Why should polygamy be illegal?

[The Nimble Pianist]

When arguing for the legal recognition of same-sex marriages, one often runs into a slippery-slope argument propped up by the opposition asserting that the recognition of same-sex marriages will inevitably lead to recognizing polygamous and polyandrous marriages.

Most proponents simply point out the foolishness of the slippery-slope argument rather than tackling the morality and legality of polygamy and polyandry (likely because it's a deviation of the argument at hand).

When I take the time to actually think about it, very few rational reasons to criminalize or even refrain from recognizing plural marriages arise. The majority of these minor issues concern logistics and practical execution of legal recognition of plural marriages in a society whose laws reflect monogamy by default (e.g. issues of inheritance, divorce, child custody, etc).

These issues are technical and so could be ironed out if given proper consideration. In my mind, these don't constitute valid reasons for claiming that plural marriage is immoral or that plural marriages should not be recognized by law.

Many bring up examples of the abuses typified by plural marriages (usually Fundamentalist Mormon polygamy in the western US, Mexico, and Canada), like the betrothal of young girls to elderly men, coercion, the exile of "lost boys", etc. These abuses though aren't enough to outlaw polygamy/polyandry in of itself just as pointing out the higher than average level of promiscuity among gay men isn't enough to outlaw same-sex marriage. For some families, plural marriage is all they know. It works, the children are cared for, the spouses involved don't feel coerced, and actually prefer their plural marriage over a monogamous one.

Are there any good reasons for objecting to another person's plural marriage?

 

[pipelineaudio]

Is there any good reason for the government to be involved with marriage at all?

 

[slingblade]

Well, divorce springs to mind...

 

[gumboot]

I can't think of any good reasons. The only issue would be working out how the legalities of family and inheritance law would work. In most societies where they have polygamy they have inheritance and family law practices that would be illegal in a liberal democracy (such as women having no rights) but if we can come up with a practical way that our laws can function effectively in polygamous relationships I say go for it.

 

[FlamingMoe]

Is there any good reason for the government to be involved with marriage at all?

No.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

These issues are technical and so could be ironed out if given proper consideration. In my mind, these don't constitute valid reasons for claiming that plural marriage is immoral or that plural marriages should not be recognized by law.

The last time one of these discussions came around, I asked a lawyer friend of mine how easy this "ironing out" would be. In his opinion, it would be quite complex and not worth the trouble. Of course, that is only one man's opinion, but I would not endorse the legal recognition of polygamy unless and until I had seen a workable proposal of exactly how all the issues would be handled.

Many bring up examples of the abuses typified by plural marriages (usually Fundamentalist Mormon polygamy in the western US, Mexico, and Canada), like the betrothal of young girls to elderly men, coercion, the exile of "lost boys", etc.

It should also be considered why the exile of "lost boys" is typical. Simply put, a bunch of young sexually frustrated males hanging about is not the recipe for a happy society.

That said, ultimately, I agree with pipelineaudio.

 

[L The Detective]

I agree with the sentiment that the government doesn't belong in the marriage business.

I also don't have any moral problem with polygamy, assuming that all the participants are consenting adults.

 

[The Nimble Pianist]

Is there any good reason for the government to be involved with marriage at all?

I don't believe so, but you'd have one hell of a time abolishing the legal recognition and benefits of all marriages

I can't think of any good reasons. The only issue would be working out how the legalities of family and inheritance law would work. In most societies where they have polygamy they have inheritance and family law practices that would be illegal in a liberal democracy (such as women having no rights) but if we can come up with a practical way that our laws can function effectively in polygamous relationships I say go for it.

When you get married now it's assumed that you have a 50/50 share with your partner unless you have a pre-nup. Why couldn't each member have an equal share in inheritance and divorce?

 

[plumjam]

Clearly it should be illegal on mental health grounds.

 

[The Nimble Pianist]

It should also be considered why the exile of "lost boys" is typical.

It's only typical in their community. It's not typical in western society.

Simply put, a bunch of young sexually frustrated males hanging about is not the recipe for a happy society.

This would be important if most men in our society were polygamists. Most aren't.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

It's only typical in their community. It's not typical in western society.

Because western society, in general, is not polygamous. Polygamous societies tend to create more losers in the sex game.

This would be important if most men in our society were polygamists. Most aren't.

Correct. Now, how much of that has to do with the fact that polygamy is illegal? If we legalized it tomorrow, I doubt there would be millions of folks rushing out the next day to join polygamous unions. But, what about the following generation? Would the incidence of polygamy (and, therefore, the incidence of the aforementioned losers) tend to increase, decrease, or stay the same as time wore on?

I don't know the answers to any of the above, but they are questions that should be considered and given the best available projections before one legalizes polygamy.

 

[Eddie Dane]

There was an item about this on the BBC radio recently.
They interviewed quite a few Muslims who were upset that they couldn't have poligamous marriages in the UK. Some women wanted that kind of arrangement too.
They also were upset that as a society we tolerated extramarital affairs, yet prohibit the moral alternative (registered polygamy).

I don't like the way that the Muslim world has arranged these affairs because I think there's a big chance of coercion and abuse. But that may be an irrational way of looking at it.

I know of two gay guys who wanted children and made pact with a lady who also wanted children. They're all living together now and have two kids. It's going fine and they're happy. So if I endorse that. Am I a hypocrite for being against polygamy?

Three more point about polygamy:

The women's share of the pie becomes smaller if she has to share with another woman/ children. So from the economic perspective it is a bad deal for the woman. Although in Islam you're only allowed to have more wives if you can afford it.

I don't think western democracies should allow it without a referendum on the matter. Considering the number of female voters, I doubt it would have a chance.

It is also a bad deal for men that aren't big earners. The rich and powerful men would hog more of the potential marriage partners, leaving less for the cab drivers and office clerks. Who then live lonely and frustrated lives.

ETA:

Wait! I've just realised that under this system I could have four wives!
I just forgot to be my usual selfish self. I quite like the idea, now that I think about it.

More children, more sex, big dinner every night with the family.
Sharing the upbringing of the children. If it works, it could possibly be a very cosy affair.

That's it! I'm moving to Kuwait!

 

[FlamingMoe]

If someone can find more than one person to put up with their crap for (presumably) the rest of their lives, more power to 'em -- have at it.

 

[GodMark2]

Example situation:

Man lies comatose in a hospital after a high speed vehicular collision, requiring a ventilation unit to breathe. Woman shows up, with proof of being his wife, and asks that no advanced life saving techniques be used.

Current law gives the conscious spouse the ability to make such decisions for the unresponsive one. Physician is required to turn off the machines.

Man lies comatose in a hospital after a high speed vehicular collision, requiring a ventilation unit to breathe. Man shows up, with proof of being his husband, and asks that no advanced life saving techniques be used.

Current law gives the conscious spouse the ability to make such decisions for the unresponsive one. Physician is required to turn off the machines.

Man lies comatose in a hospital after a high speed vehicular collision, requiring a ventilation unit to breathe. Woman shows up, with proof of being his wife, and asks that no advanced life saving techniques be used. Second woman shows up, also with proof of being his wife, and demands that all possible measures be used to ensure even the remote chance of recovery.

Current law gives up and hides in a corner, because both spouses have full rights to decide the husband's treatment. Cue lawyers and lawsuits.

Each Poly union-conglomerate would need to be adjudicated individually, and as such cannot be covered by a 'one size fits all' contract, such as current legal marriage.

That said: What you do in your bedroom is none of my business.

 

[Rasmus]

Another example:

A man and a woman get married. They continue to be married for a couple of years. Then the woman meets another man and wants to be married to him, too. Her current husband objects. (Or he agrees, so long as only the woman will be married to the other guy, rather than both him and her.) A few years later still, the second husband meets yet another woman. The first woman is happy for herself and her second husband to get married to the second woman - but the first husband can't stand her and doesn't even want her in the house...

I see good reason for the government to be in the marriage business: How else could I persuade a third party that my s/o is actually legally related to me?

I see no way to adjust the current system to adequately and fairly support polygamous marriages, though. If such a scheme is worked out by those wanting to be married to more than one partner and if it can be shown that the system is fair and workable, it will have my support.

I don't see any obligation for the government or anyone else to work on creating such a scheme though. If anyone asks for a legal multi-way marriage it is upon them to clearly define what it is they are asking for, because it is obviously not the same thing or even analogous.

 

[D'rok]

Aside from the issues of child abuse in the case of fundy Mormons, I think the answer is simple: polygamy isn't acceptable according to the community moral standards of countries like Canada or the USA. Setting aside the debate of whether governments should be involved in marriage at all, there is no indication, unlike same-sex marriage, that there is any movement towards a change in that community moral standard. It would be a gross violation of the general will for democratic lawmakers to try and legislate a radically new standard under such conditions.

The only remaining question is whether or not this is a case of democratic majorities unjustly trampling the rights of a minority. I have a hard time seeing how that is the case in this instance. In Canada, it is likely only the fundy Mormons that are affected by the illegality of polygamy. (Or nearly so). The issue of harm to children in that environment should overwhelm any marriage-rights claim.

 

[Rasmus]

Aside from the issues of child abuse in the case of fundy Mormons, I think the answer is simple: polygamy isn't acceptable according to the community moral standards of countries like Canada or the USA.

Might doesn't make right, though.

The reason to allow same sex marriage is not that enough people simply don't care, even though this might be a practical necessity to make change happen.

what I like or dislike shouldn't be the basis of what the law says. I dislike the idea of polygamy because the examples I am aware of are intrinsicly unfair and problematic. But if those problems could be overcome I'd change my mind, even though i would probably still dislike the idea just as much.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Robert Louis Stevenson once called marriage "a form of friendship recognized by the police". I think he was on to something.

 

[D'rok]

Might doesn't make right, though.

Thus the second paragraph of my post

The reason to allow same sex marriage is not that enough people simply don't care, even though this might be a practical necessity to make change happen.

I'm talking about the practical necessity - it doesn't exist for polygamy, AFAIK.

what I like or dislike shouldn't be the basis of what the law says. I dislike the idea of polygamy because the examples I am aware of are intrinsicly unfair and problematic. But if those problems could be overcome I'd change my mind, even though i would probably still dislike the idea just as much.

In a democracy, what we like and dislike, to the extent this can reasonably be determined, should be the basis of what the law says. In a constitutional democracy, constitutionally entrenched rights are supposed to be the core of the checks and balances on majoritarian abuses. Polygamists will have to make the case that their rights are being unjustly violated. It will be a hard sell.

 

[BazBear]

If people want to live in a virtual "plural marriage" situation, that is their business. Expecting society as a whole to endorse such a situation legally, that is with laws recognizing it in the same manner as traditional marriage (or whatever equivalent for same sex couples that may exist in some states), is IMO quite another matter. Not that I give a flying frack, personally.

That said, cultish type groups that engage in such practices can certainly expect a lot of scrutiny, especially in regard to their treatment of minor children.