The case for polygamy

[Jon Miller]

Where do you get that he was a polyamorist?

Have you read anything written by a feminist, secular polyamorist?

Yes. The guy I quoted.

I found those quotes from another area talking about him being a polyamorist.

To me, he sounds like the the feminist, secularist polyamorist writers. And yes, I have read things they have written.

Are you really suggesting that it isn't the case that multiple person relationships are not dominated by one man, multiple women, relationships?

JM

[Jon Miller]

From what I have seen, those who claim that secularist polygamy is not dominated by one man/multiple women are just blind and have not studied history or other societies at all.

Look at past societies, look at societies in asia and africa.

The claim that polygamy being mostly one man/multiple women as coming from christian (with most references to mormon) or abrahamic (islam/christian/judaic) roots is stupid.

Just look at human relationships. There are a lot more men who consider it status building to have a lot of lovers than there are women. And there are a lot of scientific articles saying that that is biological.

JM

[Heraclitus]

Plenty of secularist polygamy is one man/multiple women.

Women feel attracted to men that other women like. Also hypergamy ensures the average man isn't really attractive to the average woman. In an environment of sexual freedom and where women are financially independent you will see plenty of women being exclusive with men who aren't exclusive to them. And guess what women are willing to accept this, and many of them feel its better to share the man they love or feel strong attraction to rather than have an entire man that while being a ok nice guy and all isn't someone they can love.

Soft polygamy is a reality in modern people's sexual lives and I don't see why we need institutional barriers for those who feel a need to make the arrangement more permanent. Why should we discriminate against them?

[Jon Miller]

So then all the articles/etc written about how polygamy is dangerous to society are relevant. They aren't based on the idea that if polygamy is legalized it will increase the amount of bad relationships due to coercion, but that it is unhealthy for society to include as part of it's ideal that so many young men will be left frustrated/alone/etc.

Something I found quickly:

http://jezebel.com/5596483/when-it-comes-to-polygamy-maybe-women-arent-the-only-losers

Note that it is written by someone who is even sympathetic to polygamy (by the feminist/secular crew).

http://www.isteve.com/2002_Problem_with_Polygamy.htm

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200706/ten-politically-incorrect-truths-about-human-nature

Don't be blind though, if polygamy was legalized there would be more women coerced into bad relationships.

Currently in a 'traditional' subgroup, Jill will be pushed into the arms of the favorite of the community, Jack. They are both young, and while the relationship is not equal they will often grow to love eachother/etc. This sort of relationship actually does work surprisingly often. If polygamy will be added, then Jill will be pushed into the arms of Bob, as his 3rd or 4th or 8th wife. He not only has lots of other commitments, he also has a lot more experience (which is power) and... well.. is old. If they do grow to love eachother, it is (in every story I have ever read, including traditional stories of polygamous societies) at the cost of all of his other wives relationship. It is much worse to be pressured to marry the old man with status as his 3rd/4th/8th wife then to marry the young sons with status as their first and only.

JM

[MikeH]

How does "allowing it to be legally recognised" equate to "including it as part of society's ideal"?

[MikeH]

Jon, the point is, people already enter into these marriages, even if they aren't officially recognised.

The problem is, in the UK, if they are not officially married they don't have the same rights when the relationship ends as a married person would when the relationship ends.

So the reason I think it should be recognised officially is that the people involved can get the same legal rights inside the relationship, and if/when the relationship ends they can get the same legal rights through the divorce courts in terms of asset division, maintenance, child custody etc.

Even if it's a terrible idea in the first place, it's even worse if you don't have that legal protection later for people we might worry are being exploited.

[MikeH]

That doesn't mean we are encouraging it.

[Ming]

So then all the articles/etc written about how polygamy is dangerous to society are relevant.
JM

And since about 50% of all "traditional" marriages end in divorce, they are dangerous to society as well... we shouldn't allow those either.

[MikeH]

I also don't equate "potentially dangerous to the people involved" to "dangerous to society".

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Even if it's a terrible idea in the first place, it's even worse if you don't have that legal protection later for people we might worry are being exploited.

the "ban it and it does not happen" crowd is a lot greater burden on current society than all kind of polygamist wannabes combined

[Jon Miller]

the "ban it and it does not happen" crowd is a lot greater burden on current society than all kind of polygamist wannabes combined

Everyone has been giving the reasons why it is bad for society, not just the people who are involved. (Who you could argue 'can live with the bad choices they make')

And I would like to be clear that I am not arguing that it is banned. That people should go through and make sure that there is no men living with two women, or know couples who share spouses. I am talking about societal support. Which is what everyone is talking about, and which is a very different beast.

It is like saying "yeah, we recognize that smoking does damage to your lungs and your childrens and so on, but it should just be a choice about whether you use your WIKS money to buy cigarettes or milk".

No, WIKS is for what we are supporting (having healthy children/babies). It isn't for buying something we don't want to support (Tobacco), even if some people do exchange the milk they get for their babies for cigs or crack.

JM

[onodera]

Everyone has been giving the reasons why it is bad for society, not just the people who are involved. (Who you could argue 'can live with the bad choices they make')

And I would like to be clear that I am not arguing that it is banned. That people should go through and make sure that there is no men living with two women, or know couples who share spouses. I am talking about societal support. Which is what everyone is talking about, and which is a very different beast.

It is like saying "yeah, we recognize that smoking does damage to your lungs and your childrens and so on, but it should just be a choice about whether you use your WIKS money to buy cigarettes or milk".

No, WIKS is for what we are supporting (having healthy children/babies). It isn't for buying something we don't want to support (Tobacco), even if some people do exchange the milk they get for their babies for cigs or crack.

JM

What is marriage about, then? If it's about having healthy children/babies too, why allow gay marriage?

[MikeH]

I am talking about societal support. Which is what everyone is talking about, and which is a very different beast.

I'm talking about giving the same legal rights to people in polygamous marriages as those in monogamous ones.

I'd legalise and regulate prostitution and hard drugs for the same reason, to protect the most vulnerable.

[Jon Miller]

Marriage is about two things (or at least, the reason why the state should support marriage):
1. Healthy children/babies, and the home they grow up in. I will note that homosexuals can adopt (and should). I admit that if this was the only reason, my support for gay marriage would be much less and maybe I wouldn't support it.
2. Long term relationships. There have been a lot of papers about how much better off women and men are (especially men) when in a long term relationship. Happiness goes way up, negative things like violence/etc goes way down, productivity goes way up, and so on. So not only is it better for the man/woman in the long term relationship, it is also better for all those who are near them/etc. For the second, obviously it would be good for society if homosexuals had gay marriage. It is support for gay long term relationships.

Obviously you can take care of children solo, or be happy solo. Please don't use that illogical reasoning.

Yes, polygamy supports 1. just as well as 'traditional' marriage. The issue is with 2. Even the extremely pro-polygamy articles/sites agree that polygamous relationships are much more complicated, challenging, and face additional stresses compared to standard relationships. They compared it to having a significant other and friends, but impact on society of having a long term significant other is completely different than the impact due to having long term friends.

Basically, polygamy would mean that less people would get 2. It would probably do more harm than the good of supporting 2. for homosexuals. This has been referred to in many of the articles I linked.

And that isn't even counting the higher failure rate due to polygamous relationships being inherently more complicated, challenging, and having additional stresses.

So no, we shouldn't support polygamy. Just like we don't support tobacco use. Although, like with tobacco use, people can live in a polygamous relationship if they want to.

How are they being kept form doing so?

JM

[MikeH]

Those are all good reasons why polygamous marriages need the legal support you get through divorce from married status even more than monogamous ones, no?