“Bigamy is having one wife too many. Monogamy is the same.”
Oscar Wilde
Good subject GBH. It does seem that it should be nobody else’s business what two or three or more consenting adults choose to do with/to/among eachother, so long as they’re all willing and no bystanders are harmed. But of course, the government does have a right to stick its nose in people’s personal business if they believe such personal business is somehow harmful to society as a whole.
Which I understand is probably the justification for banning bestiality. After all, if a grown adult and a donkey are both willing, what right does the government have to intervene? Or a grown adult and a dead deer: thesmokinggun.com/archive/1122061deer1.html
What right does the government have to say one can’t do that?
Of course, more relevant is the issue of gay marriage, and we’ve all heard all the BS excuses on that one – it lessens the sanctity of marriage cheapening the experience for all the heteros; homos can’t have babies so why should they have a right to get married; its sick perverted and unnatural; the bible says only a man and woman may wed and while we pretend to believe in separation of church and state we all know that Amerika is a God-fearing nation, etc. Hell, I don’t know what their reasons are for banning gay marriage but it sounds like the good ole boys’ white christian club to me.
As for polygamy, it’s probably the same, but perhaps if AC’s right that polygamous families are more likely to be a drain on the welfare system (and to have other social problems) than standard marriages, perhaps a claim can be made that they’re banned in order to protect society from such harms.
Polygamy worked when there were far less men than women, due to intertribal fighting. It worked when there was a low population, and each man could father dozens of children. It worked when widows needed to be looked after by extended polygamous networks so that tribe survival did not plummet after a disaster or a battle. Being a male used to be far more dangerous than being a woman (notwithstanding the number of women who died in childbirth). But that was then, not now.
It is a lot harder to justify now. Humans certainly seem to have the brain biochemistry to successfully handle monogamy. I believe that both systems can work in humans, and that the prevailing conditions determine which one becomes more suitable at the time.
Biology and justifiction for it are irrelevant. People have all sorts of weird desires. The bigger question, as GBH recognized, is how to justify banning it if all parties (but the State) are willing.
[quote=“Mother Theresa”] But of course, the government does have a right to stick its nose in people’s personal business if they believe such personal business is somehow harmful to society as a whole.
Which I understand is probably the justification for banning bestiality. After all, if a grown adult and a donkey are both willing, what right does the government have to intervene? Or a grown adult and a dead deer: thesmokinggun.com/archive/1122061deer1.html
What right does the government have to say one can’t do that?
Of course, more relevant is the issue of gay marriage, and we’ve all heard all the BS excuses on that one – it lessens the sanctity of marriage cheapening the experience for all the heteros; homos can’t have babies so why should they have a right to get married; its sick perverted and unnatural; the bible says only a man and woman may wed and while we pretend to believe in separation of church and state we all know that Amerika is a God-fearing nation, etc. Hell, I don’t know what their reasons are for banning gay marriage but it sounds like the good ole boys’ white christian club to me.
As for polygamy, it’s probably the same, but perhaps if AC’s right that polygamous families are more likely to be a drain on the welfare system (and to have other social problems) than standard marriages, perhaps a claim can be made that they’re banned in order to protect society from such harms.[/quote]
I am not sure that that is the justification for banning it. I can easily envisage substantially different and successful welfare systems that would have been instituted were polygamy or homogamy just some of many options in a broad spectrum of relationship models. Many societies after all have been polygamous to one degree or another, and it is still legal in some faiths such as Islam… Arabia? Malaysia? Some societies have tolerated if not sanctioned gay relationships, but probably less now than in the past. What I do see here is the slow imposition of Christian religious values onto societies everywhere, where even today the USA lives under the motto “In God We Trust”. An impostion that proceeded so far that monogamy is now pretty much the only ‘ethically accepted’ system in all of those countries that have been exposed to Christianity and Christian missionaries eitehr through state religions or colonisatin or adoption of same values.
Of course several Asian cultures are also monogamous, like Japan and even China, but that is not to say that they did not have polygamy in the past, such as I believe occurred in the Mongols etc. (any religious scholars out there know better?)
it is not a simple question, and not one where you could simply say ‘the state has banned polygamy as it would impose too great a cost burden on the economy’…
Definition of marriage:
One or more males and one or more females in a semi-permanent relationship that is sanctioned by their society.
The “sanctioned” part is the problem. Many countries, including Taiwan sanctioned arranged marriiages in the past. (Some confide that it still occurs) Mother and father arranged the marriage for socio-economic reasons. Divorce was unheard of because the female would be unwelcome at any family home and the male would lose face and be cut off from any hope of gaining from pop.
Andogeny :
(having more than one husband) is widely accepted in small tropical communities where struggling for existance is a real issue. If a male’s wife dies, he is often assimilated into his brother’s family with conjugal duties included. (Hell, what are brothers for anyway) Of course, in a practical sense, it is not just about sex. These customs develop becuase of “MONEY”. In this case, money is food. More males mean more food and a brighter life for all concerned.
Polygamy:
Practiced in more parts of the world that most so called “religious” folks want you to believe. Arn’t open marriages a casual form of polygamy? They are until you read the definition about “sanctioned by their society” Open relationships are not sanctioned by most societies. Only recently have some enlightened areas recognized gay marriages. Why? Well, you don’t have to thump a bible to recognize that traditionally, marriage was for the convenience of the “society” not for the individuals. It’s easy to see why these taboos have been passed down from generation to generation.
Live with 3 women/men in an open relationship but dare not apply for a marriage “license”.
There is an interesting term. Look up the term license in your Funk and Wagnalls. A permission to do some act that is revocable by will at the discretion of the issuer. Nice!! So the government can take back my license at their will. Off topic follows:
A judge in Idaho used this definition to “unmarry” a woman who had a child with her husband. He’s long dead and was no friend but anyway . . . .
A woman whom he had sentenced as a felon (check charge as I recall) was ordered to have no friendship or relationship with other felons. Soon after her release she got pregnant and the father was an ex-felon, also on parole/probation. (Hell, what else do you have to do if you can’t hang out in the bars) Anyway, after an unrelated probation violation, the Honorable Judge Maynard proceeded to annul her marriage because it violated the court order of a relationship with a felon. The child? Sorry, I didn’t keep track after that.
Anyway marriage rules are modeled after society norms. Sometimes that gets outdated and us real folks have to step up and make sure that society operates the way we dictate. (Joke intended)
Another story of Judge Maynard: (more off topic)
Eli (last name omitted) a prominate attorney in the NW U.S. was in the Judge’s courtroom. After a recess, the court reconvened. Eli had just bought a cup of coffee and had taken it into the courtroom. He set in on table and started to argue his case. He took a sip of the coffee at which time the judge admonished him that beverages in the courtroom were prohibited and that the sip he had just taken would cost him $100.00. Eli, without lowering the cup, said, “Judge, chalk me up for a full cup”, and downed the whole thing. Gotta love the guy.
Those are examples of institutionalized “cheating” for men.[/quote]
I think that would defy the common understanding of the term “cheating,” as all the wives live together, raise their children together, the practice is socially acceptable, and “cheating” is still severely punished (at least in the Islamic world) for both men and women.
Not in Tibet where wives have multiple husbands.
In fact, those models have been sustainable for many thousands of years, and continue to be sustainable in Islamic countries where little to no welfare system exists. The vast majority of husbands in the Islamic world have only one wife, even in rural areas. Usually those who have multiple wives are wealthy, or need more sons to work the farms (but again, monogamy is still the norm even on the farms/ranches). In Western societies with plush welfare systems these people are draining resources, but that’s a different story.
In any case I find the “they’ll be a drain on resources” argument to be a pretty weak case for outlawing polygamy. 76% of American blacks are born out of wedlock now, and those single mothers and their children strain America’s welfare systems. Should we enforce fornification laws (or enact new ones as the case may be)?
It doesn’t work for one simple reason: do the math.
The mistake people make is assuming that monogamy was invented for the benefit of females. No, monogamy was standardized as the norm for the benefit of non-alpha males. It ensures that every guy gets a girl. In polygamous societies, a handful of rich and powerful alpha males monopolize most of the women, while the peons have to spend their prime years in celibacy to save up for a dowry fee.
In our modern society, as long as you’re a relatively nice guy without any major personal hygeine problems, you can find a girlfriend. In polygamous societies, a guy has to either be born rich or work until he’s 35 accumating wealth and status, before he can bid for a wife. Which kind of society would you rather live in?
What you are describing are people who have enter relationships in order to survive. People who pool resources through marriage. Not to be confused with people who veiw relationships as a luxury and entertainment.
Looking at the wealthy in Asia, polygomy is alive and well, no matter how illegal it is suppose to be. It is not an activity for the poor, no matter how much they fantasize about it. Perhaps it is the desire of some people in Asia to become successful enough to have a xiaolaopo.
You think 2nd wives are stupid creatures. They know from the start they have no position officially or unofficially in the family structure. So the male has to be able to guarantee an improve lifestyle for the 2nd wife.
What I’ve witness outside of Asia was a family from Africa who immigrated to the US. It seems they were practicing Muslim. The husband would go back to Africa every couple of years and get a new bride. Get married over the phone and bring next wive over to the US. The first wife was totally against these other marriage because, they couldn’t support them all in her opinion. But as require by her religon “obey” her husband. By the time I was made aware of the situation, the man had 8 wives and 17 kids. All 8 wives were on various government programs. Basically the man was trading in his American residency to illustrate his alpha male status, instead of actual wealth.
Last time I check the case is a mess because they were married overseas with no records in the US.
[quote=“ac_dropout”]What I’ve witness outside of Asia was a family from Africa who immigrated to the US. It seems they were practicing Muslim. The husband would go back to Africa every couple of years and get a new bride. Get married over the phone and bring next wive over to the US. The first wife was totally against these other marriage because, they couldn’t support them all in her opinion. But as require by her religon “obey” her husband. By the time I was made aware of the situation, the man had 8 wives and 17 kids. All 8 wives were on various government programs. Basically the man was trading in his American residency to illustrate his alpha male status, instead of actual wealth.
Last time I check the case is a mess because they were married overseas with no records in the US.[/quote]
I find that story very interesting, considering that Islamic law limits the number of wives a man may take to 4.
[quote=“Quentin”]It doesn’t work for one simple reason: do the math.
The mistake people make is assuming that monogamy was invented for the benefit of females. No, monogamy was standardized as the norm for the benefit of non-alpha males. It ensures that every guy gets a girl. In polygamous societies, a handful of rich and powerful alpha males monopolize most of the women, while the peons have to spend their prime years in celibacy to save up for a dowry fee.
In our modern society, as long as you’re a relatively nice guy without any major personal hygeine problems, you can find a girlfriend. In polygamous societies, a guy has to either be born rich or work until he’s 35 accumating wealth and status, before he can bid for a wife. Which kind of society would you rather live in?[/quote]
[quote=“gao_bo_han”][quote=“ac_dropout”]What I’ve witness outside of Asia was a family from Africa who immigrated to the US. It seems they were practicing Muslim. The husband would go back to Africa every couple of years and get a new bride. Get married over the phone and bring next wive over to the US. The first wife was totally against these other marriage because, they couldn’t support them all in her opinion. But as require by her religon “obey” her husband. By the time I was made aware of the situation, the man had 8 wives and 17 kids. All 8 wives were on various government programs. Basically the man was trading in his American residency to illustrate his alpha male status, instead of actual wealth.
Last time I check the case is a mess because they were married overseas with no records in the US.[/quote]
I find that story very interesting, considering that Islamic law limits the number of wives a man may take to 4.[/quote]
This case is very weird and extreme. Some of his wives are claiming they are seperated from him at various points in time. 3 of them were married to him at the age of 15. The husband has sent some of the kids back to Africa.
Anyways the point is unless one has the resources to sustain polygamy. When it goes bad, it is really really bad.
It also looks that, with the emphasis on “resources”, that relations between the sexes are corrupted into a mere financial transaction in polygamous system. In the modern world, women are able to hold down jobs and take care of themselves. So that particular incentive for polygamy becomes less attractive for women. Dividing his attention between multiple wives and the job he has to work at constantly to maintain their standard of living, he has little time to create much of a deep relationship with any one of his wives - and if he does pay more attention to one, the others will get jealous. It seems that in monogamy men and women are able to form genuine relationships because they have to focus their love all on only one person. So women are more likely to marry a man because of who he is, his real personality, and same with the man - if you’re stuck with only one person for the rest of your life, you had better make sure you’re compatible.
So far the arguments for polygamy make it look like women who go for it gold-digging whores and the men who go for it selfish macho peacocks trying to prove what such an “alpha male” they are. I would hope that the human race has evolved a little bit beyond such gorilla status.
[quote=“Quentin”]It also looks that, with the emphasis on “resources”, that relations between the sexes are corrupted into a mere financial transaction in polygamous system. In the modern world, women are able to hold down jobs and take care of themselves. So that particular incentive for polygamy becomes less attractive for women. Dividing his attention between multiple wives and the job he has to work at constantly to maintain their standard of living, he has little time to create much of a deep relationship with any one of his wives - and if he does pay more attention to one, the others will get jealous. It seems that in monogamy men and women are able to form genuine relationships because they have to focus their love all on only one person. So women are more likely to marry a man because of who he is, his real personality, and same with the man - if you’re stuck with only one person for the rest of your life, you had better make sure you’re compatible.
So far the arguments for polygamy make it look like women who go for it gold-digging whores and the men who go for it selfish macho peacocks trying to prove what such an “alpha male” they are. I would hope that the human race has evolved a little bit beyond such gorilla status.[/quote]
Yeah but I’m more interested in why we should outlaw it. Your earlier argument made sense in that there would be too few females about. So it could be harmful from a societal perspective.
As far as divided attention, gold-digging, alpha male, and all that other stuff., none of that is a good reason to outlaw polygamy. In general I am opposed to regulating the private lives of consenting adults, unless as MT says genuine social harm is involved. Also, while you make a good argument, the fact is that polygamy is legal all across the Islamic world (53 countries), but monogamy continues to be the norm and the situation you described does not exist in those places. Because of our tradition of monogamy in the West, I doubt very seriously if anything more than a tiny minority of Westerners would choose to practice plural marriage if given the chance. Christian influence and an obsession with romantic love would prevent polygamy from becoming popular.
But even in Islam polygamy are conditional upon the man having the resources to treat his wives equally.
I personally believe people are too stupid and greedy to handle polygamy properly. Might as well outlaw it and let those with the resources bend the rules.
Polygamous marriages seem a tad silly (upon further thought.) I mean, the legalities of a monogamous relationship are already complicated enough. How does it work with 3 plus people? Unless they could be done in a fashion that would give a lot of flexibility to all participants, the marriage thing would just (IMO) add unnecessary complexity.
That said, I think polyamorous relationships are going to be more common as time goes on (like what Mr. Buffet had.)
Those were all very good points about the drawbacks of a polygamous society, but this sentence caught me. Even in monogamous societies, relations between the sexes have nearly always been mere financial transactions. Check out any Jane Austen novel. Marriage was always about the exchange of (ahem) marital services for financial security until about 50-100 years ago.
In any case, most wealth practice serial monogomy…a poligamy of a sorts…ie you monopolize the fertile years of a woman, and trading her in for a new model once she’s past her prime.