Why should polygamy be illegal?

[NickB79]

Just saw something on TV about a special coming up on Court TV about Tom Greene, the convicted polygamist from Utah. I started to wonder, though, why should polygamy be illegal? If all the participants are adults and aware of what they are doing, why should we condemn it? I added that last sentence because I know many of the women in polygamous marriages are not married off by their family and didnt chose that lifestyle. I find that practice revolting. However, I'm sure that there are many adult women and men that would become part of polygamous marriages of their own free will if given the chance, so why not let them?

Not that I'd ever want to marry more than one woman, or marry a woman with more than one husband, though. But, this is sposed to be the land of the free, and what's more essential to freedom than marrying those you love?

[Deja Q]

1. Because we're a hypocracy

We proclaim freedom, but then say it's conditional by our rules. (sounds more like fascism if you ask me...)

Can't get more pithy than that.

[benddem]

2. Tom Green was supporting all those women and children

on Welfare. He wasn't even working. He raped children (his wives who were not adults). He committed incest. He married one of his wives daughters.
I don't believe Polygamy should be legal...but if they have to be polygamous they should be able to afford all the wives and kids.
In Muslim countries where polygamy is allowed, the men must provide for all the families...or they cannot be polygamous.

[NickB79]

14. That's why I addressed the "consenting adults" issue

"He raped children (his wives who were not adults). He committed incest. He married one of his wives daughters."

I agree with you, those were horrible practices that he should be prosecuted for. I in no way want to defend Tom Greene, but do question if he is representative of polygamous relationships in general. If another polygamous family were to consist of all adults, with no incest or abuse, who were all working and supporting their family, why not allow them to live as they chose?

[7th_Sephiroth]

16. his thing was incest

and kiddy sex, but i had a girlfriend who had a girlfriend and a few boyfriends, we all knew eachother, it was fun, we partied alot.

[Bunny]

18. You are exactly right.

Aside from the moral issues involved, and the sex abuse issues involved, there is a societal interest in limiting the use of the welfare and social security systems. If you can't support them, don't marry them.

[VelmaD]

3. The problem is...

that what you usually get in a male-dominated culture is just polygyny - men with more than one wife.

I'm with you though. If everyone is a truly consenting adult then I don't care.

[david_vincent]

4. Traditionally, monogamous marriage was seen as the only way

to establish, legally, financial responsibility for children.
Now, with DNA testing, it's difficult to argue rationally (i.e. without resorting to religious belief) why polygamy should be prohibited.

[Robb]

26. Very interesting point n/t

[drfemoe]

5. .

It's "unchristian" . that's why ..

[ZenLefty]

6. Insurance companies would never allow it

Then they'd have to extend family benefits to potentially dozens of people, not the present-day nuclear family of 3.5 and a dog. So their lobbyists will never allow polygamy to become legal.

[NickB79]

12. But isnt that a similar argument used to deny gay marriages?

Since gay marriages are "non-traditional", why should we extend benefits to their partners? And how does the number of people in the family differ from the large Catholic farm families I grew up around (and my dad was from)? I had several friends in school who had over 10 brothers and sisters each in their families. I doubt there would be a huge rush of polygamous marriages, though, so I don't think it would bankrupt any major insurance firms.

[ZenLefty]

21. Looking at it from the insurance company's pov

A man who marries multiple wives is more likely to have more children than a man who marries a single wife. There's always exceptions, but on average more wives = more kids. Of course it wouldn't bankrupt the average insurance firm, but that's not how they'd see it.

Gay marriages and polygamous marriages are both non-traditional, but I think the similarities end there. So no, I don't think that's a similar argument used to deny gay marriages. I don't know the actual statistics, but if I had to hazard a guess, I would say gay households have fewer children than traditional or polygamist households.

[Syncronaut Seven]

7. And does polygamy mean only having

multiple wives?

http://www.scn.org/~spg/index.html

[VelmaD]

11. some definitions...

polygamy - more than one spouse

polygyny - more than one wife

polyandry - more than one husband

[Syncronaut Seven]

24. Hi Velma! Thanks for the clarification!

In case you wondered where I got my screen name see http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0879756233/qid=1067900473/sr=8-10/ref=sr_8_10/104-3605543-1689551?v=glance&n=507846

Robert Rimmer is such a perv ;)

[Darranar]

8. There's no reason...

I personally think that men and women should be able to marry any number of people, of the opposite gender or not. Heck, they should be allowed to marry their dogs , if they have the inclination. Or their tables, sofas, etc.

As long as animal rights and human rights are respected, I don't care.

Yes, I'm a radical libertarian on social issues - except when it comes to letting every person in the country having an assault weapon that can fire a gazillion high-powered rockets per second.

[JVS]

9. Isn't one spouse enough trouble?

[Scairp]

10. Is this a joke?

Because it isn't WOMEN who are becoming the wives of this fucked up way of life. They marry 14 year old girls off to middle-aged men. How in the HELL can you think that is okay?!? Geez!!!

[Syncronaut Seven]

13. I think the distinction

has to do with the phrase "consenting adults"

[NickB79]

15. Exactly

See my response in #14.

[7th_Sephiroth]

19. until about ww2

the marrying age was 13

[Nikia]

17. It could be a legal nightmare

To be fair, we'd have to allow all kinds of combinations. This of course means that gay marriage must be legal too (I support gay marriage between two people). Would we have to have laws for all the combination? What I mean is for example a man with four wives. If it were completely heterosexual he would only be married to each of them and could divorce any of them and if he died, property would be split between the four. What if some of the wives were married to each other also? What if wife A and B were married to one another in addition to the male? Would he have to divorce both of them if he wanted to divorce one? Who would have spousal rights? What about A and B's children? Who would cover who insurance wise? How would child visitation work? It gets even more complicated if A is also married C and B is married to D. If there are legal and financial benefits to this arrangement, the meaning of marriage really might be muddled. I am not saying that two people don't sometimes get married mainly for financial or legal benefits in certain circumstances. I am just thinking that some people might operate businesses this way, just like farming families had large families to operate the farm.

[amazona]

20. well all the participants aren't adults is the issue

If all the participants were adults, it would be one thing, but in practice it has been used by wealthy white males to collect a harem of teen-aged girls, some as young as 13. The most powerful practitioners of polygamy in the U.S. have historically been LDS, and it is not in the interest of a nation free of gender or racial prejudice to do anything that encourages them to produce these huge dynasties. We do not need to make this nation even MORE friendly to extremist religious whackos who oppose the freedoms that America was founded on. We have lots of freedoms we need to fight for, the freedom for Mormons to collect women probably should be waaaayyyy down there on the list.

In theory, I can see your argument but in practice, at this time, I'm not seeing anything good coming of a legal endorsement of polygamy. If you want a menage or a commune, just do it; I know people who have, and they didn't need a piece of paper from the state to "share," as they called it. Just as well, as the group marriage or whatever you want to call it didn't last a decade...think of the trouble and expense if they had needed to purchase a divorce instead of just going their separate ways!

[4323Lopez]

22. its not, haven't you seen "The Bachelor"

Ok I'll admit, I tune in to trash-tv occasionally, while I'm eating dinner or balancing my checkbook. Plus, my cousin and I love to gossip about the women on the show. But, is it just me or do these "harem style" shows bug other people too?

[blueraven95]

23. Purely as an aside...

The SIMS is polygamous. (At least, there is no divorce, and characters get married multiple times).

[newyawker99]

32. Hi blueraven95!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Snow]

25. Don't know about the LDS, why polygamy laws were a condition

of statehood and so on, but I suspect that's an interesting story. Might be well buried, though. Broadening the field, though, there are still a number of places where polygamy is practiced. I had a friend in grad school from northern Afghanistan, from a local feudal aristocracy. His father's family was polygamous (although he's not), and he didn't really see anything worng with it. Also, my wife's family, east Asian nobility, were likewise polygamous in both of her grandfather's generations. In both cases, and I suspect this generalizes, it was an expression of wealth - you were rich enough or high enough in the nobility that you could/should have more than one wife. My wife's maternal grandfather was nevertheless fairly poor, but he was of high enough rank that he nevertheless had to have 2 wives. If he'd actually had some money he probably would've gone for four like the other grandfather, and maybe some concubines as well. In agricultural societies, there's often a link between the local aristocrat's procreative potency and the fertility of the land, so that's probably where some of that comes from, along with the simple showing off of wealth, in the days before Lincoln Navigators and Bimmers.

I'll leave you with one interesting thought - there're damn few polyandrous societies, although when they do happen they tend to be nomads with strong warlike tendencies. There're indications in the roots of the Chinese language that China was once a matriarchy (the character for family name includes the character for mother) that herded sheep (the character for beautiful is composed of "big" and "sheep").

[no_hypocrisy]

27. Legal polygamy would cut the divorce rate and reduce adultery.

n/t

[amazona]

28. how so?

If you think a married person wants to be permanently involved with everyone she steps out with for a no-strings fling, I think you are seriously mis-understimating human nature. :-) You could have 100 partners and you might still be inclined to cheat...hell, you might be more inclined to cheat to get away from all the incestuous chatter and gossip and just have a quiet one-off with someone who didn't know who the hell you were and what-all you were involved with.

[no_hypocrisy]

29. I agree with your point. The whole idea of an illicit relationship is a

motivation for adultery.

However, my point is there are people who don't want to sacrifice their present relationship and would not object to incorporating another person into a permanent situation. Instead of pursuing a divorce, another wife/husband is added without objection (ideally) from the present spouse. It's an interesting idea if all parties can handle it.

[stanwyck]

31. Really? Care to

give us some data on that claim? If a person has already demonstrated that they're not mnogamous, by wanting another marriage partner, then why would that person not continue to seek other partners? And, "cut the divorce rate"? Really? It might increase the divorce rate when the whole experiment doesn't go quite as smoothly as expected.

[stanwyck]

30. Read "Under the Banner of Heaven"

by Jon Krakauer, the guy who wrote "Into Thin Air". Polygamy is very abusive to women. 14-yr old girls are married off to their uncles. There is much pedophilia, domestic abuse, child abuse, and welfare abuse. It's for control freak men who want to dominate women, so they marry girls and then keep them, and their children, uneducated and impoverished. So they won't leave. The girls are forced to quit school when they get "married". If they try to run away or disobey, they're hunted down and punished. Severely. Polygamists aren't prosecuted because the Mormon power structure doesn't really condemn it. Though they claim to...they don't enforce the laws. And the Mormons are the law in Utah. The polygamists make their money on the kids. They legally claim one wife and then collect welfare for the rest. It is a very efficient way for a man to breed many children. But, considering the pathetic statistics on fathers paying for the children they have under our current system, why would we want to encourage men to breed more children they're not going to support? We're the ones who are going to help feed the children these egomaniac men are going to breed. By the way, the book chronicles the story of two fundamentalist polygamists who murder their sister-in-law and her 15-month old daughter. They believed her to be not be passive and deferential to men. So they slit her throat and her child's. And felt perfectly justified.