Needs2know has actually got hold of a fairly important point, I think, though it’s getting somewhat obscured by her defensive reactions (sorry Needs, I do sympathize with your indignation at the abuses you mention but the precision-&-clarity guys have a point too).
Namely, polygamy (particularly polygyny) can act as an institutionalized tool of oppression, depending on its cultural context. A former roommate of mine from Mali described to me their parallel systems of monogynous and polygynous marriage: under Muslim law, a man may have up to four wives, but under Mali law, he and his wife (at the time of his first marriage) have to specify their choice of either monogyny or polygyny and then stick to that choice thereafter. That is, a declared monogynist may not take additional wives (unless, I presume, he divorces the first one and then enters a polygynist union), but a declared polygynist may (though I suppose he doesn’t have to), and he need not obtain the existing wife’s/wives’ consent to it.
My roommate (whose marriage was monogynous and who was spending a couple years at school in the States while her husband looked after their sons in Mali) noted that the polygynous husbands tended to be much more controlling of their wives’ activities, more domineering in their families, and more likely physically to restrain or abuse their wives or children. (SingleDad, I know that this counts as generalizing from anecdotal evidence, but I got the impression that it’s not really disputed that this is how it works in Malian society.) In other words, there was a culture of polygyny that reinforced patriarchal dominance.
Similarly, it sounds as though the polygynist culture (small and marginal though it may be) described by Needs2know in Utah also routinely uses polygyny as an instrument of patriarchal oppression and abuse. These aren’t just a bunch of miscellaneous bad apples who all happen to be mistreating their wives and children: they’re part of a male-supremacist culture in which polygyny plays a central role. So yes, this polygamous lifestyle is breeding abuse. I hasten to add that I don’t believe that current LDS doctrine or polyamorist thought in general provides any encouragement for this sort of abuse. The polygamous “lifestyles” that SingleDad and redtail describe sound like very different kettles of fish from this.
Speaking of which: redtail, I am startled that you object to Arnold’s stipulation that the hypothetical mono/polygamous “family contract” would require unanimous consent of the existing family members in order to add a new one. Monogamists are not allowed to marry someone against his or her will, so why should polygamists be able to? If you don’t have unanimous consent to adding a new partner to a polygamous marriage, then someone is being married against his or her will, and hell yes, the government should interfere with it. If you don’t like the government messing around in your life to that extent, you can simply avoid getting a government-sanctioned “family contract” for your union, and you can make whatever unofficial arrangements you want.
Kimstu