Why should polygamy be illegal?

[ponderingturtle]

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.

The problem is that unlike same sex marriage this would require reworking of the thousand and more laws and regulations that apply to married people different than single people.

So it is legaly much more complicated and unlike gay marriage it could impact monogamous heterosexual marriages as you are changing what marriage legaly means.

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).

How many models of poly marriage should be legaly created? You have those in traditional polygynous marriages were one man in married to many women but they are not really married to eachother and each marriage is essentialy seperate. But you also have polyamourus individuals with more mixed views were everyone is married to everyone else.

Which model should be used when deciding how to rewrite marriage laws?

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.

Sure but proponents of plural marriages will need to broadly propose a single view of what a plural marriage is. People might be for it, and I am not against it, but I think that keeping marriage as a single unified legal concept is more important than rewriting it so that everyone can get the marriage that they might prefer.

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?

The problem here is there is a difference between not legaly recognising and outlawing someones relationship. Homosexual relationships are not outlawed in the US, but are rarely legaly recognised.

 

[Holler Hoojer]

Who cares? If my neighbor marries two women and three men and a goat, how does that affect me (assuming he keeps none of them in a pen next to my fence)? If it doesn't affect me, what business of mine is it? If they settle their property affairs quietly, if they deal with health insurance without costing me, if they raise their children well, I should be satisfied and shut up.

 

[ponderingturtle]

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

So blood relatives should always trump sex partners?

 

[Rasmus]

Who cares? If my neighbor marries two women and three men and a goat, how does that affect me (assuming he keeps none of them in a pen next to my fence)?

If they are indeed married as opposed to living with each other it *does* affect you, since that turns them into close relatives of one another which may e.g. impact how you can do business with them.

If it doesn't affect me, what business of mine is it?

None. But if it didn't affect anybody else we wouldn't even have something like a marriage.

If they settle their property affairs quietly, if they deal with health insurance without costing me, if they raise their children well, I should be satisfied and shut up.

Yes. If. But there's no guarantee that this will be so. (Not sure about the US, but health insurance in Germany *does* cover spouses, e.g. So it would cost you if I married 3 or 5 women rather than just one.)

 

[GreNME]

Not to give this question, which is a rhetorical red herring that comes up with regard to same-sex marriage, any more due than it should, but:

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?

Because it rarely, if ever, comes up 50/50 on the split as things stand already, so adding to the number of contending parties makes more legal trouble. In other words, it would be great for divorce lawyers, and a huge headache to practically everyone else, including people just trying to fill out their tax forms.

 

[Puppycow]

Supposedly polygamy is illegal in the US, but in practice, it seems that it is actually tolerated. I don't much care for the way that the Fundamentalist Mormons brainwash people from childhood to believe that they have to accept this or go to hell.

But the Fundamentalist Mormons are a special case. Say that 3 or more adult people wanted to have a polyamorous relationship and call it a marriage, who would stop them?

 

[Lonewulf]

"Calling it a marriage" != "a marriage".

 

[ponderingturtle]

Supposedly polygamy is illegal in the US, but in practice, it seems that it is actually tolerated. I don't much care for the way that the Fundamentalist Mormons brainwash people from childhood to believe that they have to accept this or go to hell

I believe bigamy is still a crime, but that require trying to legaly marry multiple people and the like.

Of course adultery is legaly equivelent to rape in some states, but it is just not enforced. I remember hearing about how they made haveing sex as part of a felony as being legaly rape in michigan, and it still has felony laws against adultery as well.

 

[GreNME]

Supposedly polygamy is illegal in the US, but in practice, it seems that it is actually tolerated. I don't much care for the way that the Fundamentalist Mormons brainwash people from childhood to believe that they have to accept this or go to hell.

But the Fundamentalist Mormons are a special case. Say that 3 or more adult people wanted to have a polyamorous relationship and call it a marriage, who would stop them?

Probably very few people. However, while calling it a marriage they cannot take advantage of the tax and legal privileges in the system that come along with marriage.

When the hypothetical questions of polyamorous relationships start coming out, my first reflex is to ask if someone can name a society in any of the world's history that allowed polygamy but was also not inherently discriminatory to women.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Probably very few people. However, while calling it a marriage they cannot take advantage of the tax and legal privileges in the system that come along with marriage.

When the hypothetical questions of polyamorous relationships start coming out, my first reflex is to ask if someone can name a society in any of the world's history that allowed polygamy but was also not inherently discriminatory to women.

It is hard to say if the polyandarous ones were as inherently discriminatory as the polygynous ones.

Sharing one wife with all your brothers, it is hard to say who gets the worse end of that deal.

Edit: Oh and didn't some early feminists use essentialy the same arguement about all of marriage? It is traditionaly a method of transfering ownership of a woman from her father to her husband, as such it is alwyas discriminatory to women.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

If overpopulation is considered a real problem, maybe polyandry should be considered? Polygyny, not so much.

 

[GreNME]

Yeah, I do know of polyandrous groups in history where the correlation between the poly-marriage and the rights of women is a bit less intertwined, but those examples tend to be small tribal groups-- interestingly, there are also small, tribal examples of same-sex marriage being tolerated as well, usually with a woman standing in as a husband under some circumstances. However, if we can be honest in admitting that this discussion tends instead to focus on the polygamous type than of one woman marrying several men, then the question I asked is more appropos.

That said, I do know of a few people who are polyamorous and quite happy with it. I know of more cases where it's okay only up to the point where one or more individuals begins getting the jealousy itch, but I have genuinely known some people who really have not had a problem with polyamorous relationships and are generally happy.

 

[Puppycow]

When the hypothetical questions of polyamorous relationships start coming out, my first reflex is to ask if someone can name a society in any of the world's history that allowed polygamy but was also not inherently discriminatory to women.

Not much of an argument: Name a monogomous society that was not discriminatory to women. I think that it is modernity that is the key factor, not mono vs. poly per se. I briefly listened to a podcast called Polyamory Weekly and found that there indeed a modern polyamorous subculture with modern attitudes about gender equality.

 

[bozothedeathmachine]

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

Only one that I can think of, and have personal experience with: emmigration based on marital status. Wifey needed a green card so I had to jump through all the gubbment's hoops.

 

[L The Detective]

My only problem with the government recognizing marriage is that marriage is a religious term, and in my opinion government has no business messing with religion. I have no problem with the government recognizing civil unions, and giving benefits to those unions. I don't see why these civil unions couldn't be more flexibile in their definition, and allow room for same-sex unions and multiple partner unions. Seems like a reasonable idea.

 

[quarky]

Marriage of any kind is rather troublesome.

 

[Beerina]

Why should polygamy be illegal?

Because multiple wives was beneficial to ancient humanity, who were living in much more difficult times, so God let them do this much like he told them our universe was a hollowed out pocket in the waters of chaos, a poetic description of reality at best. But it was good for them to get along in daily life.

Then God changed his mind about all that crap and sacrificed himself to appease his own rage, so he could save people from his own torture and not look like a liar or that He changed His mind. This involved blowing away a lot of the old rules, so now it's wrong to have multiple wives.

 

[GreNME]

Not much of an argument: Name a monogomous society that was not discriminatory to women. I think that it is modernity that is the key factor, not mono vs. poly per se. I briefly listened to a podcast called Polyamory Weekly and found that there indeed a modern polyamorous subculture with modern attitudes about gender equality.

It's plenty of argument when the basis for a polygamous society is to increase the number of surviving births, which has been pretty much the inherent function of polygamy in each society. Polyamorous societies, on the other hand, don't specifically have that inherent feature and are thus either uncommon or not widely adopted. That's not an argument to ban polygamy, but it's certainly a good reason to look at it critically on its own merits.

As to its relation to same-sex marriage, that would only apply if we're talking about poly-same-sex marriage, which is not what's being proposed socially at the time, hence my first post in this thread mentioning that it's a red herring used against same-sex marriage.

 

[toddjh]

I think the question in the OP is phrased badly. The more appropriate question is, "Why should polygamy be legal?" I don't think there's a good answer. In the U.S. at least, it's not exactly in high demand, and there are no constitutional issues which would mandate it. The state has seen fit not to enter into a contract with groups of more than two people and, absent any reasons why it should be compelled to, that's the end of the story.

 

[ponderingturtle]

My only problem with the government recognizing marriage is that marriage is a religious term, and in my opinion government has no business messing with religion. I have no problem with the government recognizing civil unions, and giving benefits to those unions. I don't see why these civil unions couldn't be more flexibile in their definition, and allow room for same-sex unions and multiple partner unions. Seems like a reasonable idea.

This does not seem to be universal though, in fact it I thought that the church only got into the marriage business when it was trying to get into every other business.

Is marriage universaly tied to religion? I don't think so and see little evidence for that.

Going back to the Code of Hamarubi there have been lots of civil laws about marriage.