Um there isn’t any monogamy in such a situation, obviously. I never claimed there was.
I think its part of the reason out of many reasons why one should support it. I support gay marriage for morals, for values, for equality, for science, etc. Talking about love and all that is great, and I don’t disagree, I just think its not the strongest argument. Plus, the “love” argument doesn’t automatically rule out the opponents’ fears of slippery slopes.
You’re a polygamist? Wow, I had no idea.
I don’t have anything against you having the right to marry however many people you want, I just want to separate that argument from the gay marriage argument, which I do believe is more intrinsic than polygamy. And please understand me when I say that nobody is born a polygamist, I do not mean that people are incapable of loving more than one person as a spouse at a time. However, I do believe that sexual orientation is a much more biological and intrinsic characteristic than the desiring of more than one person. No protected class that I know of describes themselves as about numbers rather than by whatever quality they are protected.
Let me ask you 2 questions about the rest of us who prefer monogamy. Do you think we are polygamists who simply haven’t found that 2nd or 3rd person? And with people who are in a monogamous relationship but cheat, do you think they are essentially polygamists?
I think, in order to pass the smell test, it very much has to be about need. Let’s say one is desirous of being a skateboarder at a very early age. They saw one, they loved it, they practice and play on it day and night from as soon as they could walk. Is that person a born skateboardist? Can we equate that to an inborn characteristic, one that is immutable and cannot be interfered with? Should we let them skateboard wherever they want to protect their rights?
Of course the answer to that is no. Skateboarding is, first of all, based on an object, one that didn’t even exist until a few decades ago. And no matter how much one loves it, even if one feels drawn to doing it, most of us can agree that its a choice and not inborn.
Polygamy then, is similar. Nobody says you cannot desire more than one person, and some may say its inborn, but its based on a behavior that only exists through a 3rd party, in this case, multiple partners. On the other hand, even if there are no men in the world except one gay guy, he can still be gay. He can still be unattracted to the women, and fantasize about a male figure like himself, with wholly different body parts than the world of women this hypothetical gay guy lives in
Consider this: Imagine that there are no restrictions on marriage with respect to number of partners and gender. All the gay people will still desire the same sex. But will all the polygamous people desire people of the same sex (if its simply about numbers?)
And lastly, why is it that the great majority of polygamous relationships one man and multiple wives? If this is truly a biological, scientific innate desire, shouldn’t there be almost equal numbers of women who have multiple husbands? And what do you call the people in a polygamous marriage who is not the main spouse? Let’s say its one man, 3 wives. Are the wives polygamous intrinsically? They are not marrying multiple husbands, and they aren’t homosexually attracted to the other wives, so what are they? More and more, it seems polygamy is more of a desire of simply one person to expand their sexual choices
To address your last statement first, I meant that its easy to move in and out of that group by being married/divorced. I was speaking about the legal definition of polygamy, which you are in if you have more than 1 spouse. Divorce all but one and you’re no longer a polygamous. That’s all I meant
As for your other statement, I believe evidence is on the side that states that polygamy is a behavior. All of us are capable of loving more than one person (parents, siblings, relatives, friends, etc.), but why do we not call that polygamous desires? Its because the difference between that kind of love and the kind of love shared between spouses is different somehow.
The existence of polygamous societies mean little. There are tangible benefits in those societies for a man with multiple wives. One can easily chalk that up to why polygamy exists, rather than some intrinsic desire to love more than one person. As we all know listening to the debate on gay marriage rage on, marriage has changed dramatically over the years. I would be hard pressed to call some or most of the marriages in the distant past a product of love. I don’t believe most of those men were born polygamous, I believe they were rich and powerful and wanted to have a lot of sex and consolidate familial power through politically favorable marriages. Lets not lose sight, while debating polygamy, of what marriage often is, and still is in many countries. Its not about love at all
Contrast that with gay marriage. It brings almost no benefits. Indeed, benefits are often taken away, and the participants harassed. Now not so much, but certainly when this debate first started decades ago. Being gay gives one no tangible benefits in our society, and may even bring you death in others. So why would people do it if not out of an intrinsic desire?
Can you give some actual reasons why you think sexual orientation is more intrinsic than the desire to love more than one person at a time? We know you think it is, but why? What evidence is there?
Polygamists in the US certainly run up against strong societal disapproval. Do you think if it was punishable by death that no one would practice it? I doubt that.
Agree with Mace about strong social disapproval of polygamy. You can also see it in the uproar that happens time and time again when celebrities or politicians are caught “cheating”, though by now you’d think people would have become blase about it given its near ubiquity.
This is a dangerous argument to make if you support same-sex marriage. After all, studies consistently show significantly more male homosexuals than lesbians.
I believe you’re right that there’s a fairly strong public sentiment against polygamy, but your example is non-sequitur.
When people get upset about cheating, it might be the CHEATING aspect that’s the problem, far more than the lack of monogamy.
A better argument might be that we don’t see many politicians who are publicly in an open marriage. They’d be free to enjoy the wild fruits without being called cheaters, but the socially conservative public would disapprove.
Yeah, to me it goes without saying that people pretty much have to sign onto a bilateal exclusivity contract even if their heart isn’t really in it. I have a “don’t ask, don’t tell” agreement with my wife, but if my in-laws knew that, they’d start distributing the torches and pitchforks and get ready to march.
Mostly because it seems something that concerns itself with numbers is less an intrinsic quality than something that is proven to be immutable as sexual orientation. I ask you, why are no polygamists who have male and female spouses? If its truly about numbers, then sex shouldn’t matter.
I don’t think that your question regarding punishment specifically addresses my point, nor would the answer justify or unjustify it. The point is that there is little benefit to being gay, so there’s less reason to fake it. There are more benefits to being polygamous, so we have to look at polygamy with a more critical eye as to whether they are really born like that or simply want the benefits. To answer your question, however, I think that no behavior punishable by death would stop everyone, someone will practice it, somewhere, somehow
Fair enough, though I think there are enough differences between the two
Tried to edit to fix “bilateal” typo, but then took too much time because I also decided to ETA:
I suspect, contrary to your assumption, that there would be even more disapprobation toward an open marriage then toward someone getting drunk and “straying”. The former would I think be seen as more flagrant because it involves a calculated, premeditated rejection of social mores rather than a momentary weakness in giving in to “less civilised” urges.
Are you trying to deduce this form first principles? Because that’s a rather odd way to approach an empirical issue. But if so, what about the number “1”? If we are intrinsically monogamous, that that would “concern itself” with a number. Rather, it would make more sense to look at human history, human behavior and everything we know about out closest biological relatives.
I don’t understand what that means.
It could go either way.
It’s not just “giving in to urges”, but violating a sacred agreement. But you might be right that many would have a harder time with flouting convention (being in an open marriage).
In any case, views about cheating do not proxy for views about polygamy.
Even in civilizations that practice polygyny that vast majority of marriages are monogamous. Only a very small minority of elite men take more than one wive (plus the odd case of a man marrying his wife’s otherwise unmarriagable sister). Large harems were the preserve of monarchs, and most of those marriages would be purely political unions. And even the monarch’s actual wives tended to be outnumbered by his sisters, cousins & other female relations, widows of previous monarchs, etc.
Polyandry usually takes the form of fraternal polyandry; mulitple brothers sharing the same wife (usually due to lack of resources or the need to preserve land).
But we know why polygamy was practiced in many cultures and it had nothing to do with love or any inborn trait. Polygamy, like many exploitative practices involving women, was to consolidate the man’s power. If we do look at human history, and I think I have, I would say that polygamy is not innate, its simply a cultural practice for powerful people to bring several families into his ownership and allow poorer families to survive off a richer one by sacrificing a daughter to be his sex slave
I missed a word, there should be a “there” between “are” and “no”. Basically, what I’m trying to get at is, if polygamists claim that they are simply about the numbers, then they should be equally non-discriminating between the gender of their partners. Only numbers matter, so one can have a husband and 2 wives and another husband, with husband 1 as the “main” husband, or a more even distribution. Yet if you look at real world examples, the vast majority of polygamous relationships involve a man with multiple women. When that happens, I question the claim that the man (or women) were “born polygamous”. It seems they simply want to fuck multiple women
If monogamists claim they are simply about the number, then they should be equally non-discriminating between the gender of their partner. Only numbers matter, so one can have a husband or a wife. Yet if you look at real world examples, the vast majority of monogamous people are in relationships with only men or only women. When that happens I question the claim that the man (or woman) was “born monogamous”. It seems that they simply want to fuck serially.
To elaborate, you’re positing polygamy (more properly, polyamory) as some sort of counterpart to heterosexuality or homosexuality. This seems baseless, they should both been seen as independent spectrums, resulting in combinations: monoamorous heterosexual, polyamorous homosexual, polyamorous heterosexual, and monoamorous homosexual (leaving out bisexuality and other variants for simplicity).
And that was equally true of monogamous marriages until rather recently. Women were “bought” by men, or married into families where the man made all the rules and woman had few, if any rights. Now that women are recognized as full citizens and not in need of special “protection” so that their pretty little heads won’t get them in trouble, there is no reason to prevent them from entering plural marriages if they want. And same with men.
So what? Do you think the sexual dimorphism of the human species is just an accident? I suspect that our polygamous natures are not equally balanced between men and women in equal number roles as the “one” partner of the given sex. So what?
Well, no, of course not. It’s illegal, or we wouldn’t be having this conversation. 
I am polyamorous, though. And for the rest of my responses, I’ll assume you mean that term where you use polygamist.
As most of my partners have been. I’ve had serial monogamous partners (that is, people not “wired” to love more than one person at a time, only me) but that doesn’t generally work out real well. Every young polywog thinks it will, and mostly it won’t. Live and love and learn.
I think the vast majority of people are heterosexual serial monogamists - people who love one person of the other gender at a time, but not forever. When they break up with one person, they fall in love with another. To me, a true monogamist would be a person who “mates for life”, and marries their first love and stays married until one of them dies and never falls in love with another. I think I’ve known three couples that meet that definition.
And yes, I think people who cheat are assholes. Oh, wait, you asked if I think they’re polyamorous. Um…maybe, maybe not. Some are, some get off on betrayal and drama and may or may not love any of their partners. No way to answer in the general.
Of course. As long as they’re not hurting themselves or others, or putting anyone or any one else’s property in danger, why should we not let them skateboard wherever they want?
Uh-huh. And marriage (gay or straight) is based on a behavior that only exists through a 2nd party. What’s your point?
Huh? (or, what Human Action said.)
I don’t know that they are. Again, if we’re talking about polyamory. The literal answer to your question as written is that most societies that allow legal polygamy have written their laws so that they’re actually respecting the rights of polygynists, not polygamists (which include polyandrists). But if we’re talking about not legally recognized relationships in the modern USA where women have some rights, I don’t accept your assumption. It certainly doesn’t match my experience, which is that there are about equal number of poly men and poly women in my subculture. (And I myself am a woman, if you didn’t know.)
I call them what they want to be called. Generally, it’s “Mary,” or “Steve”.
Some polyamorists use the term “Primary” and “Secondary”, but others find this offensive as they feel it cheapens or lessens the relationships that aren’t primary. Some people don’t have a primary, or one relationship they put above the others - they view that term as being akin to calling one of your children your Primary Child, or picking your mom or your dad to be your Primary Parent.
When I was in an open marriage, I called them “husband” and “extracurriculars” or “boyfriends”, depending on if we were enjoying recreational sex or actual meaningful relationships.
I don’t know. Depends on the Quad. Some are all sexually/romantically active with each other, some not. I don’t define others’ relationships for them. If they’re not consenting to the group marriage, though, I’m agin’ it.
“Sister wives” is a common term, made popular in the last few years from the television show of the same name. Or simply “sisters”. “Friends” “roommates” and “that bitch” are also not unknown. It’s not all wine and roses. We argue and fight and forgive just like anyone else.
Wrong. It can be that, sure. But it is not inherently that.
Sure. And the same is true of monogamous marriages in the past and in the present.
I don’t think I’d call over 1100 tax, social, medical and financial benefits, rights and privileges, “almost no benefits”. Rights and responsibilities of marriages in the United States - Wikipedia
No, because women don’t gain the same Darwinian benefits from multiple husbands that men do from multiple wives. A man with a dozen wives can potentially produce a dozen times as many children as a man with just one wife; a woman with a dozen husbands can’t produce many more children than she could with just one husband without killing herself. She has only one womb, while men have many sperm.
I disagree. Even today, rich & famous men often attract what amounts to a harem of admiring women, no coercion necessary. Rich & powerful women don’t do that with men. And wide scale polygamy was destructive for the majority of men too, it meant they had no access to women at all.
Judging from how powerful people who could do as they please have acted, women are typically interested in only one man at a time; even when they go for many men over their life it’s one after another, not many at once. Whereas men tend to like having many women at once, but with a favorite; a harem and a “Chief Wife”, basically. Monogamy just strips away all but the “Chief Wife” and makes her the only one.
On the other hand, the really large harems, the “sultan with a thousand women” setups on the other hand seem to me to have been more status symbols than real relationships, sexual or romantic. Not about an actual attraction to most of the women, but simply gathering women up to show off how wealthy you are, like they were just expensive objects. So you get things like a sultan having his entire 1000+ woman harem drowned; a man who actually cared for “his women” - even just as sex objects - wouldn’t do that, that’s a man showing off his wealth by ostentatiously destroying his “property”.
Bullshit. This is about the third time in this thread you’ve claimed this thought several of us have rebutted this.
I was born in a country where polygamy was legal and what you’re warning about never happened.
Please give me the name of any of the societies which today practice polygamy where this is true and provide proof of it.
I don’t know how you can make this conclusion. Based on which sample of powerful women? Actresses, who rely on mostly men for jobs, and public opinion for ticket sales? Singers, who have private hotel parties we know nothing about? Politicians, who depend on re-electibility? Women who live in cultures where polygamy is legal for men? Most of them aren’t even allowed to pick their one husband, much less many.
I think that the social and professional consequences for an openly poly person are still pretty dire, and worse for a woman than a man. Men, of course, are supposed to be studly and virile and attract lots of women. And still, I can name only one openly poly male actor*, and he’s not an A list actor at that. Okay, two, if you count Charlie Sheen, but he didn’t engender boatloads of support for being open about having multiple womenfolk, and they seem to have been hired “girlfriends” more than actual partners.
So I think women have even more social, professional and even reproductive reason to be secretive about their multiple partners than men do. I think that’s why people have this idea that women aren’t into poly. When you look at a subculture where being poly is okay and without grave consequences, there are plenty of women into it.
So I continue to question the assumption that there are significantly more poly men than women IF one is within a culture in which women are allowed freedom and power equal to or greater than men. And I’m not the only poly woman to do so. Here’s a good essay on polyamory, written nearly 20 years ago which touches on the topic, as well as some other misconceptions in this thread (including that polyamory is “about” sex; it’s not, it’s about relationships. Ergo, the reason marriage is important to us…we would very much like to see polyamory able to be legally recognized as polygamy.) Polyamorous Percolations
I mean, for goodness sakes…the very *word *“polyamory” was coined by a woman! The banner holders in this poly pride group are ALL women (or appear to be, one mustn’t make assumptions.)
I’m not going to claim that the numbers are equal, because I just don’t know that. I don’t know that anyone can collect accurate data in this day and age when people are still afraid to be known and counted. But I think the numbers are far closer to equal than most people who aren’t polyamorous think they are.
And I think it far more valuable to consider modern egalitarian polyamorists in the discussion of the potential for legal polygamy in the US than mythic Sultans who lived Once Upon a Time.
*Misha Collins. I know, “who the hell is Misha Collins?” right?
Based on Der Trih’s logic women almost never cheat on their husband and men are vastly more likely to engage in adultery.
Of course, in reality most evidence I’m aware of suggests that women are just as likely to engage in adultery as men.
Not the same ones, but they still gain advantages. Namely, that they don’t put all their eggs in one basket. A single man may carry some lethal trait that will sabotage all the woman’s offspring if she doesn’t have any offspring with other men; and even absent that extreme case, genetic diversity among her offspring is favorable to the chances of her genes continuing to thrive.
I don’t see a great difference between those two things.