Should polygamy be illegal?

Post Reply New Topic

[/quote]

Humans arn't a lot of things by nature. The longer we are a species it seems the less we rely on nature and the more we rely on nuture (aka culture) to survive.

Monogamy is a sacrifice. There is no doubt about that, however having to support say five or six wives and 20+ children is no walk in the park either. I don't think polygamy would be so much of a problem if families were limited to producing 2 or less offspring, but since that is never going to happen just dealing with all those children is enough to say no to men having multiple wives. It would actually be more of an environmental policy for women to have multiple partners that were faithful to her as her procreation is severely limited compared to males. If China doesn't already I think they could reduce a lot of unnessary abortions by forcing their men to have vasectomys after their first two children are born.

you seem to be looking from a rather sexist and traditional standpoint. i don't necessarily think marriage or the traditional family structure is that good of an idea under any circumstances either.

Indeed! It is nobody's business but the people involved. If all involved are okay with it, then everyone else should shut the hell up.

I think it becomes a problem if the consequences of a person's actions begin to hurt entire groups of people. I don't think polygamy should be illegal due to the whole underground polygamy communities. Kind of like why I think prostituition should be legalized because the people who end up getting hurt if it is not legalized are women.

I don't think the government should give you tax breaks for spouses or children. Now I know that sounds a bit harsh to some people but the way I see it having a child and getting married is a choice. A big financial choice. The government shouldn't have an incentive program based on whether or not you wish to procreate or not. I feel that like the whole gay marriage issue this is all about money and not about choices, morality, or even health. It's all about should the government give you a tax break or not. Before that problem gets solved the government has a vital interest in marriage(s) which it shouldn't have in the first place.

In response to another post this has nothing to do with sexism. It has to do with government regulation of marriages and the effects of hiding an alternative lifestyle.

High five!

I've been married before, and from my experiences I imagine that I'd do rather well at the social aspects of polygamy, inclusive of the sexual aspects. But I don't believe in it, so, I've gotta give up that thought.

Tell ya one thing, polygamy would be a bad move if you like being alone. And you'd need a lifetime subscription to Viagra.

But sometimes, polygamy is divided by seperate households, so that the husband still only deals with one wife at a time -- they never mix. An Arab guy with three wives said that was his secret to marital success.

A lot of people might bring religion into this... but be careful about that. Neither Christianity, Islam or Judaism explicitly prohibit polygamy... in fact it's generally the opposite.

Monogamy is actually a Roman institution, which was inherited by it's successor states. The Romans discovered that using marital alliances between powerful families was a great tool WITHIN their Republic and later the Empire. Marriage alliances had been common in the world between competing nations, but the Romans were among the first to use it to create political alliances within the state itself. They cemented monogamy as a way of giving official status to the alliance (this is so old in Roman society, as to possibly predate even the foundation of the Republic). A man could have as many women as he liked DISCREETLY but he had only one official wife. This proved to be VERY useful in stabilizing the State. Despite several civil wars even very early in it's history, the political alliances ensured that the State stayed together. Roving bands of horny men bent on mayhem and rape (a notorious tradition of ancient armies) would otherwise tend to come out during times of unrest and more or less destroy the state. It happened many times in the ancient world. Of course these armies were intended for raping and pillaging enemies... but in times of chaos, almost always turned inward to their own cities. In the Roman world, this didn't happen as often. Civil wars would be fought on the battlefield, and rarely resulted in the sacking of their own cities... that was reserved for enemies.

By accident, this resulted in a more stable society in general. As was brought up earlier, most polygamous societies are inherently unstable due to a large number of horny, aggressive, single men roaming around. The Romans never had this particular problem, and as a result created the first disciplined society in the Western world. A man had to restrain himself, and this proved useful everywhere from Politics to the more disciplined Roman Army. Even the Roman soldiers had wives of their own to return home to, and thus had more reason to stay honorable.

Christianity eventually conquered the Empire from within, and the Roman political institutions became linked with Christianity itself. The Empire was Christianity and Christianity was the Empire. When the Empire finally fell apart, the Roman Catholic church continued the political dominance and the Roman traditions in the germanic successor states. And of course the Byzantine Empire transmitted similar traditions to eastern Europe.

That's a long rant, but the point of it is that Monogamy in the official sense is irreparably linked with Western society, which owes a lot to the old Roman ways. Monogamy has always been only an official thing, however. Most men eventually cheat or try multiple partners on the side... but this is a discreet thing usually. In this way, most men can get wives, and thus do not become a large, discontent force for rebellion and mayhem... but humans can continue their non-monogamous ways in private.

Should polygamy be legal? It already is... nothing prevents you from having as many partners as you wish in an unofficial capacity. Only the OFFICIAL institution enforces monogamy, and this is essential to the survival of Western culture in general.

The topic is polygamy, not polygyny: it would be technically possible, were it legal, for there to be marriages with more than one man as well.

I think it would be fine, with some limitations: minimum age of 25 for all participants, any participant must have lived away from home for at least a year, and all participants in the marriage must sign when anyone new joins in.

Divorce from three or four spouses, though - what a nightmare that would be!

It is perfectly legal for, say, 4 women and 1 man to live together and have a relationship... only the term marriage itself is illegal. Conversely the reverse is also possible, though it's far more rare for men to consent to sharing a woman. Marriage is a legal and/or religious contract, and does not refer to the status of living together as such. Where, say, the polygamous nature of certain extant mormon communities becomes a legal issue is that they are actually entering into a religious contract of marriage as opposed to just living together in a relationship. In other words, the law is only prohibiting official recognition of polygamy (through political and/or religious institutions), not polygamy itself.

And although I respect your opinion about it's legality, I do have disagree. I firmly believe that that thin veneer of monogamy we stamp on society is essential to keeping it stable.

But if polygamy were legal would it be possible to marry more than one goat at a time? And now that we're into trans-species marriage, perhaps people should be able to marry endangered species to save them. I keep getting e-mail from Nigeria where an attractive mountain gorilla named Giselle is looking for a husband. She is currently married to an abusive chimpanzee who is having a secret affair with a flamingo who she suspects is really after the chimpanzee's shares in Nokia. A real tragedy.

Lol

I should also add, sociologically speaking, monogamy is the only reason Aspies exist in the numbers they do...

Think about it... if we lived in a society in which polygamy was considered the norm, then large numbers of women would congregate around relatively small numbers of men (this happens in the middle east a lot). These would be the best-of-the-best type of men. They would not necessarily be the smartest, strongest or fastest, but they would be the best SOCIALLY. This is a tendency we see even in our nominally monogamous society, where women tend to like socially-appealing jerks who are often dating multiple women simultaneously.

Social status is, of course, obtained through Money, Looks and Social Ability. Looks and Social Ability combined tend to produce money by default (celebrities), Money and Social Ability can overcome bad Looks (plastic surgery), but Money and Looks doesn't go nearly as far without Social Ability, and if women marry them, they tend only to do so for the money and wind up cheating with other men for sex (I have my father as an example of this, whom I suspect is also an Aspie).

Without a ritualistic monogamy tradition, then men who were taken by another woman would not necessarily pose any obstacle to other women. Jerks who date several women at a time could then do so openly, and anyone at a disadvantage socially-speaking would be unsuitable as a mate. This is bad enough as it is, but would become far worse if polygamy were more openly accepted.

Aspies would be removed from the gene pool in relatively short order. It's my thought that Aspie-like traits would be very rare in polygamous societies. Of course this is all just a theory, but it does seem to make sense.