filtherton

Really, what the fuck is wrong with polygamy? Why do we look down upon it in our society and is that justification valid? If all members are consenting adults where is the problem? Even traditionalists can't argue with polygamy since it has been a valid form of marriage for millenia. So what's the problem here?

brianna

short answer: nothing is wrong with polygamy.

long answer: i think the main problem is that almost everyone i've met who is out there banging the drum for polygamy (note: not everyone who is doing it or for it but just the people who are very loud about it) seem like the kind of folks who cannot get it together to have a successful relationship with one person. Having been to a few bondage clubs and a couple of ren faires i have met a lot of people advocating the polyamorous life style and most of them strike me as complete tools. polyamory needs a good ad campaign cause i suspect there are some great couple who are making it work but because of societal pressures the only people who are out talking about the lifestyle are the sketchier elements.

God of Thunder

Funny answer: multiple wives means multiple mothers-in-law. (shudders)

__________________
I reject your reality, and substitute my own

-- Adam Savage

irateplatypus

just for purposes of defining the discussion...

are we talking about strictly polygamy concerning one man and 2 or more wives... or one woman and 2 or more men also?

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

wnker85

Its just a social thing really. In India some women marry a man and all of his brothers. So, its ok there. I think that in countires like USA we take polyigimst out and burn down there componds *waco*

Zubon

I believe the standard view when Utah entered the union was that polygamy was an excuse for men to indulge their promiscuous desires by maintaining a harem of women who are socially repressed and sexually exploited. That, and some people say, "Icky."

As you say, it was not approached as an agreement between multiple, fully empowered individuals. Polygamy has generally been viewed as an excuse for promiscuity or else a result of the difference in power between the sexes. Most people do not look at, say, Saudi Arabia and see that as a model of how they want marriages to work in this country. This is a simple broken syllogism: men oppress women in [country x]; men marry multiple women in [country x]; therefore, polygamy is oppressive.

Willravel

I'd n ever do it, personally. I consider it to be selfish. As for others, as long as the people involed are 100% confortable with the situation, I suppose it wouldn't bother me. It does strike me as odd that some people who are pro-polygamy are so very anti-gay. I find that amusing, in a selectively closed minded way.

Zubon

I suppose as a matter of American jurisprudence, at least, we could note that this is not true. There is no polygamist tradition in the United States, as even Utah gave that up before entering. As such, a traditionalist or original interpretation approach to the Constitution will not support a right to practice polygamy. This would be similar to Scalia's dissent on the question of whether states can outlaw homosexualy sodomy: the framers did not have that in mind when they wrote the Constitution. While that is a legal question rather than a philosophical one, it is worth noting for the Americans that we have a pretty clear tradition of monogamous marriage.

If we want to go back millenia, we can find support for polygamous and homosexual marriages, but we are not going to find that in the history of the United States of America. Whether or not "tradition" is a good argument, (some) traditionalists are not being hypocritical. Just making sure we do not exceed our grasp with our arguments.

Willravel

Very good point zubon. I'm sure filtherton meant something else (given the benifit of the doubt).

Mantus

The standard opinion is that if a person cannot chose a single person as their life partner then the bond with the partners will not be nearly as strong as in a two person relationship. Thus leading to marital problems and divorce. Divorce is always a thing to be avoided since it’s a severe burden on the individuals, their children, society and the government. Adding extra people to the equation makes divorce settlements and inheritance laws very complicated which is a burden on the legal system.

From a personal perspective, polygamy contradicts my concept of marriage and relationship. Yet my arguments against polygamy are based on the argument mentioned above. If the argument can be de-spell then I will have no problem with other people practicing polygamy.

ARTelevision

Me, sus, and mimi think what's wrong with it is calling it by that name and acting out of a "marriage" paradigm.

IMO, the problem is the concept of marriage itself - for couples and groups of any gender. Living together in love and having contractual business relationships as necessary is a whole lot more realistic and efficient than trying to work within a traditional paradigm with the kind of baggage that comes along with the concept and legal status of "marriage."

__________________
create evolution

tiberry

I'm *very* interested in this topic - in fact, my friend and I just had a long discussion today at lunch about this. Strange coincidence I guess.

Just to clarify, we have several thoughts in play here:

1. Polygamy is selfish. Presumably, this relates to what Zubon said in that its an "excuse for promiscuity".

2. Polygamy is a deviant trait used by those who "can't choose a single partner". I'm introducing the word "deviant", and although Mantus didn't use that word - I think its implied from his response as a whole. Also see Brianna's response that says "...the kind of folks who cannot get it together to have a successful relationship with one person".

To keep it simple (and philosopical) lets completely remove the legality variable. After all, laws are just a means to impose someone's (or some group's) personal moral values onto society.

Enter ARTelevision. In true form, he quickly narrows the focus to the razor-sharp contradiction between marriage and polygamy. Now we have a basis for the argument. SO instead of examining what's wrong with polygamy, I'd like to explore whats right with marriage.

What is this institution for? What purpose does it serve other than a legal framework for a "contractual business relationship" to quote ARTelevision. I mean let's get out of the legal aspects of this and really explore what benefit marriage has on the "human" level.

You say polygamy is selfish? I say marriage is selfish. Is it not a contractual commitment to the other? Look at what its become - a means to ensure financial support to another (usually the wife) in the event that the relationship ends. Its an immediate step to limit both party's options to terminate the relationship for whatever reason. This in and of itself leads to serious problems that could probably be addressed through open communication had the explicit limitation of options not been present. No one wants to feel "trapped" in a relationship.

Is it a "proclamation of two person's commitment to eachother" in front of God and everyone? What purpose would that serve, if not of a selfish intent to say "He/She's mine so hands off!? Couldn't you demonstrate this to the other person in the relationship through act and deed on a daily basis, not just through some one-time public ceremony?

To me, polygamy doesn't necessarily imply "having sex with lots of women and its ok"...its more than that - although I understand why society as a whole would reduce it to that. I think of it as a word to describe the "opposite" of feeling compelled to enter into the manmade "legal and binding contract" of marriage. Its the choice to love whomever, however and whenever you choose. What's wrong with that? Morally, philosophically, or otherwise?

[edit]

Before anyone else says it - I'm aware of the evolutionary/scientific/cultural argument that addresses: the care and nurturing of children in a "family unit", the man's "survival of my genes" drive to inseminate as many females as possible", as well as the females disposition to "secure a male to care for my offspring and I". Let's keep this current and suppose that all involved use the proper birth control methods.

martinguerre

when you phrase it all that way...marriage does sound worthless.

"He/She's mine so hands off"
Or...you genuinely want the community to celebrate and support your relationship. most human beings (not all) find the most emotional stability in a long term pair bond. to live in a community that is apathetic about that...damages that.

you act like jealousy was invented by monogamy, or monogomy was invented by jealousy. i'm not sure that's the case. when i'm in a relationship in which i feel that i'm supported in, that i have trust in, etc...i don't have issues about who my SO spends time with. undermining cultural recognition of marriage...as this culture has done so much of, only serves to pander to our base instinct of mistrust. marriage is a civilizing force that is meant to overcome that weakness.

from a religious standpoint...to not publicly celebrate a marriage is to deny part of God's action in the world. human love is one of the clearest manifestations of God's love, and to not give it it's due is an act of neglect. you want to ascribe very base motives to that public celebration...but did you try giving this the benifit of the doubt? Why instant cynicism?

Are all promises simply contracts?

Mantus

ARTelevision,

Since our society is based on laws it would be difficult for the government to judge each couple on a case-by-case basis. Marriage insures that the matters of support, inheritance and the division of property upon separation is keep relatively easy…though this doesn’t quite seem to work…

I would love to see your vision of relationships becomes a socially accepted standard yet I just don’t think it’s possible because of the standard thorn in humanities side: greed.



Tibery,

It’s a mutual commitment. It would only be selfish is one partner is force into it. In the example you mentioned the wife stays at home and runs the family while husband provides financial support. There is nothing unfair about it.

Which brings me to the concept of mutual support. It should be a no brainier that two people working together get things done better then one. A relationship and most importantly a family are a complicated matter to run. It is also provides a safety line to cope with unexpected grievances such as ill health.

Once again, this is far from selfish. The agreement is mutual. The partners agree to commit to each other. Such bonds are important for a cohesive family. Of course the ceremony of marriage is actually not required to develop such a bond, but it helps to keep the slightly shaky relationships from falling apart, which is important.

You are absolutely correct.

filtherton

Good point. The definition of tradition depends on how you define tradition. I was looking at it more from a biblical perspective since i think marriage is very often framed by religious terms.

Irate: i see no reason to draw distinctions between the genders of those involved in polygamy, although by definition there would have to be a little bit of homosexual marriage going on.

Anyways, we don't need excuses to be promiscuous anymore, nor do we need to be married to justify our sexual activity. Since marriage in general isn't always the result of the desires of two functional, well-adjusted adults i don't see why polygamy not always being the result of the desires of two functional, well-adjusted adults should have any bearing on a polygamy specific discussion.

You could say a polygamous marriage is doomed to fail, but most normal marriages are doomed to fail too.

It could also be said that marriage is useless, polygamy or not(a camp which i tend to be a part of), but that does little to further a discussion on the validity of one form of marriage over another.

At this point i don't understand why it isn't legal. Any legal complications could be ironed out with a little time and effort and most of the criticism levelled at polygamy could also be levelled at marriage in general. As a family unit, it probably makes more sense to have more adults involved. Imagine our economy if we all lived in three parent housholds. Would it be more or less financially stable? I'm starting to think that the nuclear family isn't the most efficient family unit.

ARTelevision

It's funny though. The three of us have lived together in love for over 7 years. We lived in a suburban neighborhood and now we live in the country. Our families and our neighbors know and accept us as we are. We don't use a name for our relationship, we just have it.

I suppose what I'm seeing is that all the theoretical discussions involving something like vast legalistic, cultural, and sociological generalizations don't really come into play, unless one invokes them - typically by invoking a pre-existing definition requiring a relationship to traditional models or by expecting some sort of specialized status over and above the rights of individuals to make agreements and contracts with each other.

I suppose we could get all worked up about wishing we had our own set of laws governing things like income tax benefits and a few other legal/economic perks but for some reason discussions like this seem to be quite beyond what is required for happy, successful, prosperous relationships.

__________________
create evolution

mo42

What about the argument that a significant portion of the women will get sucked up by rich, decent looking (or better) guys like Donald Trump, Brad Pitt, and less successful guys will be left with no wives and only prostitutes?

That, and it alters the fundamental family unit which has been preserved since the dawn of human civilization.

chickentribs

That is what they call a free market economy in the USA. And, what, you're going to let something like polygamy destroy your faith in true love?? You were hoping you could afford the right lady when she came along??

As much as the traditionalists want to hang on to the concept of marriage that was popular back in 1776, I think at some point we all need to recognize it is already a very different institution, thanks to the high levels of divorce, 2nd and 3rd marriages, even Brittany and J.Lo treating it disposably. I don't say that makes it right - I just say that's how it is.

__________________
Oft expectation fails...
and most oft there Where most it promises
- Shakespeare, W.

filtherton

I wouldn't have a problem if all of the gold diggers could get married to the same rich fella.

Your "fundamental family unit" isn't at all fundamental. Many cultures raise children communally, and you'd be hard pressed to support the notion that a two adult household is fundamentally more stable than a three or four adult household.

Robaggio

I had a conversation with my father about this. He's a biologist who's mind is a bottomless pit of scientific information. Anyway, one night I was bored and interested in a few science things, so I we started talking.

Here are some facts about monogamy:

1) Less risk of contracting STDs
2) Altrustic tendancies of mammals are better suited to smaller families. (It's easier to defend/support a smaller group of immediate family members.)
3) Since females must carry their young, they become more vulerable. (Somone who's 8 months pregnant is an easier target to predators) It therefore becomes advantageous for men to have to defend less (#) pregnant women since they can focus their energies on one or few individuals.

These three properties about monogamy are global to any creature that exhibits altruism. There are more, however, only these three can directly be related to humans. When culture and technology are added into the mix, only the first fact remains valid- perhaps even STDs will become a figment of the past if we discover cures. Because of society and the lack of competition for survial, humans don't have any biological implications against practicing polygnamy. It therefore becomes a choice between individuals. It's a culture battle in the end- with no answer except the one inside your head.

"What about the argument that a significant portion of the women will get sucked up by rich, decent looking (or better) guys like Donald Trump, Brad Pitt, and less successful guys will be left with no wives and only prostitutes?"

What argument is here? It's a well known fact that in nature, the most successful and/or good looking animal will get the mate. Why do you think peacocks try so hard to show off their feathers? Why do frogs croak or crickets chirp? Some individuals will get multiple partners because he/she is better at attracting the opposite sex than others. In frog culture, the best croaker gets the women. In human culture, sometimes the best looking gets the mate- sometimes it's the one with the most money- or sometimes it's the one who listens the best, or tells the best jokes, or makes another person feel a certain way, or has the ability to say the right things at the best time that gets the mate.

"That, and it alters the fundamental family unit which has been preserved since the dawn of human civilization."

Polygamy doesn't alter the 'fundamental family unit', the 'fundamental family unit' alters polygamy! Any anthropologist will tell you, the most common form of union even today is polygamy. Since the dawn of civilization polygamy has been the dominant family unit.

ARTelevision

Very cogent comments, Robaggio.
Thanks for the insightful contribution here.

__________________
create evolution

filtherton

Thanks robaggio. I forgot that polygamy is quite common in the animal kingdom.

Ustwo

I think the REASON for polygamy is genetic.

Young men are more likely to die then women.

On the other hand much of that reason is now not a factor in the monogamous part of the world.

Either way I don't care, but I do find 50 year old men marrying 16 year old girls pretty creepy and you do see that with polygamy.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

filtherton

All age of consent laws being equal, you probably see it just as much with monogamous marriage.

Ustwo

I don't have any stats, but I'll bet money you don't.

Logically you would need a 50 year old divorced man or widowed for it to happen currently.

With polygamy you basicly can trade daughters.

Its creepy to me and not fair to the 16 year old, widowed young.

I just don't really see the issue with it, if you want to live together do so, change your last names, have fun.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

zen_tom

filtherton

Yep, i don't have stats either, so let's avoid sweeping statements that we can't prove like "With polygamy you basicly can trade daughters."

You can't "basically trade daughters" with monogamous marriage? This is america, and we like to think that we have the right to decide who we are going to marry. No one can force another person to marry.

Robaggio

Although it is a bit far fetched, I'd ideally have topics stay purely philosophical. Philosophy is removed when people post what they think or believe. Truthly though, the point of philosophy is to remove ideals and beliefs so the topic at hand can be seen without predjudace.

There's no problem with posting these things in the Philosophy forum. I can understand your point though- too often posts here turn into value discussions not unlike those found in Politics, Living, Sexuality, etc. Nevertheless, if you're looking for it, you're more likely to get a true philosophical discussion here than in any other forum.

Ustwo

Perhaps the problem is I am speaking of the 'classical' polygamy, which I think leads to wierd and undesireable situations, vrs polyamorous relationships.

I don't have any problem with polyamorous relationships, that are joined by consenting adults. I'm not sure how the legal status should be, or if one is required, but if 3 25 year olds decide to be polyamorous I feel a lot 'better' about it then someone working on their child bride.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

filtherton

I hear you. I'm speaking strictly about the actions of consenting adults.

thefictionweliv

Almost as if STDs are nature's defense against open relationships, I've always felt that people with STDs are victims of there own permiscuity and not victims of disease. People who are born with it are victims, people who contract it through treating those with it are victims, people aquiring it through rape are victims. The ultimate cure for AIDS is to stop fucking carelessly. Even polygamy leads to less attention to those involved in the relationship, which could lead to more instances of adultery. I agree that every biological and social aspect of human nature is more suited towards monogomous relationships. Just like creatures adapt to changes in their enviroment, it would make alot of sense for humans to adapt to the epidemic that is mostly self inflicted.

JustDisGuy

I've alway felt that polygamy was dreamed up by a masochist.

__________________
"Act as if the future of the universe depends on what you do, while laughing at yourself for thinking that your actions make any difference."

theguy420

Personally? I can't even handle one girlfriend for more than about a month. So the prospect of having multiple WIVES?! I give that one a hell no.

__________________
You kids wouldn't wanna look like a couple of fairies now would ya?

jenjen

This may sound strange coming from a woman, but I don't think polygamy should be illegal. I wouldn't for one moment be with someone who wanted to be a polygamist, but what happened to personal freedoms? If someone wants to do it and finds willing partners, more power to them.

CatharticWeek

Fewer than 5 percent of mammals are monogamous. Perhaps some of the unhappiness in society is coming from trying to fit a square block into a circular hole in respect to our genetics and the society we've created.

ravenradiodj

Amen, Cathartic! As one-half of a very happy and very open 15 year marriage, I heartily agree. What this boils down to is a simple question of free choice between consenting adults. I think my lifestyle is much more healthy and honest than that of someone who's married and cheating, then lying about it to their spouse. I don't think that a family should be torn apart by divorce simply because one of the married parents got laid. It's your life, your body, make your own rules, and be honest and upfront with your partner(s) and yourself. I'll briefly cover the cheif arguments against polygamy here, and offer my responses:
1. It's immoral - perhaps by your value system, not by mine.
2. It's dangerous - STDs, etc. - if we avoided any potentially dangerous activity, we'd all be living on mother's milk in padded cells. My body, my choice.
3. One partner is enough for any normal person - avoiding the problematic issue of trying to define "normal", let me say this: sure, one partner is enough. My wife and I have a great physical relationship. I have no complaints. However, if I meet someone and there's an attraction, and I develop a trust and a friendship with that person, then I see no reason to deny myself. Ever take a second helping of dessert, even though you're already full? Philosophically, it's the same thing.
4. It takes time/money/energy away from your family - I am very careful and selective about outside partners, and though I'm no Brad Pitt, I can honestly say that I've turned away more potential outside partners than I've accepted. When I do spend time with my outside partner, it's during a business trip, when the kids are in school, etc. My wife and kids always come first, and my outside partner has known and accepted this since day one.
5. It sets a bad example for children - my children aren't even old enough to understand what to suspect, but if the day comes that they do ask us about it, our intention is to tell them that this is our choice, it is NOT an easy way to live, it is NOT the norm of our society, and we discourage anyone from jumping into it without careful consideration. If your primary relationship is not 100% solid, if there isn't complete love and trust there, it'll never work. Our attitude is that the possessiveness and jealousy so many monogamists feel regarding this issue is a clear sign that their marriages have some serious trust and self-esteem issues.

pinkie

Three words: Utah Mormon Cults

Ustwo

Three words: What about them?

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

inharmony

My opinion here at this time may be jaded (going through divorce), but here goes...to think that there is one and only one person ever that we should give our bodies, souls, hearts, minds...etc to is imo a little narrowminded. I did at one time think that IS how it should be. After 20 yrs of marriage I think I've changed my mind. As far as polygamy is concerned...I personally would never practice it. With that being said I really am not sure if I agree or disagree. I can see if children are involved that it is not a good choice. My opinions for what they're worth.

__________________
"You can't shake hands with a clenched fist."
Ghandi

"Things do not change: We change"
Henry David Thoreau

Stompy

There's nothing wrong with multiple partners.

There's nothing "selfish" about it considering all partners agree with it... promiscuous? So? What's wrong with that? Just because someone doesn't agree with it or do it doesn't make it wrong.

IMO, that's the way to go. Being with ONE person for the rest of your life is boring. Hell, the concept of marriage itself is lame aside from the govt benefits you get... so why someone would want multiple liabilities instead of 1 is beyond me.

To get to the point of the topic: there's nothing wrong with it, just stuff wrong with the people who can't accept that others have different desires in life.

__________________
I love lamp.