it representative of the history, tradition, and future.

Saying “the roots of western culture all accepted polygamy” (bolding mine) is rather absurd. How far back do you want to go? I’m sure you can find, at one time or another, in every vaguely-defined ethnicities’ histories, some kind of accepted polygamy. I’m sure you can also find that women were virtually owned by their men, and men by their kings/lords/chiefs/whatevers. Neither of those situations makes for an acceptable future of them.

And how are you evening defining the “roots of western culture”? Many cultures we don’t know enough about to know if they were polygamous or monogamous, or if they had marriage at all. So I assume we’re talking historical (eg, post-written record) cultures? Or what?

Or are we talking the roots of, as you say, culture? Because the root of Western culture is arguably the Minoan/Cretian/Greek civilizations that sprung up c. 3500-2000 B.C.

“Polygamy is absent from the Aegean in historical times which that monogamy was the rule.”

http://www.fjkluth.com/minoan.html

Or are the only “roots of western culture” the ones that fit your world view?

I don’t have a problem with polygamy - other than it annoying me during debates I do care about - but kindly treat history delicately when you pick through it for propaganda.