Polygamy: is it moral?

[GenMarshall]

Not if they take several husbands

Irregardless if its several wives or several husbands. There should be only one pair bonding at a time. Strictly one spouse.

 

[Miles Teg]

Opinions are like buttholes, everybody has one........ and that is all that you have submitted here. Out of curiosity, what problems does homosexual marriage solve?

Charming as always DM. This has nothing to do with my opinion. It's about the fact that modern and pre-modern societies that allowed or encouraged polygamy have been less stable as a result.

As to you're last question, it gives gay people an option on how to live their lives. As to what marriage specifically does, it provides a stable environment for children, cuts down on STDs, encourages lower levels of risk taking, and so forth. While polygamous marriage can do the last, it can't do the other two.

If you don't believe that then you are in denial.

We've provided several arguments against polygamous marriage that don't apply to gay marriage. If you're not willing to accept the logical consistiency, then you are in denial.

 

[LucyDuke]

It is discrimination against people wishing to have multiple spouses.

Laws against marrying cacti are discrimination against people wishing to marry cacti. Should we let people marry cacti?

Same-sex marriage is comparable to polygamy in the fact that it assaults the man/woman/children definition of a traditional family.

It does no such thing.

Then I say................................... what?

What I quoted.

So why limit it to two people? Other cultures don't. It is just the outdated view of some Christians that forces this one man/one woman idea of marriage on all of us.

Because the dynamics of a relationship between two people are fundamentally different from those of a relationship between three or more. I can't force you to understand, sorry.

You don't think that polygamists will use the passage of same-sex marriage to further their own agenda? They will copy the tactics used by the gays, and cry discrimination to make polygamy legal.

I don't care?

It has nothing to do with "floodgates and evil", but rather the consistency in arguments that the polygamists will duplicate from the gay movement. If you don't believe that then you are in denial.

What's your point?

I wouldn't say everybody was pissed, it looked mostly like the gays to me.

Google "whether you like it or not".

He's right.

 

[Zack]

I think it would get too complicated.

 

[QuoVadisNation]

I've have seen such a thing myself. So I can only comment on what makes sense in theory to me. However, I believe Mariama Bâ (was it her?) said it best that polygamy in practice is pretty terrible. The wives rarely ever work together, each woman gets the feeling the other woman only cares about "her" children, and the man in an attempt to appear neutral (if it's possible) often ignores the emotional needs and wants of any one woman. For it to work perfectly, you have to remove the naturally emotional aspect behind marriage as a whole.

That would be the "logical" argument. The second argument I would give is the simple astounding fact that morality isn't defined by logic but by community standards. I don't care where you come from, X isn't generally accepted here and that that makes it immoral. Morals sometimes work just as simple as that guys.


ditto on how relationships get more complicated with the entry of the third.

 

[Phlegmak]

To no one in particular:

"Traditional marriage" doesn't truly exist. However, if you want to talk tradition, then the love marriages we have today that are monogamous are NOT traditional. Arranged marriages and/or polygamist marriages have been practiced for much more of human history. Wife as property too.

 

[Lillefix]

To no one in particular:

"Traditional marriage" doesn't truly exist. However, if you want to talk tradition, then the love marriages we have today that are monogamous are NOT traditional. Arranged marriages and/or polygamist marriages have been practiced for much more of human history. Wife as property too.

Good point.

 

[PeteAtoms]

I think a lot of the anti-polygamy arguments sound like they are under the impression that one or more of the spouses would by forced/unwillingly put into the relationship. I don't think that's how it would work.

If a man marries a woman, and wants to marry a 2nd woman, the first wife would have to be ok with it (or she could get a divorce) and the potential 2nd wife would have to be ok with it (or it won't happen.) But if all the parties are cool with it, I don't see the issue.

Again, the only issue I see are legal ones, not issues of morality.

 

[scherbchen]

As to what marriage specifically does [...] [it] cuts down on STDs

I usually do not like to quote a single sentence (especially if I have to cut out a part of it) but this is too rich. appologies. and I know you did not intend it to come across the way it does.

marriage cuts down on STDS.

who knew? you don't even have to be faithful. the church was right!

PS: sorry, again. who could resist?
PPS: the pope was right as well. Africa does not need condoms!

 

[Brighteye]

As much as we punish the responsible crack heads, or the adults involved in a loving and health relationship with a 15 year old.

Whenever we ban anything, a few good people get caught in the cracks. But allot more lives are made better.

I'd argue for legalising crack too. Punishing the innocent is not something we're happy with in many other areas of life.

EDIT:

So if you support gay marriage but not polygamy then you are just a bigot and discriminating against those who's love it too big to be contained by the traditional man/woman relationship. Lets face it, the only reason marriage is defined as a man & a woman is because some superstitious old book about a make believe God tells us that this is correct. We are now in the year 2009, it's time to get with the times & forget traditions. It is time to open your mind and stop being discriminatory.

I agree with this

Statistically speaking, marriage between two individuals is a boon to community stability. Polygamous marriage on the other hand is the artifact of a distant past when men died frequently. It decreases the stability of modern society, and should not be allowed.

How does it decrease stability? We have plenty of divorces at the moment. A society in which people expected to share a bit would be much more stable, as would a society in which people cared for more than just one other and a bunch of children.

Polygamists divorce now, but if all 16 wives decided to divorce the guy at once I dont think they'd bother with legal proceedings and just did a grave

The solution would be to remove legal benefits for marriages. It seems rather discriminatory that people who adhere to a certain set of arbitrary social standards and profess certain emotions should get greater rights and benefits. Why don't we just give tax breaks to people who claim to be good and righteous and skip the whole marriage business as an excuse?

.
All this shows is that you don't understand support of same-sex marriage.

He's certainly roughly right in characterising my opinion on the matter.

Regarding your second paragraph above, polygamist marriages were certainly quite normal for most of human history. It's the monogamous marriages that are new.

Certainly, there can be an argument in favor of polygamy for the sake of libertarianism. I can't deny that. However, I am personally against polygamy since it typically means that women are the property of men.

This depends on what you mean for much of history. For a good two thousand years the western world has had monogamous marriages, with more or less bastards. Polygamous marriages have been normal in some places, but one can't argue that monogamy is new, although one can say that our current understanding of it is. For much of the mediaeval period marriage was judged more by possible income and life expectancy than romance, and the benefits involved were designed to help raise children and care for the non-earner (the woman).
Modern society does not work this way: women earn money too and marriage has become more associated with desire. If some people desire more than one person, it's rather backward to try to enforce mediaeval standards.

Because it's the system that works best for raising children. Because it's the system that causes the least social pressure. Because it would require the least monkeying with legal system. Because it doesn't create "lost boys". Because it has the least potential for abuse. Because of a dozen different reasons that you're ignoring because you want to play devil's advocate.

It most certainly is not the system that works best for raising children. To start with, you need to define what best might mean. I'd have thought that repealing the great bundle of laws relating to marriage and making it a solely symbolic status with no legal standing would simplify the legal system a lot.

We're all brainwashed into thinking marriage is so utterly important when want to be with someone we love. Our culture has brainwashed us all when it comes to marriage for centuries anyway.

I agree with this too. One unquestioned aspect of our culture is that everything seems to point to marriage or a depraved (or celibate) life alone. These are not the only options. It's Cheezy's binary alternative method of brainwashing.

"Traditional marriage" doesn't truly exist. However, if you want to talk tradition, then the love marriages we have today that are monogamous are NOT traditional. Arranged marriages and/or polygamist marriages have been practiced for much more of human history. Wife as property too.

As I said above, love in marriage is a recent development. The whole load of tripe about courtly love was a bit of romantic escape, but most marriages remained of financial benefit until recently. It certainly wasn't frowned apon as it is now: it was accepted as part of life.

 

[IglooDame]

I tend to agree, I don't think anyone here seriously thinks it should be legalized, even with the caveat I proposed, that it is sexually equal.

A posteriori, it is quite evident that any polygamous arrangement would have a "leader", the person marrying 4 or 5 people. It would basically be a form of de facto subjugation. After all, who would argue that 1 of the wives of a man has the power of the single man in the polygamous marriage? Opposite of that who would argue that 1 of the husbands of a woman has the power of the single woman in the polygamous marriage?

I suppose that this is where I should ask - is there inherently wrong with having a "leader" in a personal relationship of two or more people?

I could point to, off the top of my head, half of the marriages of friends and relatives (both "vanilla" and lifestyle BDSMers) where there is to some degree or another a leader and a follower. The Bible itself cites that relationship in a "traditional" marriage, and let's not forget "love honor and obey" in traditional marriage vows, though in those circumstances it is specific that the male should be the leader. You all talk about "group marriage power struggles" but seem to conveniently forget that many traditional M/F marriages are ongoing power struggles all by themselves. In the polygamous arrangements I've seen, it's actually been the opposite - roles are laid out and agreed to in advance, and there's a notable lack of power struggles.

All that said, I don't consider polygamous marriage a civil rights issue, though I would support legalizing it if it were done coherently. "Poly" is not a protected personal characteristic, and I personally do not think it should be.

 

[Lay_Lay]

Faith in a specific religion is adequate grounds for deeming something immoral, but religious opinion should never apply when deeming something illegal. Doing so, is to apply legislative favor to some religions over others.

 

[Ayatollah So]

I think polygamy is moral if it is a marriage of equals.

Bingo.

If:

1) The marriage is between two consenting adults, who have been raised to know what it is(I.E., not brainwashed into thinking they have to do it)
2) Both partners have equal rights(If the man has multiple wives, each one of his wives can have multiple husbands)

Onionsoilder for president. Heck, Onionsoilder for God (I heard that the position's vacant).

 

[Xyan]

I do not think that polygamy is either moral or immoral. It is purely a matter of the culture and the needs of the times.

In societies where women were dependent on men for survival, to be under the protection of a "strong male" makes a lot of sense. In cultures where many children is necessary for the survival of the clan/family, it is sometimes logical to have many wives.

But in today's context, with women finally being empowered, polygamy is slowly being phased out as it has no more purpose. Having only one wife allows equal partnership between spouses which is more highly valued today.

 

[Lay_Lay]

To no one in particular:

"Traditional marriage" doesn't truly exist. However, if you want to talk tradition, then the love marriages we have today that are monogamous are NOT traditional. Arranged marriages and/or polygamist marriages have been practiced for much more of human history. Wife as property too.

A technicality, I think. When we all talk about traditional marriage, we are not talking about some pre-modern definition. We are talking, Mom, Dad, 1-5 kids. We all know that. So the label is meaningful.

I just think that standing behind some tradition, just because it is a tradition, does not lead to progress. And that's just it. Some people are not progressives, so they don't even realize when they are trampling on someone's civil rights. How embarrassed an old man is today, who once upon a time voted to ban inter-racial marriage, in support of the "traditional definition of marriage."

Oh, how embarrassed they will be in 30 years. Those who deliberately stand against a civil rights issue. Fools.

 

[Imperialmajesty]

I suppose that this is where I should ask - is there inherently wrong with having a "leader" in a personal relationship of two or more people?

I could point to, off the top of my head, half of the marriages of friends and relatives (both "vanilla" and lifestyle BDSMers) where there is to some degree or another a leader and a follower. The Bible itself cites that relationship in a "traditional" marriage, and let's not forget "love honor and obey" in traditional marriage vows, though in those circumstances it is specific that the male should be the leader. You all talk about "group marriage power struggles" but seem to conveniently forget that many traditional M/F marriages are ongoing power struggles all by themselves. In the polygamous arrangements I've seen, it's actually been the opposite - roles are laid out and agreed to in advance, and there's a notable lack of power struggles.

All that said, I don't consider polygamous marriage a civil rights issue, though I would support legalizing it if it were done coherently. "Poly" is not a protected personal characteristic, and I personally do not think it should be.

Why should I consider the Bible authoritative in regard to morality when it teaches that women are ritually unclean during there period while condoning and encouraging genocide, along with a panoply of offenses to human dignity and reason?

At least in traditional marriage there is the illusion of equality, a possibility of it. How can there be equality in a polygamous relationship when the person who marries all these people is the obvious center and crux of the relationship? That if that person dies 4 or 5 marriages are absolved while if one of the wives(husbands) dies, that person can be replaced like a cog?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Can't have biological children. So if the state's goal was to produce/care for more children there's no need for gay marriage. Or if the state's goal was to promote the religious traditions of having/raising children then that's also true. But that's a hypothetical viewpoint which I'm not saying I endorse - my specific point is that having and raising children is already separate from marriage in modern society, which is another reason we don't need to recognize marriage in our legal systems/taxes and the like at all.

Edit: Also people still aren't thinking outside the box, I see no reason why a polyamorous marriage couldn't include two men and two women for instance, or really any combo.

Gay couples are a potentially huge market for orphans and children up for adoption, since they have to adopt to have kids. Don't tell me that's not a force of good.

I agree with this too. One unquestioned aspect of our culture is that everything seems to point to marriage or a depraved (or celibate) life alone. These are not the only options. It's Cheezy's binary alternative method of brainwashing.

My WHAT?!

 

[LucyDuke]

At least in traditional marriage there is the illusion of equality, a possibility of it.

Not until very, very recently. And still not in most of the world.

 

[Imperialmajesty]

Not until very, very recently. And still not in most of the world.

I assumed we were talking about Polygamy/Marriage from a US centric perspective. In that case, yea, the Northern US states maintain equality in marriage or at least the illusion of it, along with some Western European countries/Australia/New Zealand/Japan and some others I forgot to mention. I am not talking about equality in law, but equaltly or the illusion of it in the prevailing culture.

 

[illram]

From a social engineering perspective polygamy is not preferable to monogamy in our society IMHO. It's based on a concept of male proprietorship over multiple women and their family property. (As opposed to male proprietership over just one woman... until recently). I would assume it also discourages social mobility and individuality, as opposed to the classic "nuclear family."

Not that having more extended family around is necessarily a bad thing, in some respects I think our society could benefit from encouraging increasing the roles of extended family networks in child rearing, such as is common in most other societies around the world besides ours.

I can't really say I would be outraged if polygamy was legalized.I mean, would the world as we know it collapse if Polygamy was allowed? Probably not. Is the social engineering perspective enough to justify it being outlawed? Dunno. I would not really think morality alone is enough to outlaw Polygamy. (Even assuming it is immoral, which I have not really developed an opinion on one way or another.)