Polygamy: Should it be allowed?

[Wildcard Ky]

I saw a very interesting show on ABC last night. They spent an hour with a polygamist family in Centennial Park, Az. It is a polygamist community of fundamental Mormons.

My only other views of polygamy have been the wackos of Colorado City.

This was a man and two wives. All were very happy with their lifestyle. The news crew wasn't restricted in any way. They were allowed access to the home, schools, church services, and they interviewed a group of teens from the town.

Basically, it was a story of consenting adults. They all seemed to be really good and well adjusted people. Take out the polygamy, and we'd all consider this to be an idealic town. The people are friendly and caring for each other.

So what's your thoughts? Should polygamy be allowed among consenting adults?

Here's a link to an ABC story about the family

ABC news

 

[MaeveoSliabh]

Um... This wasn't your only access to polygamists, honey child. Some of us here are, too.

 

[TheeGoatPig]

So long as all involved are consenting, and every wife/husband signs each marriage license, I have nothing against it.

However, I have no respect for men with multiple wives that have no idea that there is more than one wife (can't think of the word for that right now).

 

[rgraham666]

I'm in favour of it only if it works both ways, that is if a woman is allowed to have more than one husband.

I can her the screams of outrage already.

Personally, I dislike it. It simply makes things harder for most men. And women if polygamy is allowed for women. Because under such a system nobody goes off the market. Who cares if Johnny Depp or Kate Bush is already married? You can still get a least a piece of them.

So a lot of people would continue chasing the attractive and powerful, might even start chasing harder. They'd no longer have to 'settle'.

Polygamy would leave people like me, who aren't much of a catch by modern standards, even more in the lurch than we already are.

 

[Quiet_Cool]

So long as all involved are consenting, and every wife/husband signs each marriage license, I have nothing against it.

Actually, as much as I'd like to agree with this, I don't think I can just yet. It's not a disagreeance with any given situation where the people involved (assuming they're adults, of course) are knowledgeable of the circumstances and consenting, or even a statement on the preservation of the confines of conventional marriage; mostly, it's a question of the legalities involved. Things like Health Insurance (let's face it, if gay couples can't pull it off...) divorce, and whatnot. We would have to find a specific set of laws for this situation before I can completely agree. There's also the issues that can evolve out of children being raised in such an environment. If the child is this mother's (or father's) child, when in the situaton does the other spouse come into play, and what effects can that have on a child? What concerns me in the child's case isn't that there aren't worse situations for children now, but that to a degree we're aware of such situations, and psychology hasn't caught up in terms of treatment of the aftermath.

In social terms of acceptability... If it feels good, do it.

However, I have no respect for men with multiple wives that have no idea that there is more than one wife (can't think of the word for that right now).

I'd comment here, but you lost me, i think.

Q_C

 

[R. Richard]

So what's your thoughts? Should polygamy be allowed among consenting adults?

No! Polygamy should not be allowed among consenting adults. Any one with a bit of mathematical background will arrive at the same concluson.

Actually, the problem is not so much with the adults, it is with the children, specifically the male children. There are about the same number of male and female children born to humans. The chikdren then begin to grow up. Let us now examine the situation when the girls are thought to have arrived a marriagable age. There are lots of adult males who seem to want another wife, a young wife. The adult males are easily able to outcompete the male children for the young girls of the same age [more or less] as the young male children. Thus, the polygamists wind up with a lot of male children who will never find a wife among the polygamists. The situation is fraught with trouble. Thus, the adult males abandon the male children far enough away from the polygamist community that there will be very few male children who will ever find their way back home.

The communities where the young males are abandoned then have the work and financial burden of finding places for the young males.

Also, a careful review of the situation will reveal that few of the polygamist unions can earn enough to support the families. Thus, the welfare system of the state is asked to step in.

 

[Quiet_Cool]

I'm in favour of it only if it works both ways, that is if a woman is allowed to have more than one husband.

I can her the screams of outrage already.

Personally, I dislike it. It simply makes things harder for most men. And women if polygamy is allowed for women. Because under such a system nobody goes off the market. Who cares if Johnny Depp or Kate Bush is already married? You can still get a least a piece of them.

So a lot of people would continue chasing the attractive and powerful, might even start chasing harder. They'd no longer have to 'settle'.

Actually, I don't see much difference now. People, especially celebrities, since Depp and Bush were mentioned, don't seem to respect the boundaries as it is. Given that those boundaries apply only (IMHO) to those who've taken the vows and made the promises, it's those people alone who decide such things to begin with. Ahh, there's the rub.

Polygamy would leave people like me, who aren't much of a catch by modern standards, even more in the lurch than we already are.

Nicely said, and a valid point, but if we judge on this point, aren't we pulling the whole Harrison Bergeron (Sp?) epidemic out into the open, where it doesn't belong?

Q_C

 

[R. Richard]

Note: 'polygamy for women' is properly referred to as polyandry.

 

[somberReality]

I'm too territorial....hell no on polygamy.

But if it makes others happy, sure. I just know I wouldn't be able to be cool with it personally.

 

[kinkikittyn]

sure...the day polyandry is allowed

 

[rgraham666]

One thing I have too wonder though.

Even monogamy is complex, difficult and high prone to breakdown. Wouldn't polygamy increase this difficulty? And probably by an order of magnitude for each person added to the relationship.

If what we've got isn't working that well, perhaps we ought to fix that problem rather than adding more?

 

[Liar]

So what's your thoughts? Should polygamy be allowed among consenting adults?

In theory, yes. There is very little that shouldn't be allowed between consenting adults.

It requires certain marriage laws to be altered though, since certain legal priviliges are given to spouses. If one spouse dies, you might have a conflict of interrest between the two remaining ones that wouldn't happen in a marriage of two.

Also, it should be gender neutral and equal. No one spouse is the family "head" (in the eyes of the law - how they decide things whithin the family is their business). Everybody is an equal partner, equally married to everybody else. If it's a man with two wives, it's also, at the same time, two women with a husband and wife each.

It also requires a community that doesn't favor a certain form of polygamy over others. A woman taking three husbands, or two men and two women getting married. Imagine how that would pan out in that Mormon community.

And to work, it requires a culture that goes against the scenario that RR described:

Actually, the problem is not so much with the adults, it is with the children, specifically the male children. There are about the same number of male and female children born to humans. The chikdren then begin to grow up. Let us now examine the situation when the girls are thought to have arrived a marriagable age. There are lots of adult males who seem to want another wife, a young wife. The adult males are easily able to outcompete the male children for the young girls of the same age [more or less] as the young male children. Thus, the polygamists wind up with a lot of male children who will never find a wife among the polygamists. The situation is fraught with trouble. Thus, the adult males abandon the male children far enough away from the polygamist community that there will be very few male children who will ever find their way back home.

Therefore, polygamy yes, but only if it can be kept from being stuck in patriarchy, and well balanced in the polpulation.

 

[Stella_Omega]

So long as all involved are consenting, and every wife/husband signs each marriage license, I have nothing against it.

However, I have no respect for men with multiple wives that have no idea that there is more than one wife (can't think of the word for that right now).

Bigamists. Liars. Con Artists. Some of these have been women...

...There's also the issues that can evolve out of children being raised in such an environment. If the child is this mother's (or father's) child, when in the situaton does the other spouse come into play, and what effects can that have on a child? What concerns me in the child's case isn't that there aren't worse situations for children now, but that to a degree we're aware of such situations, and psychology hasn't caught up in terms of treatment of the aftermath.

I know of one polyandrous marriage that began in the sixties-- Ann and Patrick added Joe into their marriage. She had a new baby (Pat's) and about three years later had Joe's child.

When Ann went into labor, the two men wanted to come into the delivery room. The nurse tried to stop them, saying that only the father or the husband could come in. Pat said; "Well, I'm her husband!" and Joe said; "And I'm the father!" And they both nodded-- the nurse let them both in...

As a teen, I babysat for the boys once in a while. Mark, Pat's son, loved his baby brother ferociously, and Jason, the baby, worshipped his big brother. As they got older, each of them would bring out the other's latest project to show off as well as their own.

Patrick eventually developed out to have some interesting issues (probably undiagnosed depression that made him unsociable) that sent him off into the underbrush, so to speak. Joe stayed on, Ann formally divorced Pat and married Joe legally. Joe is still with Ann. The two boys are adults. Mark, the oldest, looks a bit like his father, Jason is absolutely his father's son. The boys love each other and tell proud stories about each other. Both of them have Joe's manner of speech. Patrick has a room in the house for when he's in town. Mark got married last year.

This is synergistic marriage at its best, and I feel privileged to have had this family in my life.

 

[Liar]

When Ann went into labor, the two men wanted to come into the delivery room. The nurse tried to stop them, saying that only the father or the husband could come in. Pat said; "Well, I'm her husband!" and Joe said; "And I'm the father!" And they both nodded-- the nurse let them both in...

Well, that made me

 

[Recidiva]

Yes, I think polygamy should be legal. Community contracts, limited contracts...make your own life.

I'd do fine with several husbands.

 

[3113]

Just Polygamy, no. That would be a very sexist and bias law. But if the government were to allow polyandry as well as polygamy and couples married to other couples, then I'm fine with it. My one stipulation would be that no one can take more than more partner to wed without signing contracts covering future contingencies. Which is only wise and sensible--and less of a headache for the rest of us tax-payers who don't want the courts bottled up with marital lawsuits.

No man should be allowed two wives (or woman two husbands) without first working out what they'll do in the case of divorce, illness, death or child custody. If a man/woman is willing to work out these things, and if all parties are consenting adults (which they'd have to be to legally sign such contracts), then there should be no legal impediment to their multiiple unions.

Marriage between any number or sexes of consenting adults should be up to the adults. The government should have no say in who should be allowed to marry whom...with the exception that those marrying be of legal age and consenting. If the government needs to work out how such marriages and the kids produced from them work in regards to laws, taxes, etc., then it can insist on certain legal distinctions that, again, have nothing to do with marriage, just guardianship, property ownership, etc.

I don't consider marriage or sexual practices any of the government's--or anyone else's business.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Well, that made me

I've treasured that story for nigh on forty years!

 

[TxRad]

Every woman should have at least three husbands. One to cook, one to clean, and one for those odd jobs that need taking care of.....

 

[unpredictablebijou]

So long as all involved are consenting, and every wife/husband signs each marriage license, I have nothing against it.

However, I have no respect for men with multiple wives that have no idea that there is more than one wife (can't think of the word for that right now).

Round here the term for that would be "being an asshole" and I'm assuming you're talking about infidelity and dishonesty in general.

In polyamory discussions (and I'm currently in an open, three-person household with with two men so I have these discussions) there are several different topics that tend to get mashed together.

Should it be allowed (?????!!!) that people choose who they want to love and in what way, so long as there is honesty and no harm is caused? Well fuck yes. Last I checked, I'm living in a democracy that emphasizes personal freedom.

Should multiple legal marriages be "allowed"? Since legal marriage is basically a piece of financial property law and always has been, I should think folks should have a right to make financial and legal contracts with whomever they choose. So long as those contracts are clear, where's the problem? Again, y'know, democracy and stuff.

Is it possible to be completely in love with, and completely loyal to, more than one person simultaneously?

Certainly not. Thoroughly impossible and ridiculous. I mean, people with more than one child understand that: you can only love one at a time. Right? (insert some devilish grin of some sort here.)

By the way, ours is a long-term household. Beloved #1 and I have been together for about 15 years. Our third mate followed me home in 2001 and refuses to go away. We love him and we're keeping him. There are no legal marriages in the household, but there are other more specific and personalized legal contracts about money and property. The "marriage" form of legal contract assumes too much for our tastes.

There are a few secondary relationships as well. I'm immensely fond of my husband's lovely girlfriend. She's very good for him and sends him home happy.

It's horribly complicated, but if that's the way someone wants to live then what right would anyone have to say it's not "allowed"?

anyway, friendly smilies and such...
bijou

 

[angela146]

Polygamy would leave people like me, who aren't much of a catch by modern standards, even more in the lurch than we already are.

Not if women can have multiple husbands.

If I have to choose only one husband, I'm going to make damned sure I get a man who can satisfy *all* of my needs (or who can come as close as possible) *and* he has to be a man whom I can satisfy all my myself (or come as close as possible to satisfying).

If I can have more than one, I would be able to have some needs left unmet by some of my husbands (even if there are only two) so long as the things I need from a husband are there in the "sum" of my husbands.

Conversely, if I had other wives to help me, I could take on a husband who was a challenge, because I wouldn't be doing it alone.

If "group" marriages were possible, you would have an even *better* chance at finding a set of mates (a family of wives and husbands) because you wouldn't have to be all things to any of them. You could be who you are and be loved for who you are.

Each of the women might love different things about you - with some overlap presumably.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

"Should polygamy be allowed among consenting adults?"

Sure why not?

Emphasis on the "consenting adults," of course, and also a requirement for clear, explicit and fully-informed written agreements about the distribution of property and the support and custody of any kids should this timeless love that can never end does.

Same-same with polyandry.

 

[angela146]

I blogged on this topic a while back, but I'll expand a bit here.

There is a specific woman that Bill and I might have married if we had been able to. She and I are both bisexual and Bill isn't. There are a lot of ways in which that relationship could have been truly wonderful for all three of us.

But, with society the way it is, we could not just have her move in with us and be part of our family. It's not just the legal stuff, it's the public recognition of the relationship.

Even if we could have married her, I'm not sure if we would have. It would have depended in large part on how that kind of marriage would have been
structured. It would only have worked for us if she would have been a *real* (i.e. equal) wife, not some kind of "also" or "secondary".

I agree that having more than two people in a relationship presents unique problems, but I don't think that's as much of a problem as the more central issue in holding a marriage together: some people are good at relationships and some aren't.

Making a marriage work is a skill and a talent just like anything else in life. If you don't have the talent, you can work hard and develop the skill. If you do have the talent, you don't need to work quite as hard.

If you have the talent *and* work hard at developing the skill, you can be really good at it.

Not everyone should be in a triad or a group marriage, for the same reason that not everyone should be flying airplanes. (And, by the way, some people aren't cut out to be married at all, but we don't tell them that they can't do it).

Just because some people don't want to be part of a multiple marriage (or wouldn't be very good at it) doesn't mean that those of us who could do it (or who *think* we could do it) shouldn't have the chance.

Yes, it would take more skill, more work, more communication and more flexibility/tolerance, *but* the rewards could be phenomenal.

Yes, there are are a whole bunch of legal things that would have to be worked out, including parenting responsibilities and support for people who get divorced out of a group marriage, but we have a lot of those problems right now.

I know plenty of children who have multiple fathers and mothers because both of the original parents have divorced and remarried. Some of them live truly "interesting" lives (having to maintain relationships with two or more couples, where some of the individuals hate each other).

Some of the kids get screwed up pretty bad and some find a way of making it all work.

Polygamy/polyandry would make some of those problems worse, but it would make other problems more manageable. There would be more spouses to support the children. There would also be more spouses to try to help the members of the marriage who are having trouble.

Of course, there would also be more people to fight with and get pissed off at.

There is also the possibility of having a group marriage where *some* of the spouses are good a parenting and others aren't. With three wives and two husbands, there is the possibility that the parenting responsibilities are divided unequally - perhaps allowing one or more of the wives and husbands to stay at home with the kids full time.

And in the case of infertile people (like my husband) you could have the flexibility of being a parent without necessarily providing the biological raw material. (Yes, it's called adoption, but a group marriage would create more options).

Anyway, I've now gone in a dozen different directions and not really proven anything. But I guess my whole point was that "yes" or "no" to polygamy/polyandry isn't a simple question.

 

[rgraham666]

Shrugs. Actually, it's irrelevant to me.

I've taken myself off the market, probably for good. Relationships haven't been fun for me and I sincerely doubt any of the extremely complicated alternatives proposed here are likely to change that.

 

[unpredictablebijou]

Every woman should have at least three husbands. One to cook, one to clean, and one for those odd jobs that need taking care of.....

Which one are you, darlin'?

 

[R. Richard]

Under the current laws, it is really practical to have polygamy only in isolated places in Utah and surrounding areas. There are towns/areas there where polygamy is accepted/tolerated.

The problems that I concern myself with are basically financial and children problems.

In an isolated area, it is usually not practical for a woman who is married at 14 to 16 [not at all atypical] to have real employment. Thus the polygamous husband is left with several wives to support and, at least usually, with a low pay job. He can't really support several wives and the state welfare system then has to pick up the load. I don't know about the rest of you but I don't believe in financing somebody else's sex lives.

There is no damn way that a modern polygamous society does not wind up with a surplus of males. [The Muslims are allowed four wives, because in the time of Muhammed the desert Arabs lived in a sort of constant state of warefare and many men died each year. Thus, a man who was financially able took more than one wife.] The current way of dealing with surplus males within a modern polygamous society is to abandon them and dump them on welfare systems. This last is not an opinion, it is just a matter of simple mathematics.

Yes, it is possible in a modern society for a threesome to live together in a financially stable situation. Usually at least two of the partners work for wages and the financial situation is often better than a traditional husband/wife arrangement. The key here is multiple earned paychecks.