Polygamy

[yovargas]

[Note: I have moved this discussion from the thread on the Pope's comments about love. Yov, if you want to change the title, go ahead. - VtF]

I have no problem with polygamy. But that's likely a subject for another thread.

[Cerin]

I have no problem with polygamy. But that's likely a subject for another thread.

You don't think it's degrading to the women involved? You don't think there are implications with respect to the relative worth, dignity and personhood of male and female?


eta: cross-posted with Prim, added quote for clarity.

[yovargas]

I have no problem with polygamy. But that's likely a subject for another thread.

You don't think it's degrading to the women involved? You don't think there are implications with respect to the relative worth, dignity and personhood of male and female?

Possibly. But since it is not my life, it is not my choice. If they think it is the best way to live their lives, who am I to forbid it?

eta - this really should be in another thread, though, if people want to continue discussing it.

[Primula Baggins]

I have no problem with polygamy. But that's likely a subject for another thread.

You don't think it's degrading to the women involved? You don't think there are implications with respect to the relative worth, dignity and personhood of male and female?

Possibly. But since it is not my life, it is not my choice. If they think it is the best way to live their lives, who am I to forbid it?

eta - this really should be in another thread, though, if people want to continue discussing it.

Would you say the same thing if children were being exploited, or animals? I can't imagine you would.

What's special about women that society shouldn't care if they're exploited and degraded?

Edit: To add quote and to respond to Cerin:

There is still a strong opposition even to "civil unions" that is much more apparent if the word "marriage" is not under discussion. For many, many opponents of civil rights for gays, the word "marriage" is not the issue; it's letting "those people" into "our" social structures as if "they" were as good as "us."

[Cerin]

Yeah!

[Primula Baggins]

Cerin, I am moving my response to your gay marriage post back to the thread.

[axordil]

Polygamy is degrading when it is imposed through force, coercion, or cultural imperative..that is, when the ability to make a reasoned choice is circumscribed.

The fact that polygamy only thrives when this is the case says something about the nature of the practice, that is, that very few women would want to engage in it by choice under most circumstances.

However, there is an important difference between "very few" and none. Most people wouldn't choose to engage in BDSM type activities either. I don't think anyone should be forced to. But if people choose to, it's not my business.

Now, as to societal and legal recognition--that's really a different question. To be honest, if I was inclined towards a permanent poly relationship, I would set it up as a corporation, just to get around the whole marriage thing.

[Alatar]

Why the assumption that we're talking One Male, Multiple Females? Polygamy can work both ways you know.

The simple fact is that many marriages are unofficially polygamous, where one or both sides of the marriage have lovers. If all are content with the status quo I see no reason to deny their making it official.

Cerin asked:

You don't think it's degrading to the women involved? You don't think there are implications with respect to the relative worth, dignity and personhood of male and female?

Firstly, its only degrading if its against their will. It would be far more degrading to refuse a woman the right to choose her own lifestyle and instead impose your sensibilities upon her.

Secondly, why did you not ask if it was degrading to the man involved? Or do you subscribe to the generalisation that all men are just looking for as much sex as they can get?

[Cerin]

Secondly, why did you not ask if it was degrading to the man involved?

Because it is not the man who is having to share his sexual/life partner with other partners, with all the attendant implications. It is not the man being exemplified as of lesser worth, dignity and personhood than the multiple wives he requires to satisfy his status, procreative and self-actualization requirements. Do you really not see the inequity involved in this?

As to your first question, please see Ax's reply above.

As to your first comment, I haven't ever seen a real life example of one wife, multiple husbands offered as an example of polygamy. If there were, I would have the same objections with respect to the position it puts the male partners in.

[vison]

Polygamy does not mean "multiple wives", it means "multiple spouses". Polygyny is the word for more than one wife, polyandry is the word for more than one husband.

There are societies in which women traditionally have more than one husband. In either Tibet or Nepal, I forget which and don't have time to look it up, it is common in certain tribes for brothers to share a wife.

If consenting adults wish to enter upon a multiple marriage, why shouldn't they? Providing the rights of all concerned, AND their children, are respected and clear, I can see no wrong.

In those foreign cultures where polygyny is common, there are clear and plain rules that order the custom. It is true that in many of those cultures women are not granted full human rights, but that is a separate issue. As women in those societies become educated and liberated, polygyny will likely disappear of its own accord.

Here in BC there is an ongoing "situation" in Bountiful, which is an FLDS settlement. The polygyny practiced in Bountiful, by men like Winston Blackmore and Warren Jeffs (recently arrested in the US) is wrong, since the women involved have no say in who they are to be married to. Many of them are under the age of consent. There is no issue of "consenting adults" at all, just the brutal enslavement of women and teenage girls.

[yovargas]

Would you say the same thing if children were being exploited, or animals? I can't imagine you would.

What's special about women that society shouldn't care if they're exploited and degraded?

There's a reason children and animals can't enter into legal contracts but adult men and women can.



Legally, polygamy seems messy and not particularly worth the trouble to figure out. But morally, who cares?

[Griffon64]

Would you say the same thing if children were being exploited, or animals? I can't imagine you would.

What's special about women that society shouldn't care if they're exploited and degraded?

There's a reason children and animals can't enter into legal contracts but adult men and women can.



Legally, polygamy seems messy and not particularly worth the trouble to figure out. But morally, who cares?

Morally, one should care if any of the parties are forced against their will in any way, like other posters have said before. That is the pretty much the "reason" you refer to in your first paragraph, as I understand it.

So morally, poly-whatever may be permissable ( leaving aside where religions and/or faiths prohibit it ), but only so long as all parties involved are satisfied with it. Else, isn't it morally reprehensive to say that it shouldn't be cared about?

[yovargas]

Would you say the same thing if children were being exploited, or animals? I can't imagine you would.

What's special about women that society shouldn't care if they're exploited and degraded?

There's a reason children and animals can't enter into legal contracts but adult men and women can.



Legally, polygamy seems messy and not particularly worth the trouble to figure out. But morally, who cares?

Morally, one should care if any of the parties are forced against their will in any way, like other posters have said before. That is the pretty much the "reason" you refer to in your first paragraph, as I understand it.

So morally, poly-whatever may be permissable ( leaving aside where religions and/or faiths prohibit it ), but only so long as all parties involved are satisfied with it. Else, isn't it morally reprehensive to say that it shouldn't be cared about?

But none of that is any different then regular marriage, as far as I can see.

[Griffon64]

I'm saying polygamy should probably be considered morally wrong if it is forced upon any of those partaking in it against their will. Else, from a specific view of what constitutes "moral", it is fine. ( in this case, if "moral" is determined by whether or not it causes harm to any involved parties, and whether or not all involved parties agreed with it. )

If, as in the examples of other posters above, polygamy is forced upon any of the partaking persons, shouldn't that be considered morally wrong? It is true that regular marriage may also be forced upon one of its members, to be sure, and in such a case it is morally wrong too.


To ramble on a bit on the topic of morality, the rising prominence of human rights has brought with it some blurred boundaries on what should be considered "moral" or "legal" or "right" and what shouldn't. My broad rule of thumb tends to be that it is not my place to disagree with something as long as it doesn't do harm to others. This provides some conflict with my beliefs, because I am a Christian and therefore I cannot simply shrug off the Biblical directives of what is right and wrong. Yet I remember that Jesus set examples - His well-known proclamation on love being the most important Commandment, His dining with sinners, His saying that those without sin should cast the first stone, the story about rescuing the donkey from the well on the Sabbath. The way I interpret that, your actions should first and formost show consideration for the wellbeing and happiness of other people. You should love them. I try to reason right and wrong from there, but it is very much a work in progress.

The laws of older societies, just like our laws today, is designed to try and provide for the well-being of the society. I have read somewhere that the laws in the Old Testament, if examined carefully, appears to adhere to this as well - many of the directives that appear strange to us today was provided for hygenic or health reasons, or to otherwise ensure people's well-being. That's why they are not to be considered canon in modern society - but they had an important role in morality back then, because they were there to ensure that people are not harmed. But anyway, I've rambled enough!

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I will have some things to say about this subject, eventually (once I can get my thoughts straight).

[Faramond]

Would a marriage of three people be one contract between the three people (ABC), three separate contracts between each combination of two people (AB, AC, BC), or perhaps just two contracts between two people (AB, AC)?

I think it might weaken the institution of marriage if one could have separate marriage contracts with two different people. The fundamental nature of marriage is that it is a committed, exclusive bond.

The only version I could even begin to support would be the version where it is one contract between all the parties. In other words, only one marriage contract per person. I'm not sure that I do support that, though.

[vison]

Faramond, I doubt that anything could weaken the institution of marriage any more than it already has been.

More than half of marriages in the US end in divorce. The few people who might seek a polygamous union are not likely to change that by much, either way.

[axordil]

Faramond--
Now you know why I like the corporate model--it avoids the legal issues you describe. You want your property to go to your spouses? Make it the property of the private corporation of which all principals involved are equal co-owners, such that on your death it doesn't HAVE to change ownership.

[spd]

I have my hands full with one wife, dear though she is to me. I can't imagine why anyone would want more than that.

[nerdanel]

Polygamy or polyamory that includes underage individuals should, IMO, be proscribed. I also believe, however, that underage individuals should not be permitted to marry with or without the permission of their parents. In both cases, the potential for exploitation of teenagers is too high.

Where all people involved are consenting adults, it should not, IMO, be illegal. I am skittish about laws that exist to "protect" adult women. A woman over 18 (or, over 21, if you prefer) must be deemed capable of making her own choices about what relationships to enter into. If she chooses to enter into a relationship in which multiple people are involved, then I see it as problematic for the law to criminalize that to prohibit her "exploitation". Also note that in addition to the traditional polygamous model, many people are involved in polyamorous triads (MMF, MFF, MMM, FFF) and forms of relationships involving more than three people in all gender permutations. Not all of these pose the same concerns of exploitation as the traditional one man/many women or even the rarer one woman/many men models do. Although you can choose to disagree with all forms of poly relationships, you should not conflate them.

To move one step further to actual legal recognition for these relationships is more complicated. The first reason is that most of the poly(amorous) people I have met do not even seem interested in legal recognition for their multiple, simultaneous relationships. More than once, I have heard that they like the potential for relationship fluidity that comes with lack of legal ties. I am not aware of any movement in the polyamorous community for poly marriage, at least. Next, whether polygamy or polyamory, the practical problems of legal recognition are myriad. Practical problems, in my view, should not actually interfere with civil rights where they exist (e.g. whether or not racial desegregation was costly or procedurally complicated should have had no bearing on the fact that it needed to happen.) So, if at some point society determined that poly marriage was a civil right, it would be incumbent on us to work out the practical problems, which would include inheritance rights, custodial disputes if children were involved, divorces (particularly those involving a less than complete breakup of the poly unit), to name just a couple, etc. I think we are overwhelmingly unlikely to conclude that it is a civil right.

This question, of course, cuts to the heart of whether it is legitimate for society through its government to incentivize certain forms of behavior, a question with which I am fascinated in a generic sense. To answer that, we would need to answer two questions: (1) Is it more desirable in every case for a person to form only one primary, exclusive, committed relationship? Or, are there some people for whom a multiple-partner relationship is ideal in some sense? (2) If the former, is it reasonable for the government to incentivize this behavior (monogamous coupling) by providing a variety of rights, benefits, and protections to people who engage in it? Again, it is important not to conflate these two questions. Having asked them, however, I do not feel that I have enough experience or knowledge to answer either.