Should polygamy, polyandry and other adult multiple marriage be allowed? Why / Why Not?

Comments

• What a liberal lot of rubbish.The wrath of GOD will fall on the u.s.a. because of homo ,polygamy, and the mob that don't marry at all

  • Report
  

  by william6 on July 13th, 2011

• Uhhh...you do realize that all sorts of people in the Bible had multiple wives...right?

  • Report
  

  by The Reverend Soleil on August 10th, 2011

• And the people in the bible , and utah ,and islam and everyone else are WRONG it is against GOD's law ,ONE man and ONE woman for life is the law anything else is second rate.

  • Report
  

  by william6 on August 13th, 2011

Comments

• You make some good points.
  
  For the whole first paragraph, I'd say those are excellent reasons for the government to get out of the marriage regulating business all together save one reg. : There must be a valid nuptial contract that addresses those and other issues. Let those getting married solve the details. Of course, standard contracts could be downloaded for a small fee to avoid high legal costs.
  
  Family benefits could also be dealt with. Perhaps one way would be that employers offer a package - if one wants to share it with one person or 10 is up to her/him.
  
  Inheritance is a non-issue. The vast majority of estates don't owe any taxes anyway. But for the rest, who cares? If I die with $10mil and leave it to one wife of 20, so what? Again - taxes could be assessed on the value of the estate rather than on individual awards. But in the end, there are lots of ways for the very rich (about the only ones who need to worry) to avoid estate taxes already. Living trusts, offshore holding companies and trusts, etc.

  • Report
  

  by 23Skidoo on July 14th, 2011

• I worked with attorneys for many years and I know that we had all sorts of people come in asking for Wills and other personal agreements. Whatever isn't covered in the marriage laws and tax laws get covered in a Last Will and Testament, which has to be filed in court and also submitted with a individuals tax return. So all the husband has to do (and the wives as well) is write a will stating exactly who gets what, and then based upon that, everything else follows suit. The same is true for pre-nuptial agreements; people can write out contracts between themselves that are fully enforced by the law. So in a "divorce", property and money gets divided, and then come tax time, you just file the assets along with your other income.

  • Report
  

  by Quiet_Listener on July 14th, 2011

• Re. inheritance, the legal spouse enjoys certain tax advantages that other heirs do not. For example, in the case of co-tenancy between legal spouses where the estate is a co-owned home and a joint bank account together worth under $625k, there is no estate tax, inheritance tax, probate costs, or capital gains tax: if, however the heir(s) isn't the legal spouse, while there are no probate costs, there is still a possibly hefty capital gains tax and possibly state estate and inheritance taxes as well. Wills and trusts avoid some of the problems, but have their costs (and tax obligations) as well.

  • Report
  

  by Stormarm on July 14th, 2011

• Storm - please re-read what I wrote regarding inheritance. I addressed that already.
  
  In any case - obviously current inheritance tax law doesn't cover multiple spouses. It would need to be updated.

  • Report
  

  by 23Skidoo on July 14th, 2011

• Skidoo - I did read your comments. On the matter of estate law, they're something of an oversimplification. You have a strange idea of "the very rich" - does a $3 Million estate today really make one "very rich"? I don't think so. Also, you seem to be ignoring state estate and inheritance taxes. Off-shore holdings really aren't much of an option for most of the (real) middle class (not to be confused with 'middle income'), and even those who might benefit from them are resistant to them, convinced that there's something shady, unpatriotic, and outright illegal about them - even when they're completely above board. And while wills and trusts can help to avoid some taxes and probate costs, that doesn't change the fact that the legal spouse still enjoys legal and tax advantages over other heirs, and wills and trusts don't change that, nor can they *always* circumvent the inequality completely.
  
  On the other matter, conventional wisdom and a lot of statistical evidence indicates that societies/states have an interest in promoting and protecting traditional monogamous marriage as the (statistically) best way of rearing children to be good citizens as opposed to misfits with societally costly anti-social tendencies. (In subsistence agricultural societies, legal polygamy also offered certain benefits - namely providing a provider, children, and a home life for the large number of surplus and less marriageable women, but it was only an option for wealthy men. Its societal benefits have become less and less significant, the absolute patriarchy on which it depended has disappeared, all while the societal costs – family politics and kids with more issues than normal – have remained the same.) Thus societies and their governments have patronized, and in various ways subsidized, the institution.
  
  "Progressives" however found that the traditional family was the greatest obstacle to achieving their agenda, as traditional parents not only resisted them, but their children turned out to be traditional (and anti-Progressive) too. So they deliberately set out to undermine and destroy the institution of the family (as well as the Church, the Lodge, and the local Tavern, and all other intermediate institutions), which is the main reason they have been the arch-promoters of Feminism (the 5th column of totalitarianism), state subsidies for unwed mothers, state operated or at least controlled/directed day-care and education, "free love", contraception, abortion, and "individualism" (not the old American familial, make-something-of-yourself for your posterity, variety, but the new self-loving and completely detached version) the objective of which is to turn a society in an atomistic mass of individuals with no loyalties to anything other than their own appetites and the state which offers to satisfy them. (I realize you may find that silly and paranoid on my part, but the fact is the Progressives, Socialists, and other radical social engineers of the 1880s to the 1930s said quite plainly and repeatedly that that was what they were up to, and why. They only stopped being so open about it when outsiders started to realize that they were serious about it.)
  
  As for my own views on the role of law in marriage today, as a professional historian and amateur anthropologist I can’t support such sweeping re-engineering – or really dismantling – of the most fundamental and ancient institution in human society. As for experimentation, group marriage isn’t novel: it’s been tried on a significant scale in various epics in the past, and has always been abandoned: does the Oneida colony ring any bells? If people still wish to re-run such experiments, they can do so at their own cost and at their own risk without the sanction and subsidy of society – at least until they prove absolutely that it offers advantages and benefits to society instead of disadvantages and costs.

  • Report
  

  by Stormarm on July 15th, 2011

• There's a more meaty answer. Thanks.
  
  First, by allowing more forms of marriage no one is undermining any that are traditional in the US. No one would be forced to have multiple wives or husbands.
  
  I don't know any societies that actually promote any form of marriage, but there is certainly nothing that needs protecting since it's not under any threat.
  
  It would simply extend freedom of personal choice, the freedom to pursue happiness as one (or more) sees fit without government dictating that, most personal of life's aspects.
  
  As an anthropologist you probably know that monogamy is the exception as a cultural norm - though the most common form of marriage. The large majority of cultures accept some form of multiple marriage. Many of those are older and culturally as or more stable than the US.
  
  Again, there is no re-engineering. No one would be required to change their marriage. Given cultural habits - there is no reason to expect a large number of multiple marriages. The US is a culture in which most people simply prefer a monogamous relationship. Just look at unmarried adults living romantic / sexual relationships. The VAST majority are monogamous though no laws prevent them from forming any type of grouping they want.
  
  When I lived in the US I actually knew one multiple family, there were very nice, there were 2 men and 4 women with 4 kids at that time. The adults had all been together for over ten years when I knew them. None of the monogamous couples that knew them felt at all threatened by this family.
  
  I realize this isn't a scientific sample. But I haven't seen any data at all suggesting that extending the legal right to wed to more adults has any negative effect on anything. I should think that those who feel monogamous marriage is such a corner stone would have more faith in the strength of the institution.
  
  
  BTW...
  According to the Ethnographic Atlas Codebook, of 1231 societies noted, 186 were monogamous. 453 had occasional polygyny, 588 had more frequent polygyny, and 4 had polyandry.
  
  - Ethnographic Atlas Codebook derived from George P. Murdock’s Ethnographic Atlas recording the marital composition of 1231 societies from 1960–1980

  • Report
  

  by 23Skidoo on July 16th, 2011

• Just for the record, I didn't say that marriage needed protected. I said the society (which == the polity == the state) has an interest in promoting/encouraging 'traditional' marriage (meaning most particularly the Western monogamous, nuclear family, version of it). I also didn't say that other arrangements couldn't work, that they somehow "threatened" marriage (society perhaps, but not traditional marriage itself), or that they should all be prohibited by law, but merely that in the Western tradition modern society has no societal interest in promoting them, and arguably some good reasons - or at least legitimate concerns - for not promoting them. Also, I never stated or implied that various forms of polygamy in any way "threatened" traditional marriage. I just suggested that they’re fraught with risks to the parties involved and - via F-ed up children - society at large, and that in a modern, industrial, capitalist society they’re GENERALLY a bad idea.
  
  But you should know that a single positive anecdote does not rebut negative aggregate statistics. If the unusual family you described can make it work, more power to them. Yes, the state and the child-welfare authorities should mind their own business and leave them be. But that doesn't mean that the state has to sanction and legitimize all non-monogamous arrangements for the sake of that one family either.
  
  As for the stats from Ethnographic Atlas, they're fairly meaningless, I'm afraid, without: 1) a clear definition of how what it means by a "society", 2) a detailed breakdown of the actual societies with their populations and an indication of their economic development, and 3) what is meant by "polygyny". If you examine the actual 29 installments in the journal Ethnography, you'd find that hundreds of the distinguished 'societies' really are just individual clans or tribes within what most people would call a society/culture. And it's hardly meaningful to count a clan of primitive hunter-gatherers numbering under 200 as "1 society" while also counting a modern industrial democracy of several million also as just "1 society" - at least when you're arguing that polygynous societies (which tend to be small primitive hunter-gatherer societies) outnumber monogamous ones (which tend to be huge modern commercial/industrial societies). At better indicator of the distribution and frequency of polygyny can be seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Map3.4Polygyny_compressed.jpg
  
  Also, if you look into the actual data, you'd find that the societies with "nuclear families with occasional polygyny" included much of the modern industrialized world, as Murdock wasn't dealing with "legal marriages" but with long-term cohabitating sexual relationships -- thus the societies where wealthy men don't divorce their wife of 20 years to marry a trophy-wife, but instead just keep a mistress on the side, he classified as having "occasional polygyny".
  
  The data also shows that of all the polygynous societies, only 157 had polygyny in the form of non-sororal co-wives living in the same household; in 87 polygynous societies the co-wives were typically also sisters; in the case of 453 societies with 'occasional polygyny' and 344 societies with frequent polygyny, the husband maintains each of his "wives" (including mistresses) with their children in separate households. (FYI, the Chinese Ideogram for ‘trouble’ is a picture of 2 women under 1 roof.)
  
  As for polyandry, even in the societies where it does show up it's so rare as to constitute the exception which proves the rule, especially when one considers the particulars that each polyandrous society have in common: they are fairly primitive tribal societies in East Africa and Oceania; land is owned by females and passed matrilineally; only the highest status/wealthiest women ("royalty") have two husbands (and never more) at a time; the co-husbands are invariably brothers, half-brothers, or 1st cousins.

  • Report
  

  by Stormarm on July 16th, 2011

• I know an anecdote isn't scientific. That's why I wrote "I realize this isn't a scientific sample."
  
  You have still not shown any data showing it's bad to extend freedoms. I will provisionally assume there is none.
  
  Which leaves us with you are against because you are uncomfortable with it, ya?

  • Report
  

  by 23Skidoo on July 16th, 2011

• I'm still not quite clear on why you keep confusing a reluctance to extend certain privileges with denying freedoms. I never suggested that people shouldn't be legally free to enter into complex marriage arrangements or to define and regulate them themselves through the power of contracts. (Being 'socially' free, that is being free to do so without other people giving them dirty looks or avoiding their company, is another matter.) I merely said that society has no interest in promoting such arrangements or even legally recognizing them, while it does have an interest in promoting and legally recognizing traditional monogamous marriage.
  
  But you are correct, I have not provided any data or references to "scientific studies" supporting such contentions. Nor will I. Though I am informed such data and studies exist, and have read in various mainstream magazines and newspapers about them over the last 30 years, I simply don't remember the names and sources of the specific studies, nor is it worth my time to look them up. I simply stand on the fact that why I have said is clearly the received wisdom on the matter. Now received wisdom is certainly not above questioning, but the beauty of it is that those who accept it and act in accord with it don't have to justify it or prove it: it is for those who wish to overturn it to conduct the studies, do the research, and provide the evidence that proves the received wisdom either just plain wrong or no longer applicable.
  
  And no, I'm not "uncomfortable" with the existence of complex marriages. I'm merely uncomfortable with holding them up as being of equal societal value as monogamy. Now who knows: in these days of career women and emasculated men, a multi-parent mini-commune environment may actually prove a more effective way of making the most of resources and dividing/sharing labor, particularly child-rearing. So go ahead: let those who wish to test them and prove them viable and even superior to traditional monogamy. When they do, THEN we can see about granting them the same or even preferential status.
  
  However, as I said before, such arrangements aren't novel, nor have they been unknown to modern industrial Western societies over the past 200 years. The problems with past attempts are:
  (1) It takes a very special group of people to make them work - especially people who don't get jealous and who don't bond more tightly with one partner than another, and women who don't turn family chauvinists when the interests of their own children are at odds with those of other women in the group. Interestingly, it can actually help matters in this regard if all involved are bi-sexual and preferentially homosexual – where the primary pair bonds are with the same-sex partner, and the opposite sex partners are primarily friends/roommates/domestic partners, and sex with them is principally for breeding.
  (2) even those groups that thrive for one generation have problems in the next: where does the 2nd generation find their group? Will they intermarry with each other? If not, and they can't find a group arrangement, will they be able to handle monogamy? Also, little children need to feel loved and safe, but a major part of that is seeing and feeling how much mom and dad love each other and are committed to each other. Furthermore, siblings and half-siblings are competitive by nature. Teenage girls want to fall in love while teenage boys want to get laid, but even more than that, boys want to win and to get better so they can win some more, all so they can impress dad and get girls to think they're hot. Unlike boys for whom competition is primarily about one-up-manship and thus fun and games, among girls it’s all out war – and principally over boys. Natural sibling dynamics become hugely over-complicated with an significant increase in the chances of catastrophic breakdowns.

  • Report
  

  by Stormarm on July 16th, 2011

• Ok, I'm sorry - I did misunderstand you position.
  
  But even with this understanding we end up with the right to marry. No I recognize any religion to make any rules it wants. If say, Catholics don't want to celebrate gay wedding nor recognize them "in the eyes of god" that's their right.
  
  But I can't see how civil marriages can be kept for only hetero, monogamous couples. You and some others claim government has an interest in promoting monogamous, hetero marriages. I disagree. I have seen no evidence suggesting it should have such an interest nor do I recall the Constitution saying anything of the sort. It's just an empty claim used to justify a perceived tradition. Similar arguments were used to keep from changing mixed race marriages, women's suffrage, and slavery.
  
  You also make claims of some progressive agenda that includes destroying the monogamous, hetero marriage. Again with no evidence and despite the fact that even most progressives are in hetero, monogamous marriages.
  
  So what's really at the root of the objection?

  • Report
  

  by 23Skidoo on July 17th, 2011

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

• I thought the sure chance of hell would be a reason to try to keep to GOD;s LAW. Now that we are in the last days we see the filth posing as truth coming forth "as in the days of Noah so shall it be in the end . Some billions drowned , willyou join them??

  • Report
  

  by william6 on August 13th, 2011

Comments

Comments

• Ummm.... No. I didn't say anything about marrying close relatives, did I? Any multiple marriage would increase genetic diversity of the children's generation.
  
  The government has no business passing laws based on any religious laws.

  • Report
  

  by 23Skidoo on July 14th, 2011

Comments

• All the law is based on christian principles , all society is surposed to obey God's law one man one woman that is marriage ,just because the bible has disobedent people can't make anything else right.

  • Report
  

  by william6 on August 13th, 2011

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

• The other wives were working from what I understand, until they started having babies. The first wife, was a full time student and I think at the very least part time employed (she may have been full time employed but I can't remember for sure). The second wife is a stay at home mom, and the third wife is fully employed. None of them were collecting welfare. The fourth wife lost her full time job as well, and I'm not certain if she ever got rehired, but I know in one interview they were talking about how to make the money stretch with the new mouths to feed.
  
  I worked with attorneys for many years and I know that we had all sorts of people come in asking for Wills and other personal agreements. Whatever isn't covered in the marriage laws and tax laws get covered in a Last Will and Testament, which has to be filed in court and also submitted with a individuals tax return. So all the husband has to do (and the wives as well) is write a will stating exactly who gets what, and then based upon that, everything else follows suit. The same is true for pre-nuptial agreements; people can write out contracts between themselves that are fully enforced by the law. So in a "divorce", property and money gets divided, and then come tax time, you just file the assets along with your other income.

  • Report
  

  by Quiet_Listener on July 14th, 2011