"Why not polygamous marriage?"

[ponderingturtle]

A, B and C are married. C wants to divorce A, but not B. How is that going to work?

The cost to society is in legal complexities which would need to be unraveled, and in paying all the lawyers to do so.

Bookitty, what does LT stand for?

Is that three marriages or one marriage with three people?

 

[Ziggurat]

what you just said there, is that there's no point legalising poly relationships because those relationships arent as important as normal ones.

No I didn't. I said that once you're past reproductive age, the legal status of your relationship has much less importance. That goes for polygamous AND monogamous relationships.

Notably, you didn't say, when two people get old together they shouldn't be allowed to marry, So there's not really any point to legalizing old person weddings

Notably you didn't say you wanted to marry two women.

Don't be silly. No special accommodation for old people is necessary, and the exact same institution is instituted in the exact same way. It may not be necessary to do so, but there's certainly no harm in doing so. But legalizing polygamy for older people WILL open the door for polygamy for younger people.

Look, I get that you, individually, are not hurting anyone with your relationships. But that frankly doesn't matter to this question. You're an outlier, and as far as I can tell, you're doing just fine without your relationship having any formal legal sanction. But the effect of what you do yourself, as a statistical outlier, is very different from the effect of any large-scale polygamy. And on a large scale, polygamy is incredibly corrosive to society. I'm not trying to stop you from doing what you're currently doing, but damn straight I don't want a lot of people doing it. Keeping polygamy from having any legal sanction helps make sure that remains the case.

 

[Mark6]

Is that three marriages or one marriage with three people?

one marriage with three people

 

[bookitty]

A, B and C are married. C wants to divorce A, but not B. How is that going to work?

The cost to society is in legal complexities which would need to be unraveled, and in paying all the lawyers to do so.

Bookitty, what does LT stand for?

LT stands for long term.

Society already has a system in place to pay for the lawyers and unravel the complexities. There would be no investment in a new system. Sure there may be a few high-profile cases at the beginning that take longer than a "traditional" divorce, but the legal system (and traditional divorce) will benefit from them. After a short adjustment period, there would be no difference in time/cost. Even that short adjustment period would not see poly-divorce cases that dragged on for as long as some high profile traditional-divorce cases.

 

[Ziggurat]

Of course as I will not have kids it also means I should not be considered married.

Way to miss the point. Limiting the legal sanction of marriage to monogamous relationships isn't simply about having children, it's about providing some parity between the number of available men and the number of available women. An non-reproductive monogamous relationship doesn't change that balance in any way. In fact, even within the context of creating stable nuclear families for raising kids, non-reproductive monogamous marriages can still help reinforce the social capital of marriage. So too can gay marriage, which also doesn't upset the balance because gays are already out of the pool, as it were. But there's no way to keep the gender balance with polygamy.

 

[bookitty]

No I didn't. I said that once you're past reproductive age, the legal status of your relationship has much less importance. That goes for polygamous AND monogamous relationships.



Notably you didn't say you wanted to marry two women.

Don't be silly. No special accommodation for old people is necessary, and the exact same institution is instituted in the exact same way. It may not be necessary to do so, but there's certainly no harm in doing so. But legalizing polygamy for older people WILL open the door for polygamy for younger people.

Look, I get that you, individually, are not hurting anyone with your relationships. But that frankly doesn't matter to this question. You're an outlier, and as far as I can tell, you're doing just fine without your relationship having any formal legal sanction. But the effect of what you do yourself, as a statistical outlier, is very different from the effect of any large-scale polygamy. And on a large scale, polygamy is incredibly corrosive to society. I'm not trying to stop you from doing what you're currently doing, but damn straight I don't want a lot of people doing it. Keeping polygamy from having any legal sanction helps make sure that remains the case.

Sort of a chicken or egg thing. Does polygamy contribute to a society in which women are not valued, or does a society which does not value women naturally turn to polygamy.

If women are treated as objects of status instead of individuals, polygamy enforces that view. If women are treated as individuals and polygamy includes all types of combinations, polygamy would not be degrading to women.

 

[bookitty]

Way to miss the point. Limiting the legal sanction of marriage to monogamous relationships isn't simply about having children, it's about providing some parity between the number of available men and the number of available women. An non-reproductive monogamous relationship doesn't change that balance in any way. In fact, even within the context of creating stable nuclear families for raising kids, non-reproductive monogamous marriages can still help reinforce the social capital of marriage. So too can gay marriage, which also doesn't upset the balance because gays are already out of the pool, as it were. But there's no way to keep the gender balance with polygamy.

That's really only the case if polygamy is defined as a man and multiple wives. If polygamy includes any variation of adults, the gender balance would be maintained.

 

[Bill Thompson]

When hearing debates about granting marriage to same sex couples (Something I'm firmly in favour of), I often hear "If you are redefining marriage, why not have polygamous ones?" from the conservative side. Now, for the record, I can't say I'm in favour of polygamous marriage, but at present I can't actually answer the above question satisfactorily. What's the answer?

It would make available women scarce and, as a result, uglier since all the eye candy would be scooped up by the billionares and millionares. This could also lead to less diversity in the gene pool which would not be good for the species.

But basically the only real reason to be aginst it is envy. It is really why we don't have it so commonly here.

There are places in the world where anyone can have as many wives as they want. I hesitate to tell you since I do not want everyone to flock there in case I decide to go. Oh, what the heck. Lagos. There. Now is everyone going to move to Lagos? And, no, you do NOT have to be a muslim to have multiple wives legally.

So, anyway, your question is meaningless because you CAN have a polygamous marriage.

 

[Weird Science]

that might be something to do with it being illegal in every first world country,

So is sutee and female genital mutilation, or slavery for that matter. Polygamy, like these other horrors, is one of those "traditional institutions that show the depth of their culture and tradition" which the world would do much better without, due to its inherently misogynist nature.

Would any of those who speak so highly about polygamy here, would be willing to have their daughter as the third wife of a rich, elderly man -- the typical situation? What about his first wife, with the constant fear of being replaced with a younger model -- naturally without any financial or legal compensation that divorce brings?

 

[Weird Science]

That's really only the case if polygamy is defined as a man and multiple wives. If polygamy includes any variation of adults, the gender balance would be maintained.

Voltaire, I think, said that "the law, in its magnificent equality, forbids rich and poor alike from stealing bread, begging for alms, and sleeping under bridges". But that hardly means an equal number of rich and poor were arrested for these acts (which was his point, of course). That the law would be gender-neutral won't change the fact that polygamy would be almost invariably an older-man-gets-many-young-women affair.

 

[crimresearch]

So is sutee and female genital mutilation, or slavery for that matter. Polygamy, like these other horrors, is one of those "traditional institutions that show the depth of their culture and tradition" which the world would do much better without, due to its inherently misogynist nature.

Would any of those who speak so highly about polygamy here, would be willing to have their daughter as the third wife of a rich, elderly man -- the typical situation? What about his first wife, with the constant fear of being replaced with a younger model -- naturally without any financial or legal compensation that divorce brings?

By George, I think you've got it! Being in love and forming a family together is a horror, exactly like being burned alive. And of course so is having equal rights...


(rolleyes)

 

[Ziggurat]

That's really only the case if polygamy is defined as a man and multiple wives. If polygamy includes any variation of adults, the gender balance would be maintained.

No, bookitty. I already addressed this. It doesn't matter how you define polygamy, if it's legally sanctioned, it's always going to be dominated by cases of one man with many women.

 

[crimresearch]

Voltaire, I think, said that "the law, in its magnificent equality, forbids rich and poor alike from stealing bread, begging for alms, and sleeping under bridges". But that hardly means an equal number of rich and poor were arrested for these acts (which was his point, of course). That the law would be gender-neutral won't change the fact that polygamy would be almost invariably an older-man-gets-many-young-women affair.

Voltaire was a bachelor.

 

[Ziggurat]

Sort of a chicken or egg thing. Does polygamy contribute to a society in which women are not valued, or does a society which does not value women naturally turn to polygamy.

Given that there are monogamous societies which are oppressive to women, but no polygamous societies that aren't, I think the answer is clear. Polygamy is incompatible with gender equality.

If women are treated as objects of status instead of individuals, polygamy enforces that view. If women are treated as individuals and polygamy includes all types of combinations, polygamy would not be degrading to women.

But they won't be treated as equal individuals. Once they become scarce (and polygamy will make them scarce), all those men who are competing for too few women WILL start to treat them as objects. The ability to look down on women will be the only status left to all the men who can't get a woman.

 

[Weird Science]

But they won't be treated as equal individuals. Once they become scarce (and polygamy will make them scarce), all those men who are competing for too few women WILL start to treat them as objects.

Not to mention the way those who DO get the many women will treat them. Your wife is getting old and you're sick of her? Divorce no longer necessary -- just get the young chick you're supporting anyway on the side into your house. She doesn't like it? Tough titties -- she can't complain about you being a polygamist, since it's now legal...

 

[Mark6]

Would any of those who speak so highly about polygamy here, would be willing to have their daughter as the third wife of a rich, elderly man -- the typical situation?

If polygamy were legalized, that WOULD be the typical situation. There was never a shortage of women willing to share a man, if that got them more money and status. But...

What about his first wife, with the constant fear of being replaced with a younger model -- naturally without any financial or legal compensation that divorce brings?

"Naturally"? Really? Most polygamous societies had laws to prevent that, and in modern world a long-time ex-girlfriend who was never married can sue for alimony and win. Never mind wife. You are just engaging in scare tactics.

 

[Weird Science]

By George, I think you've got it! Being in love and forming a family together is a horror,

Polygamy isn't "about" being in love any more than millionaires buying expensive cars is "about" mechanical engineering. It's about rich men showing off their power and status by getting stuff -- "stuff" being the operative word, women being simply a kind of property in such a relationship.

 

[Mark6]

Once they become scarce (and polygamy will make them scarce), all those men who are competing for too few women WILL start to treat them as objects. The ability to look down on women will be the only status left to all the men who can't get a woman.

Considering it won't happen any time soon, I am pretty sure sexbots will be widely available by then.

 

[Mark6]

Polygamy isn't "about" being in love any more than millionaires buying expensive cars is "about" mechanical engineering. It's about rich men showing off their power and status by getting stuff -- "stuff" being the operative word, women being simply a kind of property in such a relationship.

1. How is that different from "trophy wife" today?

2. Show me a trophy wife who was discarded without any financial or legal compensation.

You assume that polygamy will automatically result in removal of all legal rights for women. Which is a completley unsupported assumption.

Come to think of it, France already has effectively legal polygamy for rich men. Remember President Mitteran's funeral, attended by his wife, his mistress, and the children from both? Are French women "objects disdained my men" and have no legal rights?

 

[Weird Science]

"Naturally"? Really? Most polygamous societies had laws to prevent that...

I'd never thought I'd see a progressive openly speak up for the marriage laws of Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan, but hey, I guess there's a first time to everything.