Why not polygamy?


#1

Against polygamy, Mark Twain wrote: "No man can serve two masters."

Today the great debate about marriage is same-sex marriage.

Tomorrow the great debate may be polygamy.

What would be your main argument in defense of, or opposed to, polygamy?


#2

sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120124093142.htm

In cultures that permit men to take multiple wives, the intra-sexual competition that occurs causes greater levels of crime, violence, poverty and gender inequality than in societies that institutionalize and practice monogamous marriage

Non religious argument would be the problems that have been documented to have been caused because of polygamy

Redefining marriage for homosexuals to ‘marry’ each other is opening a gateway to people calling for marriage to be legalised for incestous adults and for multiple wives / husbands

forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=10447973&postcount=272


#3

If a man will have two wives, he might have ten. But how much love can there be to spread it among ten? And how many hormones? ;)


#4

Abyssinia

Thanks for all those interesting articles! :thumbsup:


#5

The so-called young "beta males" of today are already unhappy at what they perceive to be an mating game that is rigged against them.

Polygyny would only worsen their lot.


#6

Beta males have no one to blame but themselves for their lot, but I don't follow the logic.

Alpha males, at least in the common parlance, have zero interest in actually making a lifelong commitment to women. Or they do make a lifelong commitment but not one that involves property. There's a reason that guys like George Clooney and Derek Jeter don't get married.

I'm not supporting their decisions, by the way, just noting that guys who choose to live that secular lifestyle are not going to make the "error" of marrying one woman, let alone multiple women.


#7

[quote="The_Bucket, post:6, topic:318114"]
Beta males have no one to blame but themselves for their lot, but I don't follow the logic.

[/quote]

(I should have noted that while I brought up the word myself, I don’t really like compartmentalizing men in such terms – but I’ll use the adjectives alpha/beta simply for lack of better terminology.)

Without agreeing completely with their stance (I should have noted that before as well), let's just say that it appears to be a resounding claim by "game" theorists that women are hypergamous. This idea is also echoed by some evolutionary theorists that say men are polygamous, while women are hypergamous (which seems to have replaced the old theory that said men are polygynous, while women were monogamous). The main concept/complaint (from what I have gathered in reading their concerns) is that women today, being able to make their own money and therefore becoming less dependent upon men for survival, have been “freed” from the social pressure of marrying young and are acting upon their supposed hypergamous tendencies by delaying marriage to a suitable "beta" male so as to continue to seek out a more wealthy/dominant “alpha” for either marriage and/or mere entertainment/enjoyment. Part of that theory is that as a result, women who fail to obtain the alphas they want end up “settling” for a beta as they reach the later part of their fertility cycles.

I suppose the logic is that if polygamy were legal, and there were a plethora of women willing to enter into such arrangements, all of the young beautiful women would be snatched up by alphas, leaving a disproportionate number of men womanless and childless. I think this outcome would possibly become inevitable if the middle class were wiped out and the vast majority of the population was so poor as to be on the verge of starvation. As things are currently, legal polygamy probably wouldn’t have much of an impact on society, so maybe I’m thinking too far ahead with regards to economic disparities.:shrug:

[quote="The_Bucket, post:6, topic:318114"]
Alpha males, at least in the common parlance, have zero interest in actually making a lifelong commitment to women. Or they do make a lifelong commitment but not one that involves property. There's a reason that guys like George Clooney and Derek Jeter don't get married.

[/quote]

I do agree that some “alphas” would always behave as butterflies, flitting from one woman to another. But I also wonder if there is a separate class of alphas – those like Donald Trump, Larry King, Rush Limbaugh, Henry VIII??;) etc. – who would take advantage of the legality of polygamy. Maybe it would have something to do with legacy and inheritance of businesses. (Is that what you mean by property?)

[quote="The_Bucket, post:6, topic:318114"]
I'm not supporting their decisions, by the way, just noting that guys who choose to live that secular lifestyle are not going to make the "error" of marrying one woman, let alone multiple women.

[/quote]

You do have a good point here as well, as far as noting how the current layout is in this country. As it stands, I also wonder if this has something to do with current divorce laws and post-divorce settlements. It’s all speculation, with things being as they are now, but I wonder if there were no such thing as no-fault divorce and alimony, and the economy took such a drastic downward spiral as to leave most men (and women) barely capable of supporting themselves, would the George Clooneys, et al., then be more inclined toward marriage with multiple wives?


#8

There is a such thing as alpha females too. I doubt most men would want to be married to one except for the "alpha male" that thinks he is all that and a bag of potato chips. It is like a challenge for that kind of guy.

Polygamy doesn't make sense in a religious way because it only works when one has the attitude that their mortal need for intimacy is superhuman (i.e. cannot be satisfied by 1). Jesus said when a man leaves his mother and father he will cleave unto his WIFE! Not WIVES! Same is true of women.

In a cultural sense, how many possessive women do you think are going to share their man? LOL! Or how many of today's "it's all about me" types would go for that?

Polygamy back in the was more about keeping women out of prostitution. In Biblical days if a woman wasn't married she became a prostitute to survive. God tolerated polygamy because the other option was worse for women. I doubt He ever wanted a woman to have to share a man with another woman. It was a consequence of the curse.


#9

Well polygamy doesn't support sexual equality. The man, in the case of multiple wives, is permitted to enter into many marital contracts at once, but the woman can only enter into one. So lets look at it another way.

So, say a man marries a woman. All of their property becomes jointly owned and in the case of a divorce they would split up their assets in a fair way according to a judge. Say the man meets a second woman. Even if it were legal to marry multiple woman, the first wife still has a claim on half of the property. So a contract would need to be developed between three partners and all would have to agree. Already we see that the marital contract isn't polygamy in the traditional sense. It's more of a group contract/marriage. In this case, lets say they agree to split everything into thirds. It would be sexual discrimination not to allow either of these two women take a second husband. Lets say both of them decide to do that. Now a contract is needed between three men and two women. Everyone agrees on one and all of them get married. This is a group marriage.

Polygamy will never exist in the U.S. because it must limit the rights of one of the sexes while granting greater rights to the other sex.


#10

Kinda elaborating on what Lerapt78 said: how is polygamy going to make any sense on a large scale since having a boy or a girl is 50/50? Disproportionate numbers of men would be alone. Which is worse. Considering they'd get frustrated and indulge in....unsavory things.

However let's be real: are we going to just cling to that idea if it ever becomes legal and everyone do that? No. Who's going to do it? The people who enjoy the idea of having multiple "sister wives". So ultimately I wouldn't complain about it because it doesn't affect the ones who don't partake in it so...:shrug:


#11

[quote="JamesATyler, post:9, topic:318114"]
Well polygamy doesn't support sexual equality. The man, in the case of multiple wives, is permitted to enter into many marital contracts at once, but the woman can only enter into one. So lets look at it another way.

So, say a man marries a woman. All of their property becomes jointly owned and in the case of a divorce they would split up their assets in a fair way according to a judge. Say the man meets a second woman. Even if it were legal to marry multiple woman, the first wife still has a claim on half of the property. So a contract would need to be developed between three partners and all would have to agree. Already we see that the marital contract isn't polygamy in the traditional sense. It's more of a group contract/marriage. In this case, lets say they agree to split everything into thirds. It would be sexual discrimination not to allow either of these two women take a second husband. Lets say both of them decide to do that. Now a contract is needed between three men and two women. Everyone agrees on one and all of them get married. This is a group marriage.

Polygamy will never exist in the U.S. because it must limit the rights of one of the sexes while granting greater rights to the other sex.

[/quote]

The law can be made such that women are allowed multiple husbands. Not really a problem. It is called polyamory.


#12

[quote="JamesATyler, post:9, topic:318114"]

So, say a man marries a woman. All of their property becomes jointly owned and in the case of a divorce they would split up their assets in a fair way according to a judge. Say the man meets a second woman. Even if it were legal to marry multiple woman, the first wife still has a claim on half of the property. So a contract would need to be developed between three partners and all would have to agree. Already we see that the marital contract isn't polygamy in the traditional sense. It's more of a group contract/marriage. In this case, lets say they agree to split everything into thirds. It would be sexual discrimination not to allow either of these two women take a second husband. Lets say both of them decide to do that. Now a contract is needed between three men and two women. Everyone agrees on one and all of them get married. This is a group marriage.

[/quote]

I echo this excellent observation. We can abhor polygamy for emotional reasons, ie: hurt feelings, feelings of jealousy, demeaning worth, etc. But, it can be abhored for practical and economic reasons as well. In addition to the spiritual union of the sexes, marriage is also an economic contract, one that is affected by the promiscuity of either sex. This is why adultery is condemned.

Female promiscuity affects the paternity of husbands, enhancing their risks of financially providing for children not of their lineage.

Male promiscuity affects the financial resources of the woman, who expects that 100% of her husband's resources will go to her and her offspring in return for her loyalty.

[quote="Caged, post:10, topic:318114"]
Kinda elaborating on what Lerapt78 said: how is polygamy going to make any sense on a large scale since having a boy or a girl is 50/50? Disproportionate numbers of men would be alone. Which is worse. Considering they'd get frustrated and indulge in....unsavory things.

[/quote]

Exactly. Let's not forget that births are divided rather equally between the genders for a reason - so that everyone gets a mate.:thumbsup:

The inevitable result of polygyny is that a large segment of the male population is left without a partner. Predictably so, this leads to frustration and agitation. Those who would favor polygyny, and who have the capacity to make the rules, would have to literally *force *the excess of men from their society, because those men would naturally be fighting the top dogs for access to women on a constant basis. Google "Lost Boys". Or, they could simply fabricate a war to either bring in/capture women from another society, or reduce the number of male competitors by casting them to their deaths as casualties of war.

It degrades women into dehumanized resources and makes men's lives expendable.


#13

Polyandry.:thumbsup:


#14

[quote="silentfactor80, post:11, topic:318114"]
The law can be made such that women are allowed multiple husbands. Not really a problem. It is called polyamory.

[/quote]

[quote="lerapt78, post:13, topic:318114"]
Poly*andry*.:thumbsup:

[/quote]

I see that you are making the point that a woman could take multiple husbands. My point is, that the woman can't stop her many husbands from taking multiple wives. The 1 woman to many husbands relationship structure cannot be enforced by our government. The closest the government can come to polygamy or polyandry is just to simply allow group marriages of any kind.

Group marriages would be viral marriages.


#15

Group marriages would be viral marriages unless a divorce was required before you could remarry. So say a woman meets her first man. They marry. She meets a second. No divorce is required and they marry. She has two husbands. One husband meets a second woman and they marry. No divorce required. That woman meets a second man and they marry. You see? It viral.

Else, lets require a divorce. Woman meets man and they marry. Woman meets second man. Divorces first man and then remarries both men. Man meets second woman. He divorces woman and man. Woman and man must be divorced as well. They get divorced and everyone is unmarried. All get together and get remarried. Woman meets third man. Divorces both men and woman. And so on. It's all screwed up you see.

I seriously doubt they government is ever going to go there. They have to figure out taxes, asset divisions, child custody, etc for an unlimited number of variables. The variables are the number of married people and children. It's probably even more complicated than I can imagine.


#16

[quote="JamesATyler, post:9, topic:318114"]
Well polygamy doesn't support sexual equality. The man, in the case of multiple wives, is permitted to enter into many marital contracts at once, but the woman can only enter into one. So lets look at it another way.

So, say a man marries a woman. All of their property becomes jointly owned and in the case of a divorce they would split up their assets in a fair way according to a judge. Say the man meets a second woman. Even if it were legal to marry multiple woman, the first wife still has a claim on half of the property. So a contract would need to be developed between three partners and all would have to agree. Already we see that the marital contract isn't polygamy in the traditional sense. It's more of a group contract/marriage. In this case, lets say they agree to split everything into thirds. It would be sexual discrimination not to allow either of these two women take a second husband. Lets say both of them decide to do that. Now a contract is needed between three men and two women. Everyone agrees on one and all of them get married. This is a group marriage.

Polygamy will never exist in the U.S. because it must limit the rights of one of the sexes while granting greater rights to the other sex.

[/quote]

In order for your argument to be valid we must do the following-
-ignore the fact that a woman can currently enter into a 1 man, 1 woman marriage in which she can not be held liable for infidelity but the husband can be (wife can cheat, husband can't) and
-assume that this can not also be applied to 1 man, multiple wives marriages
-assume that your sexual (as in relations, not gender) equality concept exists as a valid legal concept
-assume that any woman who enters into a 1 man, multiple wives marriage is too mentally or legally incompetent that she needs special legal protections.


#17

[quote="oldcatholicguy, post:16, topic:318114"]
In order for your argument to be valid we must do the following-
-ignore the fact that a woman can currently enter into a 1 man, 1 woman marriage in which she can not be held liable for infidelity but the husband can be (wife can cheat, husband can't) and
-assume that this can not also be applied to 1 man, multiple wives marriages
-assume that your sexual (as in relations, not gender) equality concept exists as a valid legal concept
-assume that any woman who enters into a 1 man, multiple wives marriage is too mentally or legally incompetent that she needs special legal protections.

[/quote]

I'm going to admit that it's hard to understand what you mean. I'm not aware that a woman can currently enter into a 1 man, 1 woman marriage in which she can cheat but the husband can't. I've never heard of that. So I'm not ignoring that fact rather I just didn't know that the current law supported such a thing.

I assume the legal system in this country would never support a marriage system where only a man can marry multiple wives. That would be sexual discrimination. Woman also must have the right to marry multiple husbands.

Let's be realistic though. It's not as if a person is going to wait until he/she has collected up all the wives or husbands they intend to marry at one time and then have one ceremony. More likely there would have to be some way to add in husbands or wives as you go along.


#18

[quote="JamesATyler, post:14, topic:318114"]
I see that you are making the point that a woman could take multiple husbands. My point is, that the woman can't stop her many husbands from taking multiple wives.

[/quote]

I understood your point. I was just making a minor correction to the term that was used. Should have used ";)" instead of ":thumbsup:"

[quote="JamesATyler, post:17, topic:318114"]
I'm going to admit that it's hard to understand what you mean. I'm not aware that a woman can currently enter into a 1 man, 1 woman marriage in which she can cheat but the husband can't. I've never heard of that. So I'm not ignoring that fact rather I just didn't know that the current law supported such.

[/quote]

I think oldcatholicguy might have used the word "liability" to mean that a husband is financially responsible if the the outcome of his adultery is a pregnancy, meaning he would be legally required to provide child support to the illegitimate child. (assuming he is tracked down)


#19

[quote="JamesATyler, post:17, topic:318114"]
I'm going to admit that it's hard to understand what you mean. I'm not aware that a woman can currently enter into a 1 man, 1 woman marriage in which she can cheat but the husband can't. I've never heard of that. So I'm not ignoring that fact rather I just didn't know that the current law supported such a thing.

I assume the legal system in this country would never support a marriage system where only a man can marry multiple wives. That would be sexual discrimination. Woman also must have the right to marry multiple husbands.

Let's be realistic though. It's not as if a person is going to wait until he/she has collected up all the wives or husbands they intend to marry at one time and then have one ceremony. More likely there would have to be some way to add in husbands or wives as you go along.

[/quote]

-A woman can enter into a prenup in which her infidelity can not be used for grounds for a divorce and or be used against her (held liable for) in a divorce.
-Your concern over sexual (as in gender, not relations) discrimination is not a valid counter argument against polygamy being illegal or never becoming legal. It would only be a valid argument if 1 man, many wives was currently legal and 1 woman, many husbands was not (and here it's really only a valid argument for legalizing 1 woman, many husbands) or just 1 man, many wives was made legal while 1 woman, many husbands remained illegal (here, again, really just a valid argument for making 1 woman, many husbands legal).
-The "didn't marry all the wives at once" argument is also faulty given that prenups can be altered or voided after marriage, contain provisions that incorporate changes in the marriage over time, and married couples can enter into post nuptial agreements.


#20

[quote="lerapt78, post:18, topic:318114"]

I think oldcatholicguy might have used the word "liability" to mean that a husband is financially responsible if the the outcome of his adultery is a pregnancy, meaning he would be legally required to provide child support to the illegitimate child. (assuming he is tracked down)

[/quote]

I was using liable in regards to the husband having to forfeit his rights to property or monies as a result of his violating the marriage contract and or having to compensate the wife for violating the marriage contract.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.