Polyamorous/polygamist relationships: good or bad? Why?

[Divinus Arma]

Is polyamority (sic prolly) or polygamy between consenting adults wrong?

It's illegal here in the states, but should it be? Why?

[HoreTore]

I don't see how it's any of the state's business what consenting adults do in the bedroom.*

So no.

*for obvious health reasons, this does not include incest. You hear that, royals?

[Fragony]

Not my business

[The Celtic Viking]

I must agree with the majority here. I see no reason why it shouldn't be legal.

[macsen rufus]

Each to his own, really, so long as no other lines are crossed, ie consent, freedom of choice, age and consanguinity limits, property and inheritance rights properly defined etc etc

AFAIK all the recent "polygamy" issues have really been about one of those other facets.

But it's all one big can of worms: govt vs individual, govt vs religious groups, religious vs secular. Should one religious group have a privileged position based on statements by their prophets? Should the dominant religion's morality be imposed on all? State-church separation, and freedom of religion all have a role too, so who's got the right to say "my way is the only way"? No-one, IMHO :bow:

[Viking]

A great Yes.

And a great Hurrah for the fact that this is a poll, I have been missing these. :2thumbsup:

[CountArach]

I don't care - this isn't one of those laws that bothers me.

[Geoffrey S]

As with almost anything to do with sex between consenting adults, don't give a damn, as long as it's done safely.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I wouldn't agree with publicly labeling it as a "marriage" as I come from one of those faiths for whom the union of one man and one woman is a sacrament.

However, polyandrous and polygamous relationships for others, in and of themselves, are mostly a matter for the consenting adults involved. The "civil union" thing can be defined more flexibly than marriage without causing harm.

As to whether or no there is any "harm" done, I think the bulk of human experience points to unions of one male and one female being the most broadly acceptable choice for social stability and societal strength. There are cultures where other forms were practiced (are practiced?) so a blanket statement that all such are "harmful" may not be appropriate.



Note: Div' you really need to get into Don C's. "under the bridge" thread and do a little shriving. :devilish:

[Furious Mental]

I don't think polygamy can be accomodated in modern western law, so no.

[atheotes]

it doesnt really bother me.... but dont see any reason reason why it shouldn't be legal.

There are cultures that still practice polygamy... Marriage laws in India are dependent upon the religion of the individual. Muslims in India are allowed to have/have multiple wives(i have a couple of friends whose father practices polygamy....though it must be said they are 50+ years old)...illegal for Hindus.

[discovery1]

That depends on my income and how far it goes in the area I live in. For a while yet it seems like a system where many loves are totally legal would leave me at a big disadvantage.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I wouldn't agree with publicly labeling it as a "marriage" as I come from one of those faiths for whom the union of one man and one woman is a sacrament.

However, polyandrous and polygamous relationships for others, in and of themselves, are mostly a matter for the consenting adults involved. The "civil union" thing can be defined more flexibly than marriage without causing harm.

As to whether or no there is any "harm" done, I think the bulk of human experience points to unions of one male and one female being the most broadly acceptable choice for social stability and societal strength. There are cultures where other forms were practiced (are practiced?) so a blanket statement that all such are "harmful" may not be appropriate.


Agreed. I have no objection to other couples doing it, but I personally find it immoral and wrong. You're with someone, you're bound to them. I consider any relations of this kind with anyone other than your spouse/girlfriend/boyfriend to be cheating.

No reason it shouldn't be legal, but it should not be encouraged.

[HoreTore]

Agreed. I have no objection to other couples doing it, but I personally find it immoral and wrong. You're with someone, you're bound to them. I consider any relations of this kind with anyone other than your spouse/girlfriend/boyfriend to be cheating.

Well, since both of them are considered your spouse/girlfriend/boyfriend, it still wouldn't be cheating by your standard...

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Well, since both of them are considered your spouse/girlfriend/boyfriend, it still wouldn't be cheating by your standard...

Well, yes it would, since I believe you should only have one of the above at any one time.

[Divinus Arma]

I find the benefits of such an arrangement to be intriguing, as even a conservative approach to the concept with only two wives could provide a substantial benefit to all family members involved. And this is of course absent the sexual component, which I find to be an aside in the matter.

[Tribesman]

Anyoe feel a yearning for zion ?
or is is just bad timing for a polygamist topic :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

[naut]

For a while yet it seems like a system where many loves are totally legal would leave me at a big disadvantage.
Interesting point, I remember there was an article here once with that statement proposed. I.E. polygamy bad for average bloke, as the "better" or "richer" men would get more wives thus reducing the amount left for everyone else.

[Conradus]

I don't see why it shouldn't be legal (as long as it's both polygamy and polyandry that are legalized), but I can't actually see it working either. There's bound to be jealousy, or worse I think, but if some can manage to have a healthy relationship that way, who are we or the government to deny them that?

[Kekvit Irae]

Is this poll just for Western society, or the world in general?

[Ronin]

don´t see any reason to make it illegal...as long as we are talking about consenting adults and nobody is being harmed what´s the problem?

[Vladimir]

Good for whom?

[Tribesman]

oh look a link

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7341077.stm

[Kralizec]

Interesting point, I remember there was an article here once with that statement proposed. I.E. polygamy bad for average bloke, as the "better" or "richer" men would get more wives thus reducing the amount left for everyone else.

I think I recall reading the same (or at least similar) article. It's kinda obvious when you think about it: because polygyny (one man, multiple wives) creates scarcity of females, uglier woman have an easier time finding a guy. Conversely, monogamy is advantagous for the average guy.

[HoreTore]

I think I recall reading the same (or at least similar) article. It's kinda obvious when you think about it: because polygyny (one man, multiple wives) creates scarcity of females, uglier woman have an easier time finding a guy. Conversely, monogamy is advantagous for the average guy.

Why on earth shouldn't one wife;multiple men be allowed?

BTW, having a ton of gay men also solve that problem...

[discovery1]

oh look a link

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7341077.stm

Why do polygamist always go for underaged kids? I guess because they are the only ones that will say 'yes'

[Divinus Arma]

oh look a link

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7341077.stm

That's not the kind of thing I'm talking about. Silly Tribesman.

[Kralizec]

Why on earth shouldn't one wife;multiple men be allowed?

I think sex is a private business (lol), number of participants or their gender is completely up to them.

Marriage and the associated consequenses dicated by the state is another matter, I think it should be kept strictly between two people (of any gender combination)

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I think sex is a private business (lol), number of participants or their gender is completely up to them.

Marriage and the associated consequenses dicated by the state is another matter, I think it should be kept strictly between two people (of any gender combination)

Well said. :bow:

[Vladimir]

I think sex is a private business (lol), number of participants or their gender is completely up to them.

Age, species? Laws are designed to be good enough, tailored to every individual desire.

[Tribesman]

That's not the kind of thing I'm talking about. Silly Tribesman.

Ah but it is Divinus , since the adult polygamy with the fundamentalists is between consenting adults , its just that it spread onto marrying kids as soon as god makes them breedable , and of course there is the expulsion of males so as to ensure that there are enough females for the chosen few .
You wanted a topic about polygamy , you metioned legality in the States and asked why.....well there you go , a current news story that is spot on topic for you to explore ...
or is it that you don't really want to explore any of the many angles involved on your chosen topic:inquisitive:

[Vladimir]

Ah but it is Divinus , since the adult polygamy with the fundamentalists is between consenting adults , its just that it spread onto marrying kids as soon as god makes them breedable , and of course there is the expulsion of males so as to ensure that there are enough females for the chosen few .
You wanted a topic about polygamy , you metioned legality in the States and asked why.....well there you go , a current news story that is spot on topic for you to explore ...
or is it that you don't really want to explore any of the many angles involved on your chosen topic:inquisitive:

That's why I posed the question: Good for whom? Looks like we have a clear answer here.

[ajaxfetish]

Just for the sake of clarification,

Polygamy=marriage to multiple partners (gender not specified)
Polygyny=marriage to multiple wives
Polyandry=marriage to multiple husbands

Polygamy is usually used to refer to polygyny, but is not inherently limited to it. As I understand it, polygamy was made illegal in the United States in response to us Mormons and our deviant sexual practices. Up until that time it had been considered a no-brainer that you just have one spouse, but the Mormons just had to take advantage of that loophole and spoil the fun for everyone, now didn't we. :no:

And in response to this,

or is it that you don't really want to explore any of the many angles involved on your chosen topic:inquisitive:
I can't say for sure, but I suspect DA didn't go straight to this angle because it's the usual angle. Discussion of polygamy generally deals with those weirdo FLDS folks who occasional get in trouble with the law. DA started a thread dealing with the topic in a theoretical sense, refreshingly different from the usual approach.

Ajax

[Kekvit Irae]

Polygamy has more to do with religion and subsistence strategy than actual love itself. This is most true with pastoral society. What's better than one wife doing your laundry and cooking and taking care of the kids? Multiple wives who share a common task. The flipside is that the women of these societies have control over much the household, including finances. They even choose who is going to be the man's next husband if he takes another. This works out quite well for both parties; the husband gets more help around the household, and the woman gets a nice bride-price (if such a tradition is practiced in said culture) and a stable lifestyle.
In western civilization, once again it has to do with religion and subsistence strategy. If you can get everything you need from a local market, the need for multiple spouses is almost nil.
Yay for majoring in Anthropology :juggle2:

[ajaxfetish]

Polygamy has more to do with religion and subsistence strategy than actual love itself.
Hmm, I think you could expand that to say that marriage as a whole has more to do with religion and subsistence strategy than actual love itself. Love is generally expressed sexually and can exist entirely independent of marriage, while marriage is more about mutual support, raising children, and having a socially recognized relationship. Polygamy would function in the same way but on a broader scale.

Ajax

[Adrian II]

Polygamy has more to do with religion and subsistence strategy than actual love itself.An Anthropology major no less! Yes!

Tell me, isn't the above (economic necessity instead of love being the main rationale of marital arrangements) true for the large majority of people in nearly all of human history up to, let us say, the nineteenth century?

[Kekvit Irae]

An Anthropology major no less! Yes!

Tell me, isn't the above (economic necessity instead of love being the main rationale of marital arrangements) true for the large majority of people in nearly all of human history up to, let us say, the nineteenth century?

For the most part, people in post-horticulture societies (intensive agriculture, industrial, etc) have (more or less) been monogamous. The more emphasis on material wealth, the less desire there is to share it with their peers, and thus the less emphasis on polygamy. Also, the emphasis on religion is important as well. Mainstream Christianity demands that only monogamy should exist in a marriage, whereas Islam allows polygamy (stemming from the pastoral origins of the Arabic tribes).
Polygamy, nowadays, more of less lies with semi-egalitarian cultures, such as Maasai tribes of Africa and the pastoral natives of Nepal/Tibet (one of the few cultures in the world that currently practice polyandry, if only rarely).