Polygamy

Post Reply New Topic

Most men would probably be just as SOL as they are now. Monogamy is still the social norm, even should polygamy be legalized/decriminalized. Many would probably still carry on with the notion of everyone only being able to truly love one other person and thinking that every married man who finds himself having a crush on another woman must be evil and not really love her also. Thus monogamy would likely still be the primary form of marriage regardless due to jealousy.



If only polygyny were legalized, perhaps, but if the Golden Rule were followed so as to allow it to be fair to women also, then both polygyny and polyandry would be permitted. It might seem fair stranger for a woman to have more husbands because it hasn't been done throughout history very much, but it would be fairer to women to have the same ability to marry as many spouses as they want as well. I know biblically, the only type of polygamy mentioned is polygyny, but that might have been due to keeping genealogical records with less confusion - even though having only one form, the one benefiting men only, is unfair to women. I think that if polygamy were legalized, it should allow for both forms so as to be fair to women - which would also eliminate the problem with single men not being able to find spouses too. It would just seem bizarre.



I wouldn't know, and - although I haven't read everything in this thread - I would imagine that any actual polygamists would avoid confessing in writing because the laws in most states and nations legalistically consider them to be felons.

This is how I see a polygamist marriage functioning optimally for everyone involved. Let's say you have two women who are calling themselves lesbians only they will tolerate sex with men, they just prefer women and are together as a couple and both like to socialize with and are affectionate toward men but are with each other as a couple. They want to have a child and recognize the value of the father in the child's life. If polygamy is allowed, these women could go and search for a husband they could share. Perhaps they might both conceive a child by him? Once they find one they both like, the get to know him and if they both love him, they marry him. They love each other and him. They are one big happy family together so long as none of them stray. Happy as clams. It would need to be two women who really love the man, not just use him for his sperm because that would simply make him a donor. He is more than that in a polygamist marriage.

Let's say you have two men who call themselves homosexual or gay, but they like women too, they just don't happen to be in a relationship with one. Both men want to experience fatherhood and they hope to have the natural mother in the child's life, not simply a surrogate that disappears once she is born. So, they go looking for a woman who is open to the idea of having two husbands instead of one. They all love each other and the woman conceives babies over the years, from both men. They raise them together as a family unit. Both men experience fatherhood.

These situations are complicated and would require mature, rational people for them to work. For some enlightened beings, it might be possible. People should really think about if it's really what they can live with first.

One solution to this issue would be to allow both men and women equal rights as to being able to marry any number of spouses rather than just allowing either men or women such a right and the other being SOL. It's fixed via the golden rule. If it is only an either-or, the demographics in time and place would vary according to the perceived acceptability and so much gossip related fluff, but still it would probably not be as popular as the romantic sounding of the word "mine!" like the seagulls chanting in the one pixar clip.

I see nothing wrong with polygamy if the following conditions are met:

1. You believe it's how you want to live your married life.
2. It's done among CONSENTING adults or anyone over the legal age in the country they reside.
3. All participants agree to enter into such a convenant with one another

It's not different than people wanting same sex marriage, to each their own. As for what God has or has not ordained, unless he or a messenger comes down and tell the world in a way where there are many witnesses, it will always be anyone's guess whether God approves or disapproves polygamy.

There are some problems with monogamy, because when one of the parties no longer fulfills the other's needs, divorce or a loveless marriage can ocurr. Even sexless marriages which are rampant in the U.S. Polygamy allows the love and desire to be distributed among several partners. Polygamy, however, is mostly male-centric.

If we are all children of God, then we are all marrying our own brothers and sisters anyway since we are all related and come from the same source. Polygamy is nothing more than one brother spousing several sisters instead of just one.

I would agree with this if you hadnt forgotten to add one more major point. That being that they ALSO allow polyandry (ladies to have 'brother husbands') to solve the obvious demigraphic problem of spouse supply in a species which always roughly split 50-50 between the genders. They should either allow both polyandry and polygamy, or they should ban both IMO.

Last edited by naturalplastic on 10 Aug 2014, 10:42 am, edited 1 time in total.

In a case where religion doesn't enter into it, there are no self proclaimed profits directing everyone, polygamy would evolve like that...among willing participants who choose their own partners.
Religion is used by many people as an excuse to abuse others and alienate from God.

What about "self proclaimed losses"?

Not to mention self proclaimed depreciation, assets, liabilities, and owner's equity!

Sorry. Couldnt resist!

OK. You obviously meant the word "prophets". But even so- its not clear what you're saying.

Are you saying that:(a) without religion society would end up with polygamy only, or (b) that society would end up with both polygamy and polyandry, or. (c)...what?

You can see with self proclaimed prophets often come many losses
and this has proven to be accurate...

As for your question : Oh definitely not. I cannot see polygamy ever being wide spread in the culture of the US. I can see the odd marriage out with multiple partners. Women and men are simply too insecure to live that way and I do not promote people ever getting involved with anything they are uncomfortable with.

Yeah, it's not fair to women if they can't marry more than one husband when a man can marry more than one woman. I don't know if women would choose that option as often as men, but they should still have the option freely available to them.

One point though, that of permission of all the other spouses: no. I think, at least, that a marriage is between two people (as in the contract, I'm referring to this within the context of polygamy, so it refers to the relationship between a given couple regardless of the number of other spouses an individual of that couple has married additionally), so the consent should be between those getting married and not everyone. It would be better if everyone is happy with it, but it shouldn't be a requirement. Lets say a woman who is married wishes to marry another man she is in love with, but her husband is just like, "I want you all to myself for the rest of your life!". I think she should be free to say, "sorry, but although I love you, I also love him and I'm going to marry him also". Yes, I know that's oversimplified and stated in a non-realistic manner, but I stink at writing dialog so please overlook that and see what it says.

I don't see the need for multiple women.
But people have free will as long as its not against the law.
But still one lady's love would be enough for me.
I don't think polygamy would make any more men single as it would increase the population more than monogamous marriages.

Religions....

[img][800:768]http://pastortubbs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/biblical_marriage_chart-1.jpg[/img]

What you say would only be true if there were more female children born than male children. Increasing the population of course increases the amount of females but it increases the amount of males by roughly the same amount.
Historically it was mostly the wealthy men who had multiple women I think. Kings, sultans, biblical patriarchs.
Even if polygamy was illegal, there would still be single people because other people are not required to be your mate.

For this reason I find it highly ironic that its the Mormon Church that seems to lead the crusade against gay marriage. If the Mormons had their way, so long as natural births are approx 50/50 men/women, men taking multiple wives means lots of single men with no one but each other....

Youll have to explain your logic. Why would polygamy cause the population to grow faster? And even if it did why would that solve the problem of a wife shortage? Birth rate varies by country and by era. Kenya has a higher birthrate than the USA. And the USA had a higher birthrate a 100 years ago than today. But the sex ratios of the modern USA, the 1900 USA, and of modern Kenya, are all about the same 50:50 ratio.

Yeah, that would be crappy if only men or only women were allowed multiple spouses rather than having an equal right to marry multiple spouses for both men and women, however if only polygyny or polyandry were made legal the cultural taboos against them would probably still limit the quantity of occurrences. Having it where it's legal for both men and women to marry multiple spouses might lead to awkward situations, but if polygamy isn't wrong for one gender, man, then via the golden rule it ought to be permissible for both man and woman and this would solve the other issue of causing more singleness for those who aren't as fortunate to have found someone already.

From what I read, polygyny is pretty hard on guys.

Both the guys who get wives, and have to juggle all those demands and all those personalities...

...and on guys who don't get wives.

Historically, most polygynous societies were hunter-gatherer/warrior societies, where men had an averagely shorter life expectancy than women (even taking into account things like infanticide and a 20-25% rate of maternal death associated with childbearing). It was about making sure all the women were taken care of in a time and place where you really needed 1) a hunter to eat, 2) a warrior to protect you (from the other side, 1) a gatherer to eat enough, 2) a day-in, day-out mother to successfully rear offspring where 'success' is defined as 'surviving'), and 3) at least two full-sized people to keep on keeping on.

See "fraternate/sororate marriage."

Nowadays??

To me, from a woman's standpoint, it seems like a practical arrangement. Different women have different strengths; each one takes primary responsibility for her own children and the rest of the work is divided according to who likes it/doesn't hate it/is better at it. Helps with sex, too-- unless a man angers both/all wives or is really unlucky, nobody needs to take one for the team and put out when their heart isn't in it.

In practice??

It usually doesn't work out that way. It ends up being a bonfire of competition for "first wife" status, a constant argument over whose kid did what to whom with or without provocation, who's better, who's preferred, on and on and on.

And if the competition among the average wives is that bad, how bad does it have to be among the men (only SOME of whom are going to get wives at all)??? KILLER.

They say, outside of abusive situations, that FLDS women enjoy great social power (submission notwithstanding). The men, however, tend to be shy, withdrawn, uptight, and paranoid. Anybody wonder why????