Why? There’s nothing in any religion requiring polygamy. It’s suggested or optional, but not a requirement of any religion that I know of.
“surely”? How can you be so sure - surer than someone who’s been there - that this is the case for all relationships?
I don’t doubt that it’s the case for your relationships. I don’t even doubt it’s the case for many, or even the majority of relationships. But it’s not “surely” the case for all relationships.
It makes divorce difficult as it pertains to money.
Ann marries Bob. Then, Ann & Bob marry Cate. Things don’t work out so well, so Cate moves out, but no one actually ever gets around to filing divorce papers.
Cate then meets David, they fall quickly and desperately in love and get married - and then fall quickly and desperately out of love and Cate moves on again. David meets a rich, elderly, and stupid heiress named Eleanor who conveniently dies on their honeymoon without a will.
If I’m Ann, even though I’ve never actually met Eleanor - I’m arguably one of her four legal spouses, and I get 1/4th of that money.
Of course, we could highly suggest that all marriages would have to begin with extensive background checks, and well written contracts explicitly detailing exactly who is married to whom, and what share of what goes to which person in the events of death or divorce. But the practical part of me says that people are often careless and reckless when it comes to things like love and marriage.
I thought law was based on a balance between individual liberties and the common good. And isn’t “what’s best for the children” a common legal test in family law? (I’m not saying it is; I’m not a lawyer. I’m asking.)
As was suggested upthread, treat it as a contract. If you add a partner to a business enterprise, new contracts are written up to cover the new cast of characters. If someone leaves, do the same. If my business partner starts a new venture with someone else, that doesn’t make the third person part owner of the original venture.
If Ann, Bob, Carla and Don don’t call it a marriage, but get contracts written up that make it look an aweful lot like a marriage, would there be anything to stop them? Would they have broken any laws? (Maybe some blue laws about sex with someone not legally your spouse.)
I was thinking that any legal action would probably be for discrimination on sexual orientation, rather than religious.
I agree that it’s not that simple…if it were, we could eliminate legal marriage/partnerships altogether, and have everyone just draw up whatever legal papers they want with whoever (whomever?) they want. The thing people look to the legal code for is protection against being completely screwed in an inheritance/divorce/custody situation.
Of course. It has to be agreed on by everyone, or what’s the point? I don’t see it working otherwise; it’d be a marriage doomed to failure. From the other end of the spectrum, someone would be entering into a legal, emotional relationship with a third party that doesn’t want them there.
Y’know, I’m tempted to say that it shouldn’t be that simple, anyway. Marriage is a big commitment. And it’s already a legal contract. A few extra clauses shouldn’t be a deal breaker, but it should be something you should consider very seriously before signing on the dotted line.
You won’t find anyone who agrees with that more than I do! But nevertheless, we do need “next-of-kinship” laws & the like, to protect people who don’t have the proper legal stuff hammered out, and polygamy could potentially make that issue a very complicated one.
In America the penallty for bigamy is svere.
Two mother in laws.
And when no one bothers to write a contract? (Which, based on my observations is very much more likely than everyone doing the responsible thing) That’s a nasty legal battle.
Whynot,
I’m not trying to put an value system/emotion on it. I’m trying to think of it as if people are driven by biological desires that this can be used to analyze what would happen. Sure, it isn’t perfect and there are many exceptions but in general it should get at the trends.
Most people want to reproduce. This a biological urge. Some may resist it but it effects many.
A woman in a polygomous relationship can still reproduce. Assuming her husband agrees, she could have as many as she wants. Resources the man gives to his wives will go to support his children and their mother.
A man married to a woman with multiple husbands…well, she can only have so many children and only one at a time. His chances for reproduction are reduced. In addition, some of his resources will go to support children not his own - which a polygomous man doesn’t have to worry about. On the whole, he is not going to be as happy with this as a man with multiple wives.
Now, resources. A woman thinking of polygamy has to worry that her husband has the resources to support multple wives/children. She also has to worry about sharing him (love, romance etc)…Therefore she will want to have a husband by herself or multiple husbands. Multiple husbands means larger amount of resources to her family and her children.
These two pressures should converge to monogamy in a majority of the population even with no culture pressures around.
However, all things being equal, the woman has less penalty entering into polygamy than a man entering into polyandry. Even if men and women stood on equal financial footing as a whole, this would still be true.
Males would be less inclined to polyandry than women to polygamy. Therefore, surplus males…therefore less stable society.
Heck, I don’t know if this is true. Just trying to debate the effect on society and the idea that a society with no multiple wives/husbands has an advantage over one that does allow it.
How would that be any different then 2 people currently living together? Currently, you have married or you have living together. This was, you’d have contracted groups and you would have living together.
Hmmmmm. I can’t get rid of the nagging feeling that our emotional responses to changes in family dynamic are best met with a course of action that preserves the self, rather than with a rationalizing that prevents us from acting in our own best interest. For children faced with new siblings, that response is to draw away from the parent and begin to become independent. For a person faced with a competitor for his/her spouse’s affection, the natural response is to either eliminate the competition or leave the union.
I understand that modern humans have mental tools that can help us override our emotional responses, and for the good of society, that’s often a good thing. But both of the books I’ve cited make clear that when it comes to familial relationships, it isn’t the “how I feel” that needs to be over-ridden, it’s the “what I do about it.” In other words, my wife’s emotional response to my potential abandonment of her and our sons was to “fight” for her husband. That, according to both Hendrix and Coontz, is a normal, healthy response. But eliminating the competition didn’t mean killing the other woman or even “running her off.” It meant sitting her husband down and telling him, “It’s her or us, pal. And everything that goes with us.” My wife’s instinct that there is no room in our marriage for more than two people is, according to the people who’ve written books about it, natural and healthy. Dealing with it in a healthy and logical manner means not becoming violent, getting counseling, etc.
And I’m still suspicious of men who take multiple wives. What motivation could there be, beyond having multiple sex parthers?
That’s the subject of the next debate. 
Right, but it still seems as if you’re debating it on the basis of monogamy or polygamy without allowing for both. It’s possible for both to exist and for both to be legal, thus no huge strain on the availability of women. No one is saying it’s going to be imperative that you run out and compete with other men to build up a harem of women, and if all is equitable, you’d need the approval of your co-spouses, anyway. So not quite the doomsday crisis of all the nasty rich lecherous old men hogging all the wimmin that you’re painting, here.
Most people currently voluntarily limit the number of children they have. How many 1 or 2 kid families do you know? The limiting factor is NOT a woman’s ability to have kids, it’s a decision that is made.
And other peoples resources are going to go to support his kins. This happens all the time in blended families. Mom + Step-dad. Dad + step-mom. Divorced step-dad. Grandparent. Extended family and friends.
Are you really saying that families around you are depending only on the money/property of the man? Do most of the mothers you know stay at home? You also seem to be saying that the main reason women marry is to have a husband who will provide resources. I think this line of debate is hog-wash. It’s based on faulty theories.
All things being equal, which penalties are you refering to?
I agree.
I’m not sure I agree here, but I’m willing to follow the path for a moment…
Ooh. Don’t agree. This is where we diverge. The word “the”, which excludes all other options. Neither of those responses in a natural response for me, or for many people I know. I agree that it’s a common response for many people, but I don’t agree that there’s anything exclusively “natural” or inherent to the human animal in either of those responses. Serial monogamy with a nuclear family is one way to do things, but it’s only one way, and many, many other models have been successful over the years of human existence.
Absolutely 100% agree. As I said before, I feel jealousy just like anyone else. I just choose a different “what to do about it” than you would.
And that’s a perfectly valid emotional response. But it’s not a universal one.
Sure, one of many “normal, healthy” responses.
Well, I’m glad to hear that!
Great! I think she did absolutely the right thing - for her. Not for me. Not for everyone.
Absolutely. There are also other “natural and healthy” ways of organizing relationships. I’ve never said your way is invalid, only that it’s just one of many ways.
And I agree with this, too. What did I say that made you think I wouldn’t?
Okay, let’s slow down and think about this: did you only marry your wife so you could have sex with her? If so, then nevermind. If not, then all those other things you married her for - perhaps her companionship, her cooking, sharing of household expenses, the way she snorts when she laughs too hard, the opportunity to raise children with her, the way she makes you feel about yourself when you’re with her, your shared fascination with 14th century art - all those things happen to poly people too. We just recognize that we (maybe not you, but we) might feel that way about more than one person more-or-less simultaneously. And, in our culture, the way to legitimize and celebrate that relationship on a long-term, hopefully lifelong level, is to get married. To call that person (or persons) your wife or your husband. If I can feel that way about two men, then why can’t I call them both my husband, and have it be literally, legally true?
Except that almost no one wants polyandry. From what I’ve heard, even in the rare times it’s practiced for economic reasons, even the people involved don’t like it.
I have no moral problems with polygamy, and if it causes problems for the law too bad; it’s the job of the law to keep order, not crunch people into a predetermined role. My problem is that the way people are made it will cause serious social problems.
It increases his ability to produce children. Even if he doesn’t intend to, even if he gets a vasectomy, his instincts aren’t bright enough to know that.
WhyNot, you’ve alluded to the possibility that you’ve been in a polygamous marriage, or may be in one now. Let’s lay all the cards on the table so we know exactly what your experience is:
Seriously, I think that before I can learn much more from our dialogue, I need to know much more about your background in this area. It occurs to me that you may be the only person in this discussion who knows the subject from an authoritative, first-hand view.
I have not been in a polygamous marriage because it’s illegal (well, and I haven’t found a second man that I want to share my life with. Yet.) I am in an open marriage, sometimes called a polyamorous one. My husband dates other women, one quite seriously and perhaps lifelong at this point, and I date other men, although not as often or as seriously. We are not actively seeking other spouses, legal or emotional, but we’re not opposed to the notion, either. At this moment, my husband is my only partner, and my “primary” partner in my mind (if I were to meet someone today, I’d consider him lesser in status than my husband, at least for starters), and my husband is…in transition. The woman he’s seeing is very important to him, and he’s trying on the idea of she and I as equally important in his life. The three of us are not sure yet what that might look like.
And I’m not the only polyamorous person on the Dope (or this thread, IIRC, but I’m not outing anyone). I don’t know that I’m an authority, but I am unusually open about my openness. 
Yes, I think that any pretense that polyandry is ever going to happen in any but the most bizarre circumstances is just that…pretense. Evolutionarily speaking, humans are slighty polygamous, but in the direction of multiple wives, not multiple husbands.
I think so, too…but I’m curious, what kinds of social problems would you anticipate? I think that the issues involved in child custody alone would prove to be a nightmare. Also, my family recently went through a traumatic situation during the dispersion of an inheritance…and that was a situation among siblings, and where virtually all of the assets were in an evenly-distributed trust. I can’t imagine what would have happened if multiple spouses were thrown into the mix.