Why is polygamy wrong?

[MindPilot]

I understand the recent case involved underage girls and forced marriage, but putting that aside, it seems as if a man wants multiple wives, or a woman multiple husbands, or multiple same-sex partners, and all parties are consenting adults, what's the problem?

Obviously it is fraught with boatloads of potential legal and emotional issues, but if that were the basis for making something illegal, no one would be allowed to buy a house.

So should multiple partner marriages be considered the same as gay marriage, a right to be fought for?

Disclaimer: I have zero interest in being married at all let alone to more than one person. I'm just asking the question.

[redqueen]

1. Because.

Now go to your room.

[helderheid]

27. :)

:rofl:

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

83. Who the fuck cares. We are giving away $190 BILLION to our regime to wage war.

We are giving this cabal ONE HUNDRED NINETY FUCKING BILLION,...i repeat,...BILLION DOLLARS TO PROFITEER AND KILL OUR DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTE AND KILL THEIR OWN CITIZENS IN ORDER TO RULE THE WORLD.

While they are literally FUCKING you and me and all of us, they are so happy about the shit they do not give a flying fuck about because they know these "moral" morsels distract the populace as they advantage themselves of petty infighting. Hell, they encourage it, every damn day,...with YOUR MONEY!!!

[onenote]

91. interesting way to build up your post count

You could use that post on virtually every thread started here on DU. So why this one?

[Katherine Brengle]

109. Wow, how charmingly irrelevant.

[Mass]

2. More tradition than everything else, I think,

[yellowcanine]

9. I disagree. Monagamy is fairer to women.

At least in patriarchal societies, polygamy tends to be exploitative of women. Women are treated more as property than persons. The wives of a polygamist and their children often are not treated equally - one wife may be required to obey a superior wife as well as the husband - plus the taking of additional wives often jeopardises the economic security of the first wife and her children.

[Romulox]

22. Polygamy is also exploitative of men

By definition, the majority men are excluded from marriage in a polygamous society.

[Dora]

78. Very good point.

Young men in polygamous communities in Utah and Arizona are finding themselves homeless and banished from their towns.

[Thothmes]

105. good point

What about polygamous societies like those of the middle east and some parts of Africa.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

35. and what of women having many hubbies?

choosing how and when she wishes to act.

[Flabbergasted]

38. I wonder how many woman would do that? None.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

43. yeah, having to deal w/ one child at a time is hard enough.

any more? sheesh.

[PDenton]

52. typically polyandry (2+ husbands, 1 wife) happens

in land scarce, patrilineal Asian (Tibet and Nepal as examples)societies where each male child recieves a portion of an inheritance. It is a way to concentrate wealth within a family. It is not legally recognized in most countries where it was traditional, however. The marriages from what litle I've read of them, had their share of problems. However, it is also fair to say most monogamous marriages have problems as well.

Polygamy only really worked in ancient societies where men died more often than women. It was a way often to solidify political and social allegiances and also to take care of widows. In more modern times, polygamy (such as in the Mormon west) was accompanied by an almost chattel regard for women and wives' advice was never sought in the manner, so they really didn't have much of a choice.

[Flabbergasted]

58. Thanks.

[Triana]

66. You are speaking FOR WOMEN here? Please let us speak for ourselves....

...WE DECIDE if we would do that or not, individually. NOT you. Your propensity to DEFINE women as a whole constitutes abuse. Stop it.

[Flabbergasted]

69. You should try relaxing a lttile bit. If you want to have more than one husband go ahead.

Of course you'll have to move to another country where it's allowed.

BTW I meant to put a ? after none but didn't realize till later and then it was too late.


c ya

[jhrobbins]

77. Just click edit if you want to addto or subtract from your postings.

[Flabbergasted]

79. I know but you only have a 15 min. window.

[Triana]

103. You should try not speaking for women. And I don't need your permission. (n/t)

[Flabbergasted]

112. I didn't and don't speak for woman. Try not speaking for me ok.

No You don't need my permission. Did I ever say you needed my permission to have multiple husbands.

[Der Blaue Engel]

97. Really? I know several.

DU is woefully uninformed about polyamory.

[mntleo2]

37. Then allow polygamy for women too?

...I would think that if women could have more than one husband exploitation would nto be an issue because either sex could have multiple partners.

My 2 cents

[AZBlue]

89. I agree that's often the way it occurs - but it doesn't have to.

I saw an edition of "The Outsiders" on Mormons and many of them really do choose this religion and lifestyle. They interviewed one man who was married to two women - he treated them equally and they treated each other the same. There was a great amount of respect between the three of them. And, from a mothering standpoint, it was a help to the two women - each woman treated all the children as if they were her own and therfore each mom got a little time to herself when wanted or needed. One of the women went to public schools (not Mormon owned or controlled schools), knew others from different religions and still choose this way - this was what was right for her. When you encounter a situation as such, I can't help but agree with the OP.

Where it's wrong is when men and women are forced into it, children are married too young, women are abused, women are divorced just so the man can collect her welfare, young girls are raped and young boys are outcasts - yes, there are a lot of people who have taken this religion and used it to do some very nasty things. But, for those that don't hurt others, who are we to say their religion is wrong?

[yellowcanine]

93. The problem is the institution of polygamy enables exploitation of women - and

men who can't find a wife because the available women were all taken by wealthy men. Some masters treated their slaves humanely also but that didn't make the institution acceptable. It may be that some women would choose to share a man with another woman but the truth is most probably would not.

[Dorian Gray]

115. Agree

I agree with your perspective on this issue, yellowcanine! :)

[Yupster]

29. I think you're right Mass

I don't see any reason to be against it other than "because that's the way we've always done it."

I also don't think I'd want it, but again, that's hardly a reason for it to be illegal.

[IndianaJones]

3. no, and it has nothing to do with gay marriage. nt.

[Orsino]

12. Unless, perhaps...

...if all the partners are married to each other. The usual polygamy we hear about involves one husband committing bigamy, and if he dies the wives are not married to each other.

[IndianaJones]

21. it has zero to do with gay marriage. nada. zip. nt.

[Orsino]

31. I'd like it to be that simple, too...

...and I'm aware that "polygamy" is used as a red herring. My only point is that it's ill-defined, and might actually include gay marriage...if all partners are assumed to have the same rights.

[Dr. Strange]

82. I'd say it does--and it has to do with heterosexual marriage too...

the underlying theme is, if consenting adults want to form a marital union (whether it be one man and one woman, or two men, or three men and four women), should the government be stepping in to authorize it or outlaw it?

[Boojatta]

4. Perhaps there are pragmatic concerns similar to the concerns

that provoke heavy regulation of gambling businesses.

Obviously some people object on religious grounds. In that case, one could perhaps either revise the religion from under them or persuade them to excommunicate themselves from some aspects of their religion.

Here's a link to a thread on a related topic:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=214&topic_id=147808

[eShirl]

5. as long as it's between unanimously consenting adults, I have no problem with it

[htuttle]

6. Civil marriage is a legal contract involving the property of two persons

Making it involve more than two persons would require a new type of contract. Consider the implications on things like social security benefits, insurance, and property division and child custody upon divorce if more than two persons were involved in the contract.

Personally, I couldn't really care less either way, but I do think that new contractual language would be a must if more than two were involved.

[melody]

7. imho, there is nothing wrong with anything done by consenting adults

Including polygamy.

Anything else is just one person trying to force their belief systems on another.

[entanglement]

16. What about incestuous relationships between consenting adults?

[melody]

30. I think it's personally repulsive, but that's a different matter than it being "criminal"

If someone is being abused or mistreated or placed in jeopardy, then outside people should step in.

Just because we might see something as wrong doesn't mean it's a matter for the authorities.

[MilesColtrane]

86. I believe that was Armin Meiwes' defense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armin_Meiwes

[melody]

98. Obviously anything that involves harming or killing someone would go against that edict

One can't consent to harming or killing themselves -- it's against the law.

At what point are we going to police someone else's life if they aren't doing
anything to physically harm someone? We open that door, we let in the anti-gay
police and any number of jackboot thugs.

I should add, who is going to be the one to say where to draw the line, you? And
if we let you draw it, where do you draw it? How is that fair?

We have to go back to the edict of legal consent, imho, unless we want to start
shoving our own belief systems down someone else's throat.

[IA_Seth]

113. Uh, yuck.

That's a few minutes of my life that I'll never have back! Thanks a lot.

:puke:

[Warpy]

8. The problem is the way it's generally practiced

Polyandry, taking multiple husbands, is extremely rare--so rare it's hardly worth talking about.

Polygyny is the more common practice, the taking of multiple wives. All control is given to the male, and wives are taken in succession. As he tires of a wife, her body showing the signs of childbirth, he finds a new, young wife. The older wives have no veto power over who joins the family.

In this country, it's serial polygyny, with men divorcing and abandoning wives and children in order to move on to a younger woman.

Both reduce the number of young women available for marriage and breeding, creating a pool of young males with no prospect of marriage, family and stability. The social consequences are usually dire.

I've known one polygynous family personally. The women got together and kicked the man out and kept living with each other. Once he was gone, the arrangement of shared child care and household duties seemed to suit them.

[shimmergal]

101. You know, if the women would

just ignore all that nonsense about the man's word being law, and instead, cooperate to get what they jointly want, it would probably work pretty well. The family you knew is a good example!

[sniffa]

10. because reactionary womyn say it's about sexism

and ensLaving LittLe girLs. or something.

[frazzled]

11. Gender inequality

First of all, polygamy usually seems to involve one male with multiple wives. There may be some society somewhere in which there is female polygamy, and if so, feel free to let me know. But the argument would be the same. Marriage (whether gay, straight, or otherwise) should promote equality in a democratic society. It would seem to me that polygamous relationships inherently involve a "leader" or "boss" of one gender overlording (or ladying) a group of people of another gender. Marital equality can really only (theoretically) exist with co-equal partners. I highly doubt that a polygamous relationship can involve full co-equality. It is therefore not in the best interest of our society.

[Warpy]

23. Nepal, I believe, has a polyandrous minority

Families with multiple sons take one wife for all the sons. It's the way they keep the family land together, instead of cutting it up into small parcels for each son when the parents die. The wife is expected to go down the line, starting with the eldest, having offspring for each son. It's an old institution but it works about as well as anyone familiar with male jealousy issues thinks it would.

[entanglement]

13. Large scale polygyny could lead to social unrest

Too many unattached men is a recipe for trouble. OTOH, history and biology seem to argue against the feasibility of large scale polyandry.

[Lilith Velkor]

84. What about both at once?

[DangerDave921]

14. DU not LU!

This is DEM Underground, not Libertarian Underground. LOL

Your contrarian streak is showing through!

[MindPilot]

45. Opps sorry, back in lockstep now, hut, two, three, four...

:rofl:

[La Lioness Priyanka]

15. nt. nevermind

[no_hypocrisy]

17. In caselaw, the focus is on social policy.

The focus is how one man can hardly afford to financially support a colony of wives and children, and those wives and children usually have to go on public support/relief at taxpayers' expense when it's the "job" of the father/husband to so provide.

It's the money, not so much the morality according to the public policy of the legisatures and the courts.

[Hamlette]

42. Financial concern is a big reason

while there are undoubtedly polygamous families who are not on public assistance the VAST majority of them are. Here in Utah it is not uncommon for polygamists to have 5 wives and 30 children. Tom Green did. The state welfare office paid them $60,000 in benefits annually (the poverty level for a family of that size was calculated to be just under $100,000) and that did not include medical benefits. All 36 of them received Medicaid. Imagine what THAT cost taxpayers. (One child is very disabled from birth with very expensive medical bills.)

If you want to say "if you take more than one wife you can't get welfare" fine, but its the kids who suffer for the idiocy of their parents. Also, what do you say to a family of 16 kids with one wife. My guess is they are getting help.

It might have been a more economically feasible system when we were an agrarian society and men died young leaving widows with no public assistance programs, but the way it is practiced now, with multiple wives who stay home and make babies, it doesn't work.

[SidDithers]

63. How is that more expensive than 5 families...

each with a husband, wife and 6 kids. Now you've got 42 people all on Medicaid.

You could make the argument that polygamy saves the state money, because there are fewer husbands collecting benefits. :evilgrin:

Sid

[Hamlette]

92. its all in the numbers

a smaller percentage of families with one father, one mother and 6 kids are on assistance than families with one father, 5 wives and 30 kids.

Might just be that one salary can support 8 but can't support 36. Additionally, if the father in the one mother 6 kids household has a job with benefits, they are not on assistance.

No employer I know of would cover 5 wives or 30 kids.

Additionally, the father in a polyamous relationship usually does not work a "real job" because the state would take most of his salary to reimburse tax payers for the benefits paid out to the wives and children. It's a vicious cycle. The biggest polygamous groups around here make it an art to get all the government benefits they can. (All of the polygamous wives in one community started a child care center where they allegedly cared for their children. We paid child care costs of up to $500 per child in care until we figured out what they were up to. They got $500,000 per year for child care. None of them own property in their own name, it is owned by "the church". They build their own houses but never complete them so they don't pay property taxes. There is a real criminal element amoung many of the polygamists here at least. Read Under the Banner of Heaven. I'm not saying polygamy might not work but we have more polygamists than any state in the union and around here it operates more like a criminal element than a church or family unit.)

[Geek_Girl]

88. The counter to that would be polyandry

Where you had one woman staying home taking care of fewer children and multiple men working to take care of the family. I think it would work way better from an economic stand point.

[Xithras]

53. Socially, how could any liberal support that position?

Since when do progressives argue that it's the mans job to support and provide for his wife? Is this the 1950's again?

Last time I checked, most married households in the U.S. feature two working spouses. That throws the social support argument out the window.

[rodeodance]

18. Simple: cause if falls outside the Definition of Marriage-one man one women.

[truebrit71]

19. Because the man would have to be certifiably insane...

One wife isn't enough? What kind of sick, twisted bastard wants to double or triple the pain?

You know why most married men die before their spouses? Because they WANT to.... ;-)

[MindPilot]

46. True, dat. I forget who said it, but...

"bigamy is defined as having one wife too many...just like monogamy."

[TahitiNut]

70. Indeed. What's next? Assigning us resignedly single guys a minimum of one spouse?

:evilgrin:

Hell ... I tried two - one at a time - and got two clunkers. No thanks.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

20. It is an arrangement usually fraught with inequality, oppression and abuse. n/t

[midlife_mo_Jo]

24. Bingo! It's anti-woman and causes a lot of heartache

Most people who will seriously consider polygamy are rightwing nutjobs.

Those who will do it for the libertine value, can just live together.

[Thothmes]

106. or Muslims

[midlife_mo_Jo]

110. Sorry to be politically incorrect, but if the Muslim has four wives

I consider him a right wing nutjob, too.

[northernsoul]

28. So are many binary marriages, dating relationships, and domestic partnerships

I hear what you're saying, but I think that just because the form of a social arrangement may lead to an undesirable outcome, does not in and of itself warrant state intervention. I do think the state is justified in non-recognition of polygamy because polygamous arrangements are unadjudicatable under our legal system, but not because of sheer moral disapproval.

[NashVegas]

25. Property Rights, Legal Entanglements, Stable Population, Civic Unrest

Civic unrest: here's a primer on what happens when there aren't enough women to go around:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2036608,00.html

in their cases, limited polyandry might actually be a helpful way to keep some order, and the population size under control as well.

Stable population: read up on the Mormon Lost Boys - related to the Warren Jeffs clans.

Legal entanglements: oh, imagine the lawsuits when the head of the family dies.

Property rights: It is of no coincidence, IMO, that the age of consent rose as restrictions against women owning property were relaxed. *exactly* what the mindset was that drove the connection through, I'm not sure. Was it the feminists, or was it the patriarchs who feared their assets going to men they didn't approve of?

Finally: competition for resources. Family of 3-4 has less need of resources than a family of 18. Resource sharing is more easily cooperative with less mouths to feed, among families.

[northernsoul]

26. As a legal institution it is unadministratable

All of our laws surrounding marriage are built on a necessary assumption of a binary relationship. The state is not well-equipped to adjudicate child support and custody, divorce, property division, and intestate succession for a legal marriage encompassing more than two members. Creating a new legal framework to accommodate such situations sounds like a public policy nightmare. Therefore, I believe that the state may justly limit its grant of a marriage license, with its accompanying rights and responsibilities, to two consenting adults (gender mix is irrelevant).

[htuttle]

32. Actually, there's already a suitable legal construct for a multiple-partner arrangement

It's called a 'corporation'. Not sure what the tax implications of doing that would be, though, and it wouldn't grant the corporate 'shareholders' things like medical consent rights, etc...

:shrug:

[ChairmanAgnostic]

34. and think of all the people they can fuck - legally!

heh heh.

[Boojatta]

76. If that's not DUzy material, then I don't know what is!

:applause:

[slackmaster]

33. A man who wants multiple wives is a freaking lunatic and shouldn't be allowed to breed

:nuke:

[RobertDevereaux]

36. It's called polyamory these days...

and here's the wiki article about it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyamory

[riderinthestorm]

39. How casually you "put aside" underage girls and forced marriage....

:eyes: which of course is probably the biggest problem with polygamy.

It would be fine if the polygamy issue were just about two consenting adults but history, case law, precedent and common sense tell you it's not.

Cause it's really about underage girls, forced marriage, the subjugation of women, civil rights, economic rights etc. etc.

[MindPilot]

47. Yeah, because I didn't want the general question to go to that particular case

So you can stow the eye roll.

[stanwyck]

90. very good points

there is a very dark, ugly side to polygamy which involves sex with very young girls. There is also rampant welfare abuse in Utah by polygamous families.

[Triana]

40. polygamy IS wrong. It is mysogenist, at best. POLYAMORY is OK.

That seems to be what you are referring to: polyamory. NOT polygamy.

If you're trying to advocate for polygamy, you are advocating for something VERY DIFFERENT than polyamory.

I think polyamory is the term you want to use. Google it. THAT is the one where PEOPLE (men and women) can have multiple partners, as long as all are consenting adults, and are in agreement/happy with the arrangement.

[MindPilot]

48. I'm not advcating anything...I'm asking a question.

And you are correct, there are more words than polygamy depending on the particulars of a multiple-partner relationship.

[babylonsister]

51. Hmm. I thought that was 'swinging'. nt

[Triana]

65. No. Polyamory is NOT "swinging"

Polyamory involves emotional attachments and relationships (usually long-term) - "swinging" does not. Swinging is sex with multiple partners, polyamory (ie: amory = love) means LOVE with multiple partners (ie: relationships).

[Lilith Velkor]

85. But it's not "-gamy."

I thought "-gamy" was supposed to be a civil right.

It's confusing.

[Tian Zhuangzhuang]

41. Marriage is a partnership

Polygamy is a corporation.

:)

I have never understood why it was outlawed consenting adults and all. But then again I never understood why prostitution is illegal either.

[LeFleur1]

44. Our Country

In our country most polygamist marriages involve underage girls who have not been outside the particular community and have no knowledge of the real world at all.
They are groomed from the time they are little and handed off to some creepy old man (or creepy young man) when they are teenagers. It is their 'duty' to submit to this type of slavery and abuse if they want to get into heaven.

Then, of course, there is the fact that many of these marriages are not legal (except in the sight of their God) so that the 'man' of the house can collect aid for the gazillions of children fathered under this despicable system.

If worldly, knowledgeable adults want to indulge with multiple partners all at the same time, go for it. Just make damn sure everyone has had a chance to learn about the world first, and tax money should not be paying for any offspring of the decision.

[Sequoia]

49. Exploits women, drains the economy.

Read "Under the Banner of Heaven". Quite a shocker. That Jospeh Smith was a sex-maniac and used his desires to make the practice of polygamy a divine revelation from God. He'd visit a few cat houses too. The fundlemental Mormans kick out all the young men so the ugly old farts get the young ladies. A lot of the fathers molest their daughters too. It's beyond sick.

[Beelzebud]

50. Umm maybe because 12 and 13 year old girls shouldn't be forced into it?

Thats the catch. Heugh Hefner lives with adult women. Polygamists tend to have a few pre-teen brides...

[MyNameGoesHere]

54. whatever agreement consenting adults of sound mind enter into freely and willingly

is ok in my book. But if it forced or coerced then i have a problem with it.

[Goblinmonger]

55. Cause god said so.

Don't you ever read your memos?

[Xithras]

56. It isn't.

And it probably wouldn't be harmful if practiced nationally. The problem today is that polygamy is illegal, which means that only people who are CRIMINALLY ORIENTED ANYWAY practice it. The argument against polygamy is the same argument used against drug legalization: "Look at the harm that it's doing to our communities! You want to legalize this kind of abuse and violence?" They fail to realize that the abuse and violence stems directly from societies own attempts to stamp it out. Legalize drugs and prices will fall through the floor, eliminating nearly all of the criminal activity associated with it. Legalize polygamy and allow it to be properly regulated just like any other civil partnership.

People talking about 13 year old girls getting married off tend to miss one major point. That isn't marriage, it's child molestation. Legalizing polygamy won't make it legal to marry your 12 year old daughter off to the 65 year old creep next door, any more than it's already legal to do that today. Child molestation and the exploitation of women aren't caused by polygamy, they are caused by abusive people and fundamentalist religious beliefs that exist in ALL societies.

[Tian Zhuangzhuang]

57. If you outlaw Polygamy only Outlaws will have extra wives, nt

[Chovexani]

72. That's a DUzy, right there

:spray: :rofl:

[LanternWaste]

59. Here's an argument or two against it (not mine)...

Here's an argument or two against it (not mine)...

Especially given the large disparities in wealth in the United States, legalizing polygamy would enable wealthy men to have multiple wives, even harems, which would reduce the supply of women to men of lower incomes and thus aggravate inequality. The resulting shortage of women would lead to queuing, and thus to a high age of marriage for men, which in turn would increase the demand for prostitution. Moreover, intense competition for women would lower the age of marriage for women, which would be likely to result in less investment by them in education (because household production is a substitute for market production) and therefore reduce women's market output.

and

...household goverance under polygamy is bound to be more hierarchical than in monogamous marriage, because the household is larger and the ties of affection weaker; as a result, "agency costs" are higher and so the principal (the husband, as head of the household) has to devise and implement means of supervision that would be unnecessary in a monogamous household. (An additional factor is that women in a polygamous household have a greater incentive to commit adultery since they have less frequent sex with, and affection for, their husband, so the husband has to watch them more carefully to prevent their straying.) This managerial responsibility deflects the husband from more socially productive activities.

[Boojatta]

80. Interesting!

:hi:

[Occulus]

60. Because I can't get married at all in the state in which I was born.

Period. Fin.

It's odd, how that "full faith and credit" clause seems to apply to all contracts except marriage, isn't it? Where doe the law, never mind the Constitution, say this is okay? I don't seem to recall a marriage contract exception written into the US Constitution...

[PDenton]

61. I don't know of any arguements

that can rationalize why polygamy (multiple spouses) is considered immoral. However, it goes without saying that there is something deeply rooted in American, and Western society that says it is taboo. The arguement it causes jealousy is a bit moot, IMO, because there is that within monogamous relationships as well. The US went to war (albeit a protracted, low-grade war) with the Utah Territory in the mid 19th century for no other reason than millions of Americans were convinced that there was white slavery and sexual licetiousness going on in America, that Mormonism as practiced was incompatible with American civilization.

Our closest DNA relatives in the animal kingdom, however, are not monogamous. In fact, their social groupings are closer to polygyny. Only the marmosets (not great apes, monkeys), engage in polyandry. Usually polyandrous animals have larger females than males.

[hedgehog]

62. It may be a nice idea in theory, but it always causes problems

and oppression in practice. I can't think of a single society that practices/practiced polygamy in which women have/had an equal standing with men. Toss in the division between children of the different mothers and you've got a real mess. Check out your Bible. David's sons fought with and killed each other after one brother raped his half sister. Abraham chose ethe son of his wife over the son of his concubine and look where that has left us today!

A related practice is free love. Somehow, free love always ends up with women getting the shaft as well!

[Tian Zhuangzhuang]

94. Yeah but in reality divorce and remarriage

have the exact same issues. And I'm not just talking Brady Bunch fan fiction. The real question is why is polygamy singled out.

[shimmergal]

102. It's singled out for the same reason

the extended famiy is discouraged and communes are regarded as freaky--because they all undermine capitalism.

Think about it. Any larger household grouping is likely to have more resources, so the individual isn't as dependent on any single employer. Assuming most adults _are_ gainfully employed, or at least productively occupied, one person's job loss can be absorbed with less pain; therefore he/she will be a more self-directed and independent worker. Also a larger household will need fewer expensive purchased goods per capita. One washer & dryer, for example, can just as well be used by 10 people as by 3 or 4, and sometimes even the same goes for cars. This is _NOT_ good for capitalism whose motto is to keep people working so they can buy MORE.

Granted that in different eras and cultures other reasons for being against polygamy might have been more pivotal. But few other times and cultures discouraged communal living like we do, because their economic systems were different.

[SacredCow]

64. Because it's DIFFERENT, dammit!!!!!!!!!

ain't you askeered of it?????


Seriously, though- that's probably not far from the truth. In a society that takes the bible literally (most of the time), that's the way it's going to be.

[Disturbed]

75. When the word polygamy is used most people think of

Mormons. The majority of Mormons do not practice polygamy. The offshoot FLDS does. The largest group that promotes the concept of polygamy is actually the Muslims, around a Billion. Perhaps most Muslims don't practice polygamy but it is in their holy book, the Koran.

[Yupster]

100. There are a lot of questions

regarding polygymous issues on www.askimam.com

Muslims, often living in the West aks this website questions about what's the right way to do things in Islam. Lots of the questions involve the problems of Muslims living within non-Muslim populations in the west. It's a pretty interesting cite.

http://islam.tc/ask-imam/view.php?q=14345

[Thothmes]

107. Muslims

In addition to the religious acceptance in the Koran, polygamy is legal in most Muslim states.

[Chovexani]

67. It's because marriage was designed solely as a business deal

I'm polyamorous (my last relationship was a polyfidelitous quad, all of us were women), and I see nothing wrong with multi-partner group marriages between consenting adults. People should be able to commit to whomever they please.

It'll never happen, though. Our puritanical society can't even wrap its puny brain around same-gender marriage. A cursory look at the some of the responses in this thread show just how ignorant most people are about polyamory. And this is supposedly an open-minded board.

There's a lot of education that needs to happen.

[Sanctified]

68. I have no problem with it, if some dumb ass wants more than one wife that is his problem.

Seriously I have one wife and if I had another I would kill myself. Hell I would prefer another husband in my marriage, you know the guy who would go shopping with my wife on Sunday while I watch football or the guy who took the garbage out right when my wife mentions it at the good part of a movie.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

71. Nothing.

The Warren Jeffs case is about accessory to rape. The polygamy stuff is just what makes it a juicy media story. Man bites dog sort of thing.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

73. 'Cuz God said so. After he changed his mind about it.

It was fine and dandy for those old guys in the Bible, but then the preachers got nagged by their wives and made God flip or they'd stop passing the basket to keep Him in business.

[NMMNG]

74. Because it's forbidden by the Bible!

Oh wait, never mind.

[Disturbed]

81. Polygamy was practiced by the Jews.

http://www.biblicalpolygamy.com/polygamists/

[NMMNG]

87. I know that

I was joking. Maybe I should have used the :sarcasm: thingy.

[JVS]

95. hundreds of years of monogamy as a norm

[Beerboy]

96. Given everything you've posted,

in context, I have to wonder myself.

[Norrin Radd]

99. Only with turtles.

[Canuckistanian]

104. On a strictly genetic level, polygamy is better

More genetic diversity ensures a healthy population.

However, with our modern medical techniques and better living conditions, we've practically eliminated natural genetic selection.

So for humans, it doesn't matter.

I guess I've just negated my own point. :(

[Katherine Brengle]

108. Personally, I wouldn't touch one of these guys with a 10-foot pole.

A man who wants multiple wives is either a narcissistic tool who thinks he's entitled to his own little mini-army of houseslaves, or he's straight up crazy (if he's a "good" guy) for thinking he can support a family that big these days.

Either way, major issues.

[Iris]

111. Left out a scenario: If a woman wants to be one of many wives...

and If a man wants to be one of many husbands...

[Evoman]

114. Let me ask a different question: Why is monogamy right?

It seems to me that, to a large degree, marriage itself (monogamous marriage), has caused a lot of problems, including married men treating women as chattel and so on.

Why is marriage necessary at all?

[Dr. Strange]

116. Let me split that into two questions.

Why is the social/religious construct of marriage necessary at all?
and
Why is governmental involvement in marriage necessary at all?

The first is much harder to answer, but the second is more important from a political point of view.