But once you introduce a third, you've gone too far...
May 15, 2008 8:25 PM Subscribe
So I was listening to NPR talk about how the California Supreme Court rejected a ban on gay marriage as unconstitutional. During the conversation, the guests for both sides of the issue kept coming back to polygamy. Opponents of gay marriage were all "well, this opens things up to craziness - like polygamy", while the proponents were all trying to distance their movement from polygamy, a la "well, this makes sure it's only marriage between two people... so no polygamy". Why do people have a problem with polygamy (of the non-FLDS-child-bride variety)?
It's not natural (depends on what species you're looking at) and it says in the Bible 2 people in a marriage (which doesn't exactly fly for people of different religious beliefs). And I'll bet the insurance companies have a hand in it as well (covering more people under the same plan).
I'll be really interested to see if and how this changes over the course of my lifetime (21 right now).
posted by theichibun at 8:44 PM on May 15, 2008
I'll be really interested to see if and how this changes over the course of my lifetime (21 right now).
posted by theichibun at 8:44 PM on May 15, 2008
Because it threatens the concept of the nuclear family, of heteronormative monogamy. Those of Judeo-Christian beliefs see it as the way it was laid out by God to live - one Adam, one Eve.
If grown consenting adults are allowed the freedom to choose their own relationships willy-nilly, then what's next? People living in hippie communes! Smoking drugs and worshiping demons.
Personally though, as a feminist, I find "man with a stable of ten wives" to be just as creepy as the whole "woman exists as man's help-meet" deal. You generally see polygamy as a patriarchal practice, aside from the occasional pagan three-way marriage you see now and then. So the harem is better how?
posted by SassHat at 8:45 PM on May 15, 2008 [2 favorites]
If grown consenting adults are allowed the freedom to choose their own relationships willy-nilly, then what's next? People living in hippie communes! Smoking drugs and worshiping demons.
Personally though, as a feminist, I find "man with a stable of ten wives" to be just as creepy as the whole "woman exists as man's help-meet" deal. You generally see polygamy as a patriarchal practice, aside from the occasional pagan three-way marriage you see now and then. So the harem is better how?
posted by SassHat at 8:45 PM on May 15, 2008 [2 favorites]
loiseau: I was thinking the same thing, but I suppose someone who knows a lot more about the topic than I do could post some links to studies about links between polygamy and screwed up power structures in relationships and that sort of thing.
To attempt an answer, (some) people object to homosexuality for a list of reasons including (supposed) immorality, ickiness, and that sort of thing. More people, I'd guess, object to polygamy because of the tremendous baggage it carries in areas like marginalizing women.
But I am far, far from an expert and you're only getting my opinion and supposition.
posted by socratic at 8:46 PM on May 15, 2008
To attempt an answer, (some) people object to homosexuality for a list of reasons including (supposed) immorality, ickiness, and that sort of thing. More people, I'd guess, object to polygamy because of the tremendous baggage it carries in areas like marginalizing women.
But I am far, far from an expert and you're only getting my opinion and supposition.
posted by socratic at 8:46 PM on May 15, 2008
One of the arguments that I've heard is that polygamous marriage would go much further in redefining currently existing marriages than homosexual unions will. If gay marriage were allowed it heteros would still just be married to one another and nothing legally would really change between partners. However, with polygamy all marriages would no longer be a contract between just two people; there would be a possibility that either spouse could take on another partner. Of course, one could argue that there would be special licenses for polygamous unions, et. cetera, but it would still radically change the definition of marriage as a legal contract.
I'm not anti-polygamy, as far as consenting adults go, but it would really change the definition of marriage in this country, possibly unpleasantly for a lot of couples.
posted by Alison at 8:49 PM on May 15, 2008
I'm not anti-polygamy, as far as consenting adults go, but it would really change the definition of marriage in this country, possibly unpleasantly for a lot of couples.
posted by Alison at 8:49 PM on May 15, 2008
I have lawyer friends who aren't really terribly interested in gay marriage talk about how they think that the prohibition of polygamy probably won't survive a charter challenge since gay marriage became legal (Ummm, I guess the Bill of Rights in the USA) in Canada. This lawyer friend of mine thinks polygamy will be legal in a few years
I never really followed up on the topic but my guess on the layman's version is this: If you can change the definition of marriage once, you can change it again since you have a precedent. Also since you have already established that religious practices, and general customs don't have the legal standing to maintain the "traditional" or even the "recently redefined" definition of marriage its pretty easy to take the next step.
That entire second paragraph is a SWAG though.
posted by Deep Dish at 8:55 PM on May 15, 2008
I never really followed up on the topic but my guess on the layman's version is this: If you can change the definition of marriage once, you can change it again since you have a precedent. Also since you have already established that religious practices, and general customs don't have the legal standing to maintain the "traditional" or even the "recently redefined" definition of marriage its pretty easy to take the next step.
That entire second paragraph is a SWAG though.
posted by Deep Dish at 8:55 PM on May 15, 2008
Monogamy, whether between a man or woman or other entity, can never be polygamy without specifying it as such. The reason people confuse gay marriage for polygamy is because they lazily assume it was an argument between traditional marriage versus all other marriages, rather than a case of gay marriages demanding equal rights of monogamy like everyone else. Why do people have a problem with polygamy? Well, it wreaks havoc with inheritance, work benefits, divorce settlements, and welfare laws generally. A man breeds with twelve brides who give birth to forty kids, and who ends up paying for it? We do, or they starve. What did we expect? Therefore the state has no interest in arranging or tolerating an unequal marriage arrangement regardless. Why do people have a problem with all types of polygamy? Because they don't discriminate against religious breeding wackos and secular ones.
posted by Brian B. at 8:57 PM on May 15, 2008 [3 favorites]
posted by Brian B. at 8:57 PM on May 15, 2008 [3 favorites]
It seems to me this is simply the usual fear-of-the-unknown sort of bigotry.
I recall touching on this topic in law class. In Australia, you can't marry if you're married, but a polygamous or polygynous marriage which was legally constituted (ie in a jurisdiction where that is possible) will stand, legally. I think I was one of two people in the whole (almost entirely Anglo/Celtic, Western Mediterranean or Southeast Asian/Christian iirc) class who didn't have a problem with this. After a lot of discussion, it seemed to me that the only real reason for all the objections was simply that the objectors weren't familiar with the practice, and the difference somehow offended them. As far as I recall, no logical argument against polygamy/polygyny were advanced.
W/R/T gay marriage, I suspect this is just a matter of choosing one's battles: Proponents of gay marriage are wary of taking on other burdens in the middle of a difficult-enough battle with the reactionaries.
Opponents will grab at any arguments, because they're not quite sure why anyone would disagree with their main point that gay marriage is so 'obviously' wrong that it needs no logical argument either way, nor what it really takes to grab that demographic.
posted by pompomtom at 9:03 PM on May 15, 2008
I recall touching on this topic in law class. In Australia, you can't marry if you're married, but a polygamous or polygynous marriage which was legally constituted (ie in a jurisdiction where that is possible) will stand, legally. I think I was one of two people in the whole (almost entirely Anglo/Celtic, Western Mediterranean or Southeast Asian/Christian iirc) class who didn't have a problem with this. After a lot of discussion, it seemed to me that the only real reason for all the objections was simply that the objectors weren't familiar with the practice, and the difference somehow offended them. As far as I recall, no logical argument against polygamy/polygyny were advanced.
W/R/T gay marriage, I suspect this is just a matter of choosing one's battles: Proponents of gay marriage are wary of taking on other burdens in the middle of a difficult-enough battle with the reactionaries.
Opponents will grab at any arguments, because they're not quite sure why anyone would disagree with their main point that gay marriage is so 'obviously' wrong that it needs no logical argument either way, nor what it really takes to grab that demographic.
posted by pompomtom at 9:03 PM on May 15, 2008
If some men get several wives each, then many men get no wives at all.
posted by Class Goat at 9:08 PM on May 15, 2008 [4 favorites]
posted by Class Goat at 9:08 PM on May 15, 2008 [4 favorites]
The long and short of it is that it turns women into collectable (and sellable) commodities. If you read up on societies that allow this it usually plays out like:
1. Rich man in the village gets all the women. Usually sold or through a favor system.
2. Young men in village get pissed that there are no available women around
3. Fathers treat their daughters as cattle.
4. Angry poor single men revolt.
In the monogamous system its one women at one time. It hurts the "wife sale" market and encourages treating women as people, not commodities.
posted by damn dirty ape at 9:18 PM on May 15, 2008 [2 favorites]
1. Rich man in the village gets all the women. Usually sold or through a favor system.
2. Young men in village get pissed that there are no available women around
3. Fathers treat their daughters as cattle.
4. Angry poor single men revolt.
In the monogamous system its one women at one time. It hurts the "wife sale" market and encourages treating women as people, not commodities.
posted by damn dirty ape at 9:18 PM on May 15, 2008 [2 favorites]
If you read up on societies that allow this it usually plays out like:
To be fair, I didn't see this in Africa. The guys with multiple wives didn't really seem that rich, and most of the anger came from the wives who were really at each others throats (they usually had separate residences).
posted by Deep Dish at 9:24 PM on May 15, 2008
To be fair, I didn't see this in Africa. The guys with multiple wives didn't really seem that rich, and most of the anger came from the wives who were really at each others throats (they usually had separate residences).
posted by Deep Dish at 9:24 PM on May 15, 2008
From Class Goat's theory -> child marriages may result. Men reach marrying age, but all the same-age women are taken up by guys with 13 wives. Have to go a little younger, or settle for nothing at all. Can't wait for them to get older, because they have guys their own age.
A little simplistic, but funny how a lot of the polygamist incidents end up involving young girls getting married, eh?
Of course, if the women could also have many husbands, that may tend to even out the male/female numbers and solve that problem.
posted by ctmf at 9:26 PM on May 15, 2008
A little simplistic, but funny how a lot of the polygamist incidents end up involving young girls getting married, eh?
Of course, if the women could also have many husbands, that may tend to even out the male/female numbers and solve that problem.
posted by ctmf at 9:26 PM on May 15, 2008
Well, some Christians believe that the child-rape that goes on in FLDS communities should be legal before same-sex marriage under the guise of religious freedom and--get this!--tolerance. Do yourself a favor and avoid the comments on that post. UGH.
posted by youarenothere at 9:27 PM on May 15, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by youarenothere at 9:27 PM on May 15, 2008 [1 favorite]
Personally, I think that multiple marriages should be legal (between adults). I also think gay marriage should be legal. And I think there should be civil contracts for people who don't like the construct of marriage, so that you can stipulate who will carry out your wishes if you're hospitalized, killed, etc.
However, I do think gay marriage is much more easily achieved. Our laws are simply not ready to handle the enormous complications of multiple marriages (polygamy, polyandry, poly-whatever). If three people are married, and two of them have a child, what is the third person's real and legal standing with the child? What if the marriage breaks up? What if the child's parents divorce but the third party is still married to both of them, what does that mean for custody and visitation issues? And so on.
I know people who are able to hammer out a way of living how they want to live in non-monogamous marriages. I hope that someday our laws can give them the legitimacy, security, and protection that they deserve.
posted by ysabella at 9:36 PM on May 15, 2008
However, I do think gay marriage is much more easily achieved. Our laws are simply not ready to handle the enormous complications of multiple marriages (polygamy, polyandry, poly-whatever). If three people are married, and two of them have a child, what is the third person's real and legal standing with the child? What if the marriage breaks up? What if the child's parents divorce but the third party is still married to both of them, what does that mean for custody and visitation issues? And so on.
I know people who are able to hammer out a way of living how they want to live in non-monogamous marriages. I hope that someday our laws can give them the legitimacy, security, and protection that they deserve.
posted by ysabella at 9:36 PM on May 15, 2008
Because feminism. If men and women are interchangeable, then it makes sense that you should be able to substitute a second man for a woman in a marriage. However, we don't have the societal setup, and haven't for TWENTY-FIVE CENTURIES stretching back, by some estimations, into the archaic period of Greco-Roman civilization, to support polygamy. It creates an awfully high demand for women and a frustrated, seething underclass of men. In fact, I've read somewhere that some think that the jihadi phenomenon in the Muslim world is largely fueled by polygamy— all those guys have to do something if they can't do their wives.
posted by Electrius at 9:39 PM on May 15, 2008 [2 favorites]
posted by Electrius at 9:39 PM on May 15, 2008 [2 favorites]
Legally, the rule against same-sex marriage has been challenged as discrimination on the basis of sex and/or sexual orientation. The rule against more-than-two-people marriage cannot be challenged using that theory. So it's actually pretty different in terms of the way discrimination theory works.
The related challenge is on fundamental rights (the right to marry being a fundamental right). It's possible to frame a "fundamental rights" argument on polygamy. But I can't imagine it going anywhere.
posted by ClaudiaCenter at 9:52 PM on May 15, 2008 [1 favorite]
The related challenge is on fundamental rights (the right to marry being a fundamental right). It's possible to frame a "fundamental rights" argument on polygamy. But I can't imagine it going anywhere.
posted by ClaudiaCenter at 9:52 PM on May 15, 2008 [1 favorite]
Why do people have a problem with polygamy (of the non-FLDS-child-bride variety)?
Assumption.
posted by Mblue at 10:00 PM on May 15, 2008 [1 favorite]
Assumption.
posted by Mblue at 10:00 PM on May 15, 2008 [1 favorite]
However, we don't have the societal setup, and haven't for TWENTY-FIVE CENTURIES stretching back, by some estimations, into the archaic period of Greco-Roman civilization, to support polygamy.
This statement is bizarre and clearly false. Lots of places around the world practiced polygamy (for the very wealthy) for a long time. It was common in China in the 1800s at least. Osama Bin Laden's father had a bunch of wives. In Saudi Arabia today men can marry up to 4 wives (IIRC)
There are lots of practical problems with polygamy. One obvious one is that if it was widespread, then a lot of men would end up without girlfriends (unless wives with many husbands became popular). In historical societies, men would often die in wars and whatnot, so there was probably a greater gender imbalance.
It's also associated pretty strongly with male dominance and 'patriarchy'.
Also, how would you divide property between multiple wives (or husbands) in the event of divorce? And, what if a whole group of people wanted to marry? I mean, it would be gender discrimination to disallow woman-man-man, but what about woman-man-man-woman? You could theoretically 'chain' marriages to unlimited numbers of people. It would be a huge mess.
But beyond those practical concerns, I don't exactly see why it's should be illegal. I mean, it's not illegal to have a wife, and also have a live-in girlfriend. And if people do that, I don't think people are too grossed out.
posted by delmoi at 10:03 PM on May 15, 2008 [1 favorite]
This statement is bizarre and clearly false. Lots of places around the world practiced polygamy (for the very wealthy) for a long time. It was common in China in the 1800s at least. Osama Bin Laden's father had a bunch of wives. In Saudi Arabia today men can marry up to 4 wives (IIRC)
There are lots of practical problems with polygamy. One obvious one is that if it was widespread, then a lot of men would end up without girlfriends (unless wives with many husbands became popular). In historical societies, men would often die in wars and whatnot, so there was probably a greater gender imbalance.
It's also associated pretty strongly with male dominance and 'patriarchy'.
Also, how would you divide property between multiple wives (or husbands) in the event of divorce? And, what if a whole group of people wanted to marry? I mean, it would be gender discrimination to disallow woman-man-man, but what about woman-man-man-woman? You could theoretically 'chain' marriages to unlimited numbers of people. It would be a huge mess.
But beyond those practical concerns, I don't exactly see why it's should be illegal. I mean, it's not illegal to have a wife, and also have a live-in girlfriend. And if people do that, I don't think people are too grossed out.
posted by delmoi at 10:03 PM on May 15, 2008 [1 favorite]
Too much opportunity for exploitation. No one knows how to make it work right. We're scared of ourselves. It makes us doubt our ideas about love and commitment. It's different. People are brainwashed into believing how they are is normal and everything else is wrong. Fear of the other. Competetiveness. Greed. Mistrust. Take your pick.
posted by blue_beetle at 10:07 PM on May 15, 2008
posted by blue_beetle at 10:07 PM on May 15, 2008
William Saletan has a piece that touches on an answer...
posted by dawson at 11:18 PM on May 15, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by dawson at 11:18 PM on May 15, 2008 [1 favorite]
Why do people have a problem with polygamy
it was here (on the blue) some time ago where this point was brought up and I had to step back& actually self-examine my beliefs WRT polygamy, really for the first time.
What I came up with was:
Formalized poly~~~~ is something that (in our society) only crazy people -- hippies & whacky Mormon offshoot sects -- do, and does not have a good record of increasing social order or producing well-adjusted offspring due to the bizarre power structures that polygamous communities seem to devolve into.
I do agree with our Christianist friends on this point that abandoning what is called the judeo-christian institution of marriage [not that it has got much O.T. in it, LOL] does open the door to god-knows-what.
While I consider myself an anything-goes Left-Libertarian, I also think the laws of the land should strike balances between individual liberty and the sustainable social order when necessary.
The same logic that leads me to support seatbelt laws leads me to oppose recognized polygamy.
Polyandry, on the other hand, happens to slip through this particular test I guess.
Back to the question, the institution of marriage is supposed to establish a life partnership bond. Poly~~~~ arrangements tend to be weaker -- perhaps too weak -- realizations of this social ideal.
posted by tachikaze at 11:29 PM on May 15, 2008 [1 favorite]
it was here (on the blue) some time ago where this point was brought up and I had to step back& actually self-examine my beliefs WRT polygamy, really for the first time.
What I came up with was:
Formalized poly~~~~ is something that (in our society) only crazy people -- hippies & whacky Mormon offshoot sects -- do, and does not have a good record of increasing social order or producing well-adjusted offspring due to the bizarre power structures that polygamous communities seem to devolve into.
I do agree with our Christianist friends on this point that abandoning what is called the judeo-christian institution of marriage [not that it has got much O.T. in it, LOL] does open the door to god-knows-what.
While I consider myself an anything-goes Left-Libertarian, I also think the laws of the land should strike balances between individual liberty and the sustainable social order when necessary.
The same logic that leads me to support seatbelt laws leads me to oppose recognized polygamy.
Polyandry, on the other hand, happens to slip through this particular test I guess.
Back to the question, the institution of marriage is supposed to establish a life partnership bond. Poly~~~~ arrangements tend to be weaker -- perhaps too weak -- realizations of this social ideal.
posted by tachikaze at 11:29 PM on May 15, 2008 [1 favorite]
Polygamy
1 : marriage in which a spouse of either sex may have more than one mate at the same time — compare polyandry, polygyny 2 : the state of being polygamous (Just drawing attention to the idea that polygamy is not just multiple wives, but multiple spouses of either sex).
I think the reason why people object to more than two people in a marriage is that it's not heteronormative, and people might be getting a lot of kinky sex in a legal and societal-approved fashion, and damn it, I'm not. Heinlien seemed to cop a lot of flack back in the day when he proposed it as a sensible way to raise children Stranger in a strange land, and he addressed negatives of it in Friday. I think every generation resists the next generation's innovations in society - whether they are good or sensible or not on the grounds that they are different and previously unacceptable and therefore always so.
In practical terms, I think a multiple marriage would be difficult to make work well unless you had exceptional people involved who were prepared to be honest about themselves and their failings with their spouses. That's hard enough with one other person, imagine admitting to two or three or four other people that you are grumpy in the morning, or irrational once a month, and trusting them not to talk about you negatively when you're not in hearing. Also the competition within such a marriage would be an issue I think. For me, in a traditional monogamist marriage, I know I am my husband's only love, and he is mine. If I had sister wives, I might feel less important to any of my spouses, and it might not be as successful a relationship for me.
However, I don't think that because I mightn't be happy in a multiple marriage is any reason to stop other people doing it. Sheesh. Oh, but hey, imagine having a marriage with heteros, bi's and gays? Now that would be awesome.
posted by b33j at 12:22 AM on May 16, 2008
1 : marriage in which a spouse of either sex may have more than one mate at the same time — compare polyandry, polygyny 2 : the state of being polygamous (Just drawing attention to the idea that polygamy is not just multiple wives, but multiple spouses of either sex).
I think the reason why people object to more than two people in a marriage is that it's not heteronormative, and people might be getting a lot of kinky sex in a legal and societal-approved fashion, and damn it, I'm not. Heinlien seemed to cop a lot of flack back in the day when he proposed it as a sensible way to raise children Stranger in a strange land, and he addressed negatives of it in Friday. I think every generation resists the next generation's innovations in society - whether they are good or sensible or not on the grounds that they are different and previously unacceptable and therefore always so.
In practical terms, I think a multiple marriage would be difficult to make work well unless you had exceptional people involved who were prepared to be honest about themselves and their failings with their spouses. That's hard enough with one other person, imagine admitting to two or three or four other people that you are grumpy in the morning, or irrational once a month, and trusting them not to talk about you negatively when you're not in hearing. Also the competition within such a marriage would be an issue I think. For me, in a traditional monogamist marriage, I know I am my husband's only love, and he is mine. If I had sister wives, I might feel less important to any of my spouses, and it might not be as successful a relationship for me.
However, I don't think that because I mightn't be happy in a multiple marriage is any reason to stop other people doing it. Sheesh. Oh, but hey, imagine having a marriage with heteros, bi's and gays? Now that would be awesome.
posted by b33j at 12:22 AM on May 16, 2008
The long and short of it is that it turns women into collectable (and sellable) commodities.
Personally though, as a feminist, I find "man with a stable of ten wives"...
If some men get several wives each, then many men get no wives at all.
In the monogamous system its one women at one time. It hurts the "wife sale" market and encourages treating women as people, not commodities.
I think some people need to learn what polygamy is. Polygamy != Polygyny
If polygamy were legal, woman could have multiple husbands and those husbands could simultaneously have multiple wives. Polygamy doesn't mean harem, it means everyone can have more than one spouse.
For a lot of people marriage = love (or should) and they don't think its possible to love more than one person or fully satisfy the maritial contract with more than one spouse. From a purely practical point of view it makes the domestic situation a lot more complicated (and its a lifestyle more suited to communal living) and I imagine divorce law would be a nightmare.
posted by missmagenta at 3:44 AM on May 16, 2008 [1 favorite]
Personally though, as a feminist, I find "man with a stable of ten wives"...
If some men get several wives each, then many men get no wives at all.
In the monogamous system its one women at one time. It hurts the "wife sale" market and encourages treating women as people, not commodities.
I think some people need to learn what polygamy is. Polygamy != Polygyny
If polygamy were legal, woman could have multiple husbands and those husbands could simultaneously have multiple wives. Polygamy doesn't mean harem, it means everyone can have more than one spouse.
For a lot of people marriage = love (or should) and they don't think its possible to love more than one person or fully satisfy the maritial contract with more than one spouse. From a purely practical point of view it makes the domestic situation a lot more complicated (and its a lifestyle more suited to communal living) and I imagine divorce law would be a nightmare.
posted by missmagenta at 3:44 AM on May 16, 2008 [1 favorite]
You guys are not taking this argument far enought, which is--What the hell is anybody but the people involved doing sticking their laws, burocracy, and morals into people's personal, adult, non-abusive relationships in the first place? Marriage is a propertarian, patriarchal construct created to deny rights and to oppress the powerless. Married women denied the right to own property. Restrictive "divorce" statutes. Slaves couldn't get "married." Miscegination statutes. Why do you need some government or religious official to tell you you are "married." If property, tax, and child protection laws were sensible and equitable and if equal work for equal pay existed, you could get rid of the entire statutory infracstructure wholesale.
Folks, if you're going to create a revolution, then FGS create a fucking revolution.
posted by nax at 4:13 AM on May 16, 2008
Folks, if you're going to create a revolution, then FGS create a fucking revolution.
posted by nax at 4:13 AM on May 16, 2008
infastructure. hard to type accurately with the spittle of righteousness flying out of my mouth.
posted by nax at 4:15 AM on May 16, 2008
posted by nax at 4:15 AM on May 16, 2008
Moving this away from the legal to a more practical point: I'm 44 years old, have lived in the US, Canada, and the UK, and have met many women. I have never met ONE who, to my knowledge, would be willing to be part of a polygamous marriage. Has anyone else here? I realize that polygamy is quite common in other cultures, but I can't quite see it happening in the west, outside of religous sub-cultures, unless there's some huge population of polygamy-tolerant women that's been hidden from me all these years...
posted by crazylegs at 4:44 AM on May 16, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by crazylegs at 4:44 AM on May 16, 2008 [1 favorite]
Why do people have a problem with polygamy (of the non-FLDS-child-bride variety)?
I think it's important to start by realizing that marriage of the man + woman type doesn't even mean the same thing to everybody in this country right now. Stephanie Coontz has written a lot about this, and it's very interesting--basically, we're in the middle (historically) of a shift between marriage as an unequal arrangement where women bartered sex in exchange for protection (economic and otherwise) to marriage as a partnership between two equals.
If you subscribe to the second view of marriage--and I'm guessing nearly everybody answering here does--there's not really a coherent reason for opposing same-sex marriage, nor for opposing polygamy. You can even see it above, where people are arguing that polygamy wouldn't mean one man, multiple wives--that's a view that is very grounded in the idea that gender isn't intrinsic to idea of marriage.
However, if you subscribe to the first view of marriage--and there are still A LOT of people who do--then the legalization of same sex marriage is just the most visible manifestation of that shift from the protector/nurturer type of marriage to partner marriage. From the POV of a woman in one of those types of marriage, I imagine that it would be very disconcerting, and very threatening, to watch that happen. (To be clear, I don't subscribe to this view--I fall somewhere between partner-marriage and nax's view above.) If the state starts opening up what marriage can mean and letting people define it based on their feelings, that's all well and good for partners--who presumably have the wherewithall to put their foot down to anything they don't consent to or walk away--but potentially tragic for lots of women who aren't full partners to their husbands, who have not maintained ties to the paid labor market, and who have relied on the idea that marriage was their economic plan. Polygamy, in that type of marriage, means the state has potentially taken away a very real protection that you had after you agreed to sleep with and be monogamous with one man. It's changing the rules of the game in the middle.
posted by iminurmefi at 5:12 AM on May 16, 2008 [5 favorites]
I think it's important to start by realizing that marriage of the man + woman type doesn't even mean the same thing to everybody in this country right now. Stephanie Coontz has written a lot about this, and it's very interesting--basically, we're in the middle (historically) of a shift between marriage as an unequal arrangement where women bartered sex in exchange for protection (economic and otherwise) to marriage as a partnership between two equals.
If you subscribe to the second view of marriage--and I'm guessing nearly everybody answering here does--there's not really a coherent reason for opposing same-sex marriage, nor for opposing polygamy. You can even see it above, where people are arguing that polygamy wouldn't mean one man, multiple wives--that's a view that is very grounded in the idea that gender isn't intrinsic to idea of marriage.
However, if you subscribe to the first view of marriage--and there are still A LOT of people who do--then the legalization of same sex marriage is just the most visible manifestation of that shift from the protector/nurturer type of marriage to partner marriage. From the POV of a woman in one of those types of marriage, I imagine that it would be very disconcerting, and very threatening, to watch that happen. (To be clear, I don't subscribe to this view--I fall somewhere between partner-marriage and nax's view above.) If the state starts opening up what marriage can mean and letting people define it based on their feelings, that's all well and good for partners--who presumably have the wherewithall to put their foot down to anything they don't consent to or walk away--but potentially tragic for lots of women who aren't full partners to their husbands, who have not maintained ties to the paid labor market, and who have relied on the idea that marriage was their economic plan. Polygamy, in that type of marriage, means the state has potentially taken away a very real protection that you had after you agreed to sleep with and be monogamous with one man. It's changing the rules of the game in the middle.
posted by iminurmefi at 5:12 AM on May 16, 2008 [5 favorites]
It's not natural (depends on what species you're looking at)...
If you're going to argue it's "not natural" you can't then pick & choose the species... in any case, polygamous relationships are quite prevalent in the animal world.
...some think that the jihadi phenomenon in the Muslim world is largely fueled by polygamy...
WTF? That's one of the weirdest (& silliest) explanations I've ever heard of the Mujahideen.
I have never met ONE who, to my knowledge, would be willing to be part of a polygamous marriage. Has anyone else here?
Not polygamous marriage per se (it is illegal here in the US), but I have known more than a few people who have been in intimate relationships that involved more than just two people... the catchall term for this is polyamory. Done it myself actually - no more (or less) problems than in any other relationship.
To answer the original question: people often have difficulty with things that are different than what they are familiar with. Unfortunately, a common reaction is to reject & condemn that which is different. The range of reasons for this is pretty wide and diverse and often depends on the social and cultural locations of the people you're considering (as iminurmefi deftly points out).
posted by jammy at 5:19 AM on May 16, 2008
If you're going to argue it's "not natural" you can't then pick & choose the species... in any case, polygamous relationships are quite prevalent in the animal world.
...some think that the jihadi phenomenon in the Muslim world is largely fueled by polygamy...
WTF? That's one of the weirdest (& silliest) explanations I've ever heard of the Mujahideen.
I have never met ONE who, to my knowledge, would be willing to be part of a polygamous marriage. Has anyone else here?
Not polygamous marriage per se (it is illegal here in the US), but I have known more than a few people who have been in intimate relationships that involved more than just two people... the catchall term for this is polyamory. Done it myself actually - no more (or less) problems than in any other relationship.
To answer the original question: people often have difficulty with things that are different than what they are familiar with. Unfortunately, a common reaction is to reject & condemn that which is different. The range of reasons for this is pretty wide and diverse and often depends on the social and cultural locations of the people you're considering (as iminurmefi deftly points out).
posted by jammy at 5:19 AM on May 16, 2008
First, you have to realize that gay marriage is an easy move now that women have pretty much gained legal equality (on its face, if not in practice). This took a lot of the gender roles out of the legal aspects of marriage, and really made it a social contract between two equals. That's how it stands in most jurisdictions, and that's why it's easy to just do a quick bit of cutting and pasting to allow gay people to take part. In order for polygamy to be enacted in such a ho-hum manner, it should be this easy, too.
But polygamy restores the imbalance. When one guy is married to two women (or even if it's one woman and two guys) , gender roles are likely to start being defined again. If the guy and gal A have a kid, does gal B expect and deserve the same rights as a parent as the other two? Are the two gals going to have as much sex as the guy and gal B have? If the guy dies, are the two gals actually going to stay together? These are questions that any institution supporting polygamy has to worry about if it cares about equality, and most courts (and legislatures) don't want to worry about them.
posted by aswego at 5:38 AM on May 16, 2008
But polygamy restores the imbalance. When one guy is married to two women (or even if it's one woman and two guys) , gender roles are likely to start being defined again. If the guy and gal A have a kid, does gal B expect and deserve the same rights as a parent as the other two? Are the two gals going to have as much sex as the guy and gal B have? If the guy dies, are the two gals actually going to stay together? These are questions that any institution supporting polygamy has to worry about if it cares about equality, and most courts (and legislatures) don't want to worry about them.
posted by aswego at 5:38 AM on May 16, 2008
If you subscribe to the second view of marriage--and I'm guessing nearly everybody answering here does--there's not really a coherent reason for opposing same-sex marriage, nor for opposing polygamy.
There might not be any coherent reasons for opposing polyamorous relationships, but there remain boring reasons to oppose polygamy.
Marriage is, mostly, a one size fits all bundle of contracts. Your spouse can make financial decisions that bind you. Your spouse can make medical decisions for you when you can't. Etc.
How would that work in a polygamous marriage? If one spouse signs a contract, does that bind all of them? Do you need a quorum? Unanimity? What do you do if one spouse says to pull the plug on Terminal Spouse, but another says not to? Do they vote? Does the chronologically first spouse decide? Is there a designated primary spouse who decides? How do you handle divorce law when one person divorces five others? How do you handle divorce law when one person divorces two other people in a group marriage, but not the other three? If A is married to B and B is married to C, are A and C also married even if they've never taken vows to each other?
To be sure, the state could just pick some answers to those questions arbitrarily and define that as polygamous marriage: unanimity is required, they vote, you treat the rest of the spouses as a unitary-rational actor, you can't do that, yes. But it seems to me that polygamy is much less well suited to one-size-fits-all measures, and that it's not unreasonable to expect people to establish durable-power-of-attorney, medical decision-making, financial arrangements upon dissolution, and other contracts separately if they want to construct their own special kind of marriage.
The other obvious knock against polygamous marriage is that it can be expected to be much more prone to benefit-related and immigration-related fraud. Monogamous marriage has the self-limiting quality that if I'm married to you to get you into the country or to get you benefits, I can't also marry someone I love. This is especially true for benefits, which usually cease on divorce. But if I can marry my love anyway, why not marry someone who needs health insurance and is willing to pay every month for the privilege? I don't think this is going to go away until we have some sort of national health care such that benefits like that are a much smaller deal.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 6:09 AM on May 16, 2008 [3 favorites]
There might not be any coherent reasons for opposing polyamorous relationships, but there remain boring reasons to oppose polygamy.
Marriage is, mostly, a one size fits all bundle of contracts. Your spouse can make financial decisions that bind you. Your spouse can make medical decisions for you when you can't. Etc.
How would that work in a polygamous marriage? If one spouse signs a contract, does that bind all of them? Do you need a quorum? Unanimity? What do you do if one spouse says to pull the plug on Terminal Spouse, but another says not to? Do they vote? Does the chronologically first spouse decide? Is there a designated primary spouse who decides? How do you handle divorce law when one person divorces five others? How do you handle divorce law when one person divorces two other people in a group marriage, but not the other three? If A is married to B and B is married to C, are A and C also married even if they've never taken vows to each other?
To be sure, the state could just pick some answers to those questions arbitrarily and define that as polygamous marriage: unanimity is required, they vote, you treat the rest of the spouses as a unitary-rational actor, you can't do that, yes. But it seems to me that polygamy is much less well suited to one-size-fits-all measures, and that it's not unreasonable to expect people to establish durable-power-of-attorney, medical decision-making, financial arrangements upon dissolution, and other contracts separately if they want to construct their own special kind of marriage.
The other obvious knock against polygamous marriage is that it can be expected to be much more prone to benefit-related and immigration-related fraud. Monogamous marriage has the self-limiting quality that if I'm married to you to get you into the country or to get you benefits, I can't also marry someone I love. This is especially true for benefits, which usually cease on divorce. But if I can marry my love anyway, why not marry someone who needs health insurance and is willing to pay every month for the privilege? I don't think this is going to go away until we have some sort of national health care such that benefits like that are a much smaller deal.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 6:09 AM on May 16, 2008 [3 favorites]
women have pretty much gained legal equality (on its face, if not in practice). This took a lot of the gender roles out of the legal aspects of marriage, and really made it a social contract between two equals. That's how it stands in most jurisdictions
This is less true than you might imagine. For instance, in my jurisdiction (VA), it wasn't until 1986 that raping your wife was even considered a crime (it took until 1993 for it to become a crime in every state), and it wasn't until 2005 that the penalties for marital rape were set equal to the penalties for raping someone not married to you. Some states--like West Virginia--still have lesser punishments for marital rape than for non-marital rape.
One could also make a pretty strong argument that our current tax code is set up in a way that is discriminatory against the spouse that brings in less money (most times, the wife): the second income is taxed at a higher marginal rate, which has the effect of encouraging women to drop out of the workforce, particularly after having children. (How many articles have you seen that tell women to calculate whether it costs them more in terms of day care, taxes, etc. to work than they actually bring home?)
This goes directly to the previously widespread attitudes towards marriage I pointed out above: if you believe that men and women have different rights and responsibilities within marriage--women have the responsibility for providing sex, having children, and caring for those children, and men have a responsibility to provide for their wives and children--it's not far to set up laws that reflect those values. Same sex marriage is but one (albeit the most visible) clash between these two conceptualizations of marriage. And it's a difficult policy question, too, because some of those laws were created explicitly to protect women in marriage, so moving to a more gender-blind law might have the effect of removing protections for women that are still in more traditional marriages. I think no-fault divorce laws are a good example of this, and polygamy is probably another.
(On preview--yes, ROU_Xenophobe, I think there are other good policy reasons for not legalizing polygamy, particularly the ones you've laid out. But those aren't the ones that people are usually referring to when they invoke the "same sex marriage will lead to polygamy" sort of rhetoric--I think that's much more based in the fear that removing gender from the marriage equation will lead to the crumbling of the traditional types of marriage. Which, ironically, are crumbling plenty fine on their own, even without letting gays marry.)
posted by iminurmefi at 6:42 AM on May 16, 2008
This is less true than you might imagine. For instance, in my jurisdiction (VA), it wasn't until 1986 that raping your wife was even considered a crime (it took until 1993 for it to become a crime in every state), and it wasn't until 2005 that the penalties for marital rape were set equal to the penalties for raping someone not married to you. Some states--like West Virginia--still have lesser punishments for marital rape than for non-marital rape.
One could also make a pretty strong argument that our current tax code is set up in a way that is discriminatory against the spouse that brings in less money (most times, the wife): the second income is taxed at a higher marginal rate, which has the effect of encouraging women to drop out of the workforce, particularly after having children. (How many articles have you seen that tell women to calculate whether it costs them more in terms of day care, taxes, etc. to work than they actually bring home?)
This goes directly to the previously widespread attitudes towards marriage I pointed out above: if you believe that men and women have different rights and responsibilities within marriage--women have the responsibility for providing sex, having children, and caring for those children, and men have a responsibility to provide for their wives and children--it's not far to set up laws that reflect those values. Same sex marriage is but one (albeit the most visible) clash between these two conceptualizations of marriage. And it's a difficult policy question, too, because some of those laws were created explicitly to protect women in marriage, so moving to a more gender-blind law might have the effect of removing protections for women that are still in more traditional marriages. I think no-fault divorce laws are a good example of this, and polygamy is probably another.
(On preview--yes, ROU_Xenophobe, I think there are other good policy reasons for not legalizing polygamy, particularly the ones you've laid out. But those aren't the ones that people are usually referring to when they invoke the "same sex marriage will lead to polygamy" sort of rhetoric--I think that's much more based in the fear that removing gender from the marriage equation will lead to the crumbling of the traditional types of marriage. Which, ironically, are crumbling plenty fine on their own, even without letting gays marry.)
posted by iminurmefi at 6:42 AM on May 16, 2008
Most societies don't really support it for practical reasons (not saying this is why members of a society don't support it, but why most cultures tend to reject it)
1. It's expensive for the men, who are usually the ones with multiple wives
2. Most people don't really want to have their partner be married to multiple partners
3. It's really complicated for figuring out other aspects of society (like inheritance)
4. There aren't enough women around for it to make sense: polygamy would work more for a society or place where the birthrate is really uneven.
5. The young men end up with the choice of either no wife at all (they're all taken by the older man) or marrying girls who are quite young to get ahead of the game. That encourages a whole other slew of problems.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 6:43 AM on May 16, 2008
1. It's expensive for the men, who are usually the ones with multiple wives
2. Most people don't really want to have their partner be married to multiple partners
3. It's really complicated for figuring out other aspects of society (like inheritance)
4. There aren't enough women around for it to make sense: polygamy would work more for a society or place where the birthrate is really uneven.
5. The young men end up with the choice of either no wife at all (they're all taken by the older man) or marrying girls who are quite young to get ahead of the game. That encourages a whole other slew of problems.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 6:43 AM on May 16, 2008
There aren't enough women around for it to make sense: polygamy would work more for a society or place where the birthrate is really uneven.
Or... a place where the majority of men are away at war. I've long suspected that the reason Muslim men were permitted to take four wives was because the majority of the Arab tribesmen were out fighting wars of conquest and never came home again.
posted by Class Goat at 6:55 AM on May 16, 2008
Or... a place where the majority of men are away at war. I've long suspected that the reason Muslim men were permitted to take four wives was because the majority of the Arab tribesmen were out fighting wars of conquest and never came home again.
posted by Class Goat at 6:55 AM on May 16, 2008
Really? This argument is still going on? People being told what not to do with their penises and vaginas?
What about those girls being ordered to serve their husbands under the guise of religion, guaranteed by the state? I'd say that "polygamists" raised this point by demanding legal protection in the first place. Nobody should tell someone what to do, and therefore that includes every demand for legal sanctions and state permissions that support an unequal arrangement. These arrangements are usually so imbalanced and unjustified that anyone rational could expect that they usually arrive in the form of commandments channeled from "divine" sources, and they do.
posted by Brian B. at 7:02 AM on May 16, 2008
What about those girls being ordered to serve their husbands under the guise of religion, guaranteed by the state? I'd say that "polygamists" raised this point by demanding legal protection in the first place. Nobody should tell someone what to do, and therefore that includes every demand for legal sanctions and state permissions that support an unequal arrangement. These arrangements are usually so imbalanced and unjustified that anyone rational could expect that they usually arrive in the form of commandments channeled from "divine" sources, and they do.
posted by Brian B. at 7:02 AM on May 16, 2008
This is less true than you might imagine. For instance, in my jurisdiction (VA), it wasn't until 1986 that raping your wife was even considered a crime (it took until 1993 for it to become a crime in every state), and it wasn't until 2005 that the penalties for marital rape were set equal to the penalties for raping someone not married to you. Some states--like West Virginia--still have lesser punishments for marital rape than for non-marital rape.
One could also make a pretty strong argument that our current tax code is set up in a way that is discriminatory against the spouse that brings in less money (most times, the wife)
Fair enough, on the spousal rape issues. The tax stuff is the exact type of issue that led me to write "on its face, if not in practice." My (and ROU_Xenophobe's) point still stands about polygamy being a bitch to legally implement. You're right that this isn't why the religious crowd is against polygamy, but it's exactly why even the most liberal courts (courts arguably having more influence than a special interest group) won't implement it. It'd involve rewriting too much of our law at once, often specifically because polygamy puts gender back into the equation.
posted by aswego at 7:31 AM on May 16, 2008 [1 favorite]
One could also make a pretty strong argument that our current tax code is set up in a way that is discriminatory against the spouse that brings in less money (most times, the wife)
Fair enough, on the spousal rape issues. The tax stuff is the exact type of issue that led me to write "on its face, if not in practice." My (and ROU_Xenophobe's) point still stands about polygamy being a bitch to legally implement. You're right that this isn't why the religious crowd is against polygamy, but it's exactly why even the most liberal courts (courts arguably having more influence than a special interest group) won't implement it. It'd involve rewriting too much of our law at once, often specifically because polygamy puts gender back into the equation.
posted by aswego at 7:31 AM on May 16, 2008 [1 favorite]
I'm really confused. Why is everybody assuming that polygamy always results in 1 dude + N wives? I do know that the word frequently is meant to refer to that arrangement. But, I cannot imagine that the Supreme Court of any western nation is going to rule that polygamy should be granted as a right to only men, who are then allowed to marry only women.
There're numerous ways of organizing a marriage that involves multiple people. Polyandry has been practiced in a number of places. Heinlein and Niven have provided us with fictional examples of polyamorous relations of remarkable elegance. And they didn't even really provide for bisexuality. As a bisexual myself, if my wife wanted to and they made it legal, I might consider adding a third person to our marriage--preferably another bisexual male. This doesn't appear to change the available male:female ratio or subjugate women.
I find myself intrigued by the way in which people have answered the question, not so much with the content of their posts, but the tone of their posts. They've very much demonstrated the very sorts of prejudices that have kept polygamy illegal.
posted by Netzapper at 7:40 AM on May 16, 2008 [1 favorite]
There're numerous ways of organizing a marriage that involves multiple people. Polyandry has been practiced in a number of places. Heinlein and Niven have provided us with fictional examples of polyamorous relations of remarkable elegance. And they didn't even really provide for bisexuality. As a bisexual myself, if my wife wanted to and they made it legal, I might consider adding a third person to our marriage--preferably another bisexual male. This doesn't appear to change the available male:female ratio or subjugate women.
I find myself intrigued by the way in which people have answered the question, not so much with the content of their posts, but the tone of their posts. They've very much demonstrated the very sorts of prejudices that have kept polygamy illegal.
posted by Netzapper at 7:40 AM on May 16, 2008 [1 favorite]
Why is everybody assuming that polygamy always results in 1 dude + N wives?
That's what the word means.
"poly" == many
"gamy" == women
posted by Class Goat at 8:03 AM on May 16, 2008
That's what the word means.
"poly" == many
"gamy" == women
posted by Class Goat at 8:03 AM on May 16, 2008
Why is everybody assuming that polygamy always results in 1 dude + N wives?
Most people are aware that in theory that's not the case. But as far as I know, all the major religious and cultural groups that practice polygamy at this point practice it that way. So perhaps they think that, because it's pretty much always been the case?
posted by jacquilynne at 8:04 AM on May 16, 2008
Most people are aware that in theory that's not the case. But as far as I know, all the major religious and cultural groups that practice polygamy at this point practice it that way. So perhaps they think that, because it's pretty much always been the case?
posted by jacquilynne at 8:04 AM on May 16, 2008
It's probably too late to do anything about it now, but this thread has turned into chatfilter. That's not what AskMe is supposed to be for.
posted by Class Goat at 8:04 AM on May 16, 2008
posted by Class Goat at 8:04 AM on May 16, 2008
Are there any examples of polygamous communities or societies where everything worked out and there weren't any problems (ie a positive example to point to as a success)?
I think everyone has negative examples in their heads of what happens, which colors the debate. However, if there are only negative examples and no positive ones, then that is a pretty strong argument against.
posted by sandking at 8:13 AM on May 16, 2008
I think everyone has negative examples in their heads of what happens, which colors the debate. However, if there are only negative examples and no positive ones, then that is a pretty strong argument against.
posted by sandking at 8:13 AM on May 16, 2008
It's not natural (depends on what species you're looking at) and it says in the Bible 2 people in a marriage (which doesn't exactly fly for people of different religious beliefs).
Those of Judeo-Christian beliefs see it as the way it was laid out by God to live - one Adam, one Eve.
It's worth pointing out that there are almost no examples of "traditional" marriage in the Bible.
Adam & Eve both had the same father (God), so they were arguably brother & sister. Their children would have had incestuous marriages as well, out of necessity. Abraham married his half-sister and took her maidservant as his wife as well. Lot had children with his two daughters. Jacob had two wives and two concubines. David married at least 8 women and had children with multiple concubines, had a man killed so he could steal his wife, and hired a teenage girl to sleep in his bed when he was an old man. Solomon ("the wisest man who ever lived") took the cake with 700 wives and 300 concubines. Moses was adopted by a single mother, and it's implied that he had two wives. In the New Testament, Mary got pregnant out of wedlock. Jesus never got married at all, choosing to spend his nights sleeping exclusively in the company of men, and when he did associate with women, they tended to be prostitutes.
There may be legitimate reasons to think of marriage as being between one man & one woman, but "because the Bible says so" is about as weak as it gets.
posted by designbot at 8:23 AM on May 16, 2008 [1 favorite]
Those of Judeo-Christian beliefs see it as the way it was laid out by God to live - one Adam, one Eve.
It's worth pointing out that there are almost no examples of "traditional" marriage in the Bible.
Adam & Eve both had the same father (God), so they were arguably brother & sister. Their children would have had incestuous marriages as well, out of necessity. Abraham married his half-sister and took her maidservant as his wife as well. Lot had children with his two daughters. Jacob had two wives and two concubines. David married at least 8 women and had children with multiple concubines, had a man killed so he could steal his wife, and hired a teenage girl to sleep in his bed when he was an old man. Solomon ("the wisest man who ever lived") took the cake with 700 wives and 300 concubines. Moses was adopted by a single mother, and it's implied that he had two wives. In the New Testament, Mary got pregnant out of wedlock. Jesus never got married at all, choosing to spend his nights sleeping exclusively in the company of men, and when he did associate with women, they tended to be prostitutes.
There may be legitimate reasons to think of marriage as being between one man & one woman, but "because the Bible says so" is about as weak as it gets.
posted by designbot at 8:23 AM on May 16, 2008 [1 favorite]
That's what the word means.
"poly" == many
"gamy" == women
You're thinking of polygny.
posted by designbot at 8:25 AM on May 16, 2008 [1 favorite]
"poly" == many
"gamy" == women
You're thinking of polygny.
posted by designbot at 8:25 AM on May 16, 2008 [1 favorite]
Why is everybody assuming that polygamy always results in 1 dude + N wives?
Because that is nearly always what it means. Umpty-high percent of the time, polygamy = polygyny.
There're numerous ways of organizing a marriage that involves multiple people. Polyandry has been practiced in a number of places.
Googling around, polyandric societies have been relatively rare and small, especially compared to at-least-nominally polygynous ones. And it seems that many/most of the societies that practiced polyandry practiced only fraternal polyandry, where multiple brothers share a single wife.
Heinlein and Niven have provided us with fictional examples of polyamorous relations of remarkable elegance.
Heinlein also provided us with fictional examples of functional incestuous relationships and women who don't really mind being violently raped from time to time. Citing Heinlein and Niven doesn't establish that polygamy is workable any more than it establishes that hyperspace is workable or that all aliens will be psychologically indistinguishable from late-20th-century Californians, or than John Norman's tripe establishes that women really do want to be enslaved to men.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:49 AM on May 16, 2008 [2 favorites]
Because that is nearly always what it means. Umpty-high percent of the time, polygamy = polygyny.
There're numerous ways of organizing a marriage that involves multiple people. Polyandry has been practiced in a number of places.
Googling around, polyandric societies have been relatively rare and small, especially compared to at-least-nominally polygynous ones. And it seems that many/most of the societies that practiced polyandry practiced only fraternal polyandry, where multiple brothers share a single wife.
Heinlein and Niven have provided us with fictional examples of polyamorous relations of remarkable elegance.
Heinlein also provided us with fictional examples of functional incestuous relationships and women who don't really mind being violently raped from time to time. Citing Heinlein and Niven doesn't establish that polygamy is workable any more than it establishes that hyperspace is workable or that all aliens will be psychologically indistinguishable from late-20th-century Californians, or than John Norman's tripe establishes that women really do want to be enslaved to men.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:49 AM on May 16, 2008 [2 favorites]
Why do people have a problem with polygamy (of the non-FLDS-child-bride variety)?
Because that's what it usually descends into pretty quickly.
posted by Ironmouth at 9:11 AM on May 16, 2008 [1 favorite]
Because that's what it usually descends into pretty quickly.
posted by Ironmouth at 9:11 AM on May 16, 2008 [1 favorite]
Simply from a legal and logistical standpoint, marriage is an easy way to say "this one person right here is the one with who I will share everything I've got, and, if something happens to me, who will take care of my kids, make my medical decisions, and (eventually) inherit my stuff."
If I'm married to 2 (or more) people, who takes those responsibilities? What if they don't agree on my medical treatment or how to raise my (our?) kids?
Some decisions can't be made by a committee. That's why we designate one person to do it.
I would be much more comfortable with a society where these civil unions could allow people to designate any one person at all that they wanted to have that responsibility, whether same sex or opposite sex, relative or best friend. That to me is the next issue that is actually feasible and interesting to debate, while polygamy is unlikely to ever fit into that framework.
posted by hydropsyche at 9:41 AM on May 16, 2008
If I'm married to 2 (or more) people, who takes those responsibilities? What if they don't agree on my medical treatment or how to raise my (our?) kids?
Some decisions can't be made by a committee. That's why we designate one person to do it.
I would be much more comfortable with a society where these civil unions could allow people to designate any one person at all that they wanted to have that responsibility, whether same sex or opposite sex, relative or best friend. That to me is the next issue that is actually feasible and interesting to debate, while polygamy is unlikely to ever fit into that framework.
posted by hydropsyche at 9:41 AM on May 16, 2008
You guys are not taking this argument far enought, which is--What the hell is anybody but the people involved doing sticking their laws, burocracy, and morals into people's personal, adult, non-abusive relationships in the first place? Marriage is a propertarian, patriarchal construct created to deny rights and to oppress the powerless. Married women denied the right to own property. Restrictive "divorce" statutes. Slaves couldn't get "married." Miscegination statutes. Why do you need some government or religious official to tell you you are "married." If property, tax, and child protection laws were sensible and equitable and if equal work for equal pay existed, you could get rid of the entire statutory infracstructure wholesale.
So according to this argument (and many, many others - I'd even dare say most arguments), not only should marital privileges be extended to monogamous and polygamous relationships, but also incestuous relationships. Why shouldn't a man be allowed to marry his daughter? Or even inter-species marriage. Marriage to consenting minors? Where do we draw the line, why do we draw a line, and how do we draw a line.
It's a confusing mess, which is part of the reason that, though I may have my opinions and/or beliefs, I have an impossible time legislating them.
posted by Detuned Radio at 10:35 AM on May 16, 2008
So according to this argument (and many, many others - I'd even dare say most arguments), not only should marital privileges be extended to monogamous and polygamous relationships, but also incestuous relationships. Why shouldn't a man be allowed to marry his daughter? Or even inter-species marriage. Marriage to consenting minors? Where do we draw the line, why do we draw a line, and how do we draw a line.
It's a confusing mess, which is part of the reason that, though I may have my opinions and/or beliefs, I have an impossible time legislating them.
posted by Detuned Radio at 10:35 AM on May 16, 2008
Read Robert Wright's book The Moral Animal -- he makes an extended argument against polygamy. The standard liberal argument against polygamy is that it oppresses women. But Wright says it might actually be good for women. The problem is that it oppresses men.
Every time a man gets an extra wife, that's one man out there somewhere who's not going to have a wife available to him. (This assumes equal numbers of men and women, and that a negligible percentage of the population is gay -- pretty realistic assumptions.) So polygamy systematically leaves a bunch of men out in the cold, with lower status, no family to call their own, inadequate companionship, no safe sexual outlet, etc.
So which is worse -- oppressing men or oppressing women? Well, which gender is more likely to resort to a life of crime and violence? Men are, and that's what they're likely to do if they're left roaming around on their own, feeling sexually frustrated and rejected. So it's not just bad for the men who are low on the totem pole -- it's bad for society.
On a totally separate note, the marriage issue involves tangible government benefits. If my gay friend can't get married to their soul mate, that person gets zero of the benefits I can get as a straight person if I get married to my soul mate. But if someone decides to have multiple spouses, they'd presumably be getting more benefits than a one-spouse married person. So there's a straightforward, tangible, economic distinction between monogamous marriage and polygamous marriage.
posted by Jaltcoh at 11:58 AM on May 16, 2008
Every time a man gets an extra wife, that's one man out there somewhere who's not going to have a wife available to him. (This assumes equal numbers of men and women, and that a negligible percentage of the population is gay -- pretty realistic assumptions.) So polygamy systematically leaves a bunch of men out in the cold, with lower status, no family to call their own, inadequate companionship, no safe sexual outlet, etc.
So which is worse -- oppressing men or oppressing women? Well, which gender is more likely to resort to a life of crime and violence? Men are, and that's what they're likely to do if they're left roaming around on their own, feeling sexually frustrated and rejected. So it's not just bad for the men who are low on the totem pole -- it's bad for society.
On a totally separate note, the marriage issue involves tangible government benefits. If my gay friend can't get married to their soul mate, that person gets zero of the benefits I can get as a straight person if I get married to my soul mate. But if someone decides to have multiple spouses, they'd presumably be getting more benefits than a one-spouse married person. So there's a straightforward, tangible, economic distinction between monogamous marriage and polygamous marriage.
posted by Jaltcoh at 11:58 AM on May 16, 2008
Are there any examples of polygamous communities or societies where everything worked out and there weren't any problems (ie a positive example to point to as a success)?
Well, many societies that engage in it do so to deal with certain societal pressures. In some African cultures, if a woman's husband dies his brother marries her to provide for her and any children (since in these societies the women often don't have a way to support themselves.) However, this really facilitates the spread of things like AIDS.
Another case, where actually one woman marries multiple men, happens in areas where the local culture is based on agriculture or horticulture and if the family's land were to be split between several brothers there simply wouldn't be enough. In these places sometimes several brothers will marry one woman to avoid splitting up resources. A lot of Western countries dealt with this by only giving the land to the eldest male child.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 2:35 PM on May 16, 2008
Well, many societies that engage in it do so to deal with certain societal pressures. In some African cultures, if a woman's husband dies his brother marries her to provide for her and any children (since in these societies the women often don't have a way to support themselves.) However, this really facilitates the spread of things like AIDS.
Another case, where actually one woman marries multiple men, happens in areas where the local culture is based on agriculture or horticulture and if the family's land were to be split between several brothers there simply wouldn't be enough. In these places sometimes several brothers will marry one woman to avoid splitting up resources. A lot of Western countries dealt with this by only giving the land to the eldest male child.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 2:35 PM on May 16, 2008
That's what the word means.
"poly" == many
"gamy" == women
Sorry, no. The suffix "gamy" is derived from the Greek word "gamos" which means "marriage" (sometimes "union"). So what polygamy actually means (at least in terms of its linguistic origins) is "having multiple marriage partners."
Are there any examples of polygamous communities or societies where everything worked out and there weren't any problems (ie a positive example to point to as a success)?
Hmm... are there any examples of monogamous communities or societies where everything worked out and there weren't any problems (i.e., a positive example to point to as a success)?
posted by jammy at 4:38 PM on May 16, 2008
"poly" == many
"gamy" == women
Sorry, no. The suffix "gamy" is derived from the Greek word "gamos" which means "marriage" (sometimes "union"). So what polygamy actually means (at least in terms of its linguistic origins) is "having multiple marriage partners."
Are there any examples of polygamous communities or societies where everything worked out and there weren't any problems (ie a positive example to point to as a success)?
Hmm... are there any examples of monogamous communities or societies where everything worked out and there weren't any problems (i.e., a positive example to point to as a success)?
posted by jammy at 4:38 PM on May 16, 2008
Hmm... are there any examples of monogamous communities or societies where everything worked out and there weren't any problems (i.e., a positive example to point to as a success)?
If there were, then that would be evidence against marriage in general, not evidence for polygamy. Why compound a problem?
posted by Brian B. at 5:57 PM on May 16, 2008
If there were, then that would be evidence against marriage in general, not evidence for polygamy. Why compound a problem?
posted by Brian B. at 5:57 PM on May 16, 2008
Detuned Radio please note that I specified "adult" and "non abusive" as a criterion for keeping the gummint out of my personal relationships. Naturally we need to protect children. But our laws currently make the assumption that the ONLY way to do this is through marriage restrictions and in fact, silogistically, that monogamous hetersexual relationships create safe homes for children (Hetero monogamous relationships are good for children, good people are heterosexual and monogamous, therefore children in these households are safe; and conversely childen NOT in such households are NOT safe). As I said, child protection laws, tax laws and property laws could in fact be written in such a way that all adults are treated equally as individuals and not either penalized for staying single (by force if you happen to be gay) or rewarded beyond your actual contribution or value to society because you happen to be married. In fact, such non-marriage based laws are especially critical to children, because our current system assumes that adults in monogamous heterosexual relationships are by definition "moral" and "responsible" and the children in their care are assumed to be well cared for.
posted by nax at 1:31 AM on May 17, 2008
posted by nax at 1:31 AM on May 17, 2008
If there were, then that would be evidence against marriage in general, not evidence for polygamy. Why compound a problem?
Brian B., if there were examples of societies with problem-free monogamy, I would think this to be evidence for marriage in general, not against.
In any case, I was simply trying to point out how high the bar was being set: "everything worked out and there weren't any problems" - I don't know of any social arrangement or relationship that can claim this.
posted by jammy at 7:24 AM on May 17, 2008
Brian B., if there were examples of societies with problem-free monogamy, I would think this to be evidence for marriage in general, not against.
In any case, I was simply trying to point out how high the bar was being set: "everything worked out and there weren't any problems" - I don't know of any social arrangement or relationship that can claim this.
posted by jammy at 7:24 AM on May 17, 2008
Brian B., if there were examples of societies with problem-free monogamy, I would think this to be evidence for marriage in general, not against.
True, I took your tone for the point of the remark. The problems with monogamy don't support polygamy. When all kinds of breeding arrangements are examined, polygamy looks weakest, because of the genetic "bottleneck" of having one decrepit-minded man infect so many stupid women with his mental illness. If we're going to have a socialist breeding state, as polygamy dictates (currently supported by rampant welfare fraud), then I prefer random mating with no marriage.
posted by Brian B. at 9:15 AM on May 17, 2008
True, I took your tone for the point of the remark. The problems with monogamy don't support polygamy. When all kinds of breeding arrangements are examined, polygamy looks weakest, because of the genetic "bottleneck" of having one decrepit-minded man infect so many stupid women with his mental illness. If we're going to have a socialist breeding state, as polygamy dictates (currently supported by rampant welfare fraud), then I prefer random mating with no marriage.
posted by Brian B. at 9:15 AM on May 17, 2008
Brian B. - I agree that the problems with monogamy don't support polygamy - and both have problems aplenty. Still, I think it's hardly fair to demand that polygamy produce perfect examples to justify itself while monogamy gets a free pass.
Again, while it is true that patriarchy has caused polygamy to be mostly a matter of one man + many women, it is still not the only possibility. I simply don't see any reason why, if a man & a woman can be married, or a man & a man, or a woman & a woman, then why can't a man & a man & a woman or any combination thereof be married?
That said, I also would prefer no marriage. While there are all manner of cultural & social values embodied in it, and I'm not going to try & deny anyone the personal value they derive from it (whoever wants to jump a broom together can as far as I'm concerned), I find it hard to see it as anything other than another way the state privileges certain groups above others.
Actually, I guess what I'd like, now that I've said that, is for the state to get the hell out of the equation. But then, I'd prefer that for pretty much anything.
(whoa... sorry for the run-on sentences.)
posted by jammy at 10:48 AM on May 17, 2008
Again, while it is true that patriarchy has caused polygamy to be mostly a matter of one man + many women, it is still not the only possibility. I simply don't see any reason why, if a man & a woman can be married, or a man & a man, or a woman & a woman, then why can't a man & a man & a woman or any combination thereof be married?
That said, I also would prefer no marriage. While there are all manner of cultural & social values embodied in it, and I'm not going to try & deny anyone the personal value they derive from it (whoever wants to jump a broom together can as far as I'm concerned), I find it hard to see it as anything other than another way the state privileges certain groups above others.
Actually, I guess what I'd like, now that I've said that, is for the state to get the hell out of the equation. But then, I'd prefer that for pretty much anything.
(whoa... sorry for the run-on sentences.)
posted by jammy at 10:48 AM on May 17, 2008
Again, while it is true that patriarchy has caused polygamy to be mostly a matter of one man + many women, it is still not the only possibility. I simply don't see any reason why, if a man & a woman can be married, or a man & a man, or a woman & a woman, then why can't a man & a man & a woman or any combination thereof be married?
Well, that's true in theory, but we should be realistic. What kinds of polygamous marriages are most common? Who's more likely to be seen as someone capable of providing for multiple spouses -- a man or a woman?
Saying that polygamy could apply to any gender combination is like saying that illegal immigration in the United States could apply to people from any country. Technically true, but unrealistic. Illegal immigration in the United States is mostly about people immigrating from Mexico, and polygamy is mostly about men having multiple wives. I don't see the point in ignoring reality.
posted by Jaltcoh at 11:33 AM on May 17, 2008
Well, that's true in theory, but we should be realistic. What kinds of polygamous marriages are most common? Who's more likely to be seen as someone capable of providing for multiple spouses -- a man or a woman?
Saying that polygamy could apply to any gender combination is like saying that illegal immigration in the United States could apply to people from any country. Technically true, but unrealistic. Illegal immigration in the United States is mostly about people immigrating from Mexico, and polygamy is mostly about men having multiple wives. I don't see the point in ignoring reality.
posted by Jaltcoh at 11:33 AM on May 17, 2008
Jaltcoh, no one's talking about ignoring reality. Saying "that's just the way it is" is ignoring reality in that reality (especially social reality) isn't static, it's dynamic. For instance, once upon a time in this country the only people who talked about the "threat" of "illegal immigrants" was David Duke & his ilk (though they used to like to call them "aliens"). Now it's openly discussed on the floors of Congress.
More importantly, as the right-wing activists who engineered that delightful situation understood, we can change reality (especially social reality). Given that jytsai originally posed this question in the context of the rightwing trying to use polygamy as a bugaboo to defeat gay marriage legislation, I think it is entirely appropriate to not only discuss what we're stuck with presently, but also to address what's possible.
Anyways, let me ask you: Me & Jack & Jane are in love & want to get married - If we're so lucky to be allowed to do so, what would you call our arrangement?
posted by jammy at 1:45 PM on May 17, 2008 [1 favorite]
More importantly, as the right-wing activists who engineered that delightful situation understood, we can change reality (especially social reality). Given that jytsai originally posed this question in the context of the rightwing trying to use polygamy as a bugaboo to defeat gay marriage legislation, I think it is entirely appropriate to not only discuss what we're stuck with presently, but also to address what's possible.
Anyways, let me ask you: Me & Jack & Jane are in love & want to get married - If we're so lucky to be allowed to do so, what would you call our arrangement?
posted by jammy at 1:45 PM on May 17, 2008 [1 favorite]
Anyways, let me ask you: Me & Jack & Jane are in love & want to get married - If we're so lucky to be allowed to do so, what would you call our arrangement?
Obviously that's polygamy. It's not likely, and society wouldn't be "lucky" for it to happen even if you might think you're lucky. This debate should be about what's realistically going to happen. And everyone knows that what would happen is men having multiple wives, not some lefty polyamorous utopia. You'd overwhelmingly get patriarchal relationships, which would exacerbate problems with gender roles, unequal distribution of wealth, and crime. You can say this wouldn't happen, but it would happen. If the question is whether to condone polygamy, then the question is whether we should condone that.
I want society to accept people of the same sex marrying each other. The biggest roadblock to that imaginable is if people thought we'd be on a slippery slope to allowing polygamy and expanding the definition of "marriage" past the breaking point. I'm confident it won't happen.
posted by Jaltcoh at 2:11 PM on May 17, 2008 [1 favorite]
Obviously that's polygamy. It's not likely, and society wouldn't be "lucky" for it to happen even if you might think you're lucky. This debate should be about what's realistically going to happen. And everyone knows that what would happen is men having multiple wives, not some lefty polyamorous utopia. You'd overwhelmingly get patriarchal relationships, which would exacerbate problems with gender roles, unequal distribution of wealth, and crime. You can say this wouldn't happen, but it would happen. If the question is whether to condone polygamy, then the question is whether we should condone that.
I want society to accept people of the same sex marrying each other. The biggest roadblock to that imaginable is if people thought we'd be on a slippery slope to allowing polygamy and expanding the definition of "marriage" past the breaking point. I'm confident it won't happen.
posted by Jaltcoh at 2:11 PM on May 17, 2008 [1 favorite]
Well, someone's spoiling for a fight, aren't they? You may not believe it, Jaltcoh, but I'm not your enemy....
I assume you know that polygamy already exists? It's already happened to "society" & has been happening for a long time - though I suppose here you're really just referring to the U.S., no?
And, duh, given the fact that patriarchy is the dominant norm over almost the entire planet, then of course it ends up privileging men - as does monogamy. Do you really think that monogamy isn't overwhelmingly about patriarchal relationships, that it exacerbates & contributes it's own problems re: gender roles, unequal distribution of wealth, crime, etc.?
Ultimately, everything you're talking about is a problem of patriarchy, not alternatives to monogamy. And the biggest roadblock to the acceptance of gay marriage is bigotry & ignorance, not some bugbear distraction of rightwing blowhards (as if they give a shit about the status of women). You can say that pandering to such bigotry & ignorance will win acceptance for people who are different. I'm confident that history tells us time & again (trans folk represent!) that this strategy loses us more ground than it gains.
posted by jammy at 5:17 PM on May 17, 2008
I assume you know that polygamy already exists? It's already happened to "society" & has been happening for a long time - though I suppose here you're really just referring to the U.S., no?
And, duh, given the fact that patriarchy is the dominant norm over almost the entire planet, then of course it ends up privileging men - as does monogamy. Do you really think that monogamy isn't overwhelmingly about patriarchal relationships, that it exacerbates & contributes it's own problems re: gender roles, unequal distribution of wealth, crime, etc.?
Ultimately, everything you're talking about is a problem of patriarchy, not alternatives to monogamy. And the biggest roadblock to the acceptance of gay marriage is bigotry & ignorance, not some bugbear distraction of rightwing blowhards (as if they give a shit about the status of women). You can say that pandering to such bigotry & ignorance will win acceptance for people who are different. I'm confident that history tells us time & again (trans folk represent!) that this strategy loses us more ground than it gains.
posted by jammy at 5:17 PM on May 17, 2008
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by loiseau at 8:42 PM on May 15, 2008