Other than the legality of it, can you offer a viable argument against plural marriage?

Maybe because it is hard enough keeping one spouse happy let alone two or more.

What would be the reason? More happiness? I doubt it.

I can’t see a good reason to forbid it, as long as everyone is consenting and happy. It’s not my thing, but these folks sound like they have it worked out pretty well.

After all, one person’s definition of “marriage” might not satisfy another, and what makes one person happy might not be what makes another person happy.

Maybe because loving someone means more than penciling them in for an appointment.

Nope

A marriage implies commitment, and multiple partners will almost certainly reduce one’s commitment to each partner. That being said, the choice is entirely that of the people involved, and I have absolutely no objection to such a relationship being formed under consent.

Just thinking about it makes me tired. That’s my argument.

Jealousy. Women need attention, companionship, and a dependable shoulder to lean on (as do men). They can fight the jealousy monster for years, but it will only eat them alive.

These wives are sacrificing and compromising a part of themselves by not exclusively having a parnter to depend on as all their own. It’s a loss of security. It’s a loss of sexual confidence. It’s a loss of themselves.

And it’s a charade: No one really wants to share the man/woman they love.

For all I care people could marry their dogs if they wanted to, what gives….

@bananafish, is man (woman) not capable of loving more than one? Would your argument not imply that children would interfere with the love between spouses, thus leading to a marriage without offspring?

1) I don’t like to share.

2) One husband already steals the covers quite effectively. I don’t need to fight off any other attempts.

I hear from some formerly sincere practitioners of polyamory that over the long term it’s hard to sustain multiple relationships because feelings get hurt, especially when things don’t stay even and one partner is out having fun while the other mopes at home. I know one couple that gave it up after a year and a half because of that kind of problem. (I get to hear about these things because I don’t pass judgment on them and I do listen with considerable interest.)

Another couple I know of has been practicing for many years, but there is some strain because the husband is outgoing and always has two or three partners and the wife is simply not as personable or, frankly, attractive.

Also I think children can complicate the picture a lot because they are typically not ready to understand or deal with what they may be observing.

I don’t see anything inherently wrong with either polygamy or polyandry, personally, though neither would be for me. I really think what consenting adults agree to among themselves and practice responsibly is nobody else’s business unless someone is being harmed.

@gimmedat, I write of romantic love, not family love.

And while the average man/woman is capable of ROMANTICALLY loving more than one person, rarely is that same person capable of contentedly sharing their spouse (if they’re being completely honest).

Bottling up jealousy like that for years isn’t good for the soul. And it’ll probably give you gas, too.

Nah, it’s a facade. Love is yours to put out and get back. Love knows no limits. Love is.

Forgive me, this post lacks cohesion. I’m tired and for the most part this is just me thinking aloud.

Suppose Sally, Mary, and Bill want to get married. Is there a difference if Bill marries Sally and Mary; if Sally marries Mary and Bill; if all three marry mutually; etc.? And if they all marry exclusivly, what happens when Sally wants to divorce the other two?

What about if someone wants to take as many wives as possible in order to get the world record? Should that be allowed?

It’s generally easier to commit to one person than to three.

What is marriage anyway? Besides influencing how you file your taxes, and who you can visit in the hospital, what does it mean?

You don’t have to be married to live with who you want and have sex with who you want. The legal arguments for marriage are entirely different from the religious and ceremonial reasons people marry. And, I may be wrong here, but I think that the legal reasons tend to lean in favor of marriage between only two people. I think ceremonial marriage and legal marriage should be separate.

That didn’t make sense, did it? I’m sorry.

In Octomom’s case, maybe it would be a good thing. ;-)

Truthfully, I say live and let live and there are no guarantees in any relationship.

Some of the comments above, though, remind me of a quote from an episode of “48 Hours” where an officer talking about a spouse-on-spouse murder expounded on how a marriage is comprised of thousands of insults. I thought that was pretty deep.

Polygyny doesn’t make sense economically but I am all for polyandry. There would always be enough resources and there is always someone to watch sports on TV with.

Consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want to with each other.

If they are all consenting adults, they should be able to do it, in my opinion.

i think the only real problem is that, despite our supposed “separation of church and state”, we are still primarily a christian nation. not only this, but many in our country are extremely devout conservative christians and dislike the moral issue of polygamy. finally, many people (especially in america) aren’t open to change and new ideas.

if it doesn’t harm anyone, i see no problem with plural marriages and partnerships. to each his own really. let your own morals control the situation. as such an “advanced country”, we shouldn’t be letting our morals as a whole overrule those of individuals.

The thing about jealousy and inability to commit to more than one person is like this: the jealous people and people who have issues with polyamory will self-select to be in monogamous relationships. That is where they’ll be the happiest, so that’s what they should do. That leaves poly people, who will be happiest in poly relationships, and will self-select them. I believe it’s as crazy to ask Poly people to conform to the Mono mold as it is to ask Mono people to take up Poly relationships.

While such reasons against Poly relationships are good reasons to avoid them for those people, I don’t see them as valid reasons to forbid Poly relationships altogether for people that don’t feel like they have the same problems (with jealousy, energy, etc).

One aspect I don’t see covered here is that polygamy is, as practiced today, a form of male domination.

If it was all consenting adults, where are the polygamous marriages in which a wife keeps multiple husbands?

Within the groups that practice polygamy, girls are married off at very young ages TO MEN THEY DID NOT CHOOSE. Young boys are driven away from the groups as they start to mature, because they represent competition.

Men pursue whatever profession they want while wives are limited in their access to education and are allowed only to be homemakers and mothers.

Men jump from bed to bed, while women can have only one shared partner.

If there were some people living in our society in which the parties all had access to equal education, choice, etc., then I would nut have a problem with it, but that is not how polygamy is practiced today in this country.

As to women saying they are fine with it, slaves used to say that they were happy as slaves too. The fact of the matter is if you have been brainwashed and controlled, you don’t know anything else.

@Marina- the question does place polyandry (one woman with several husbands) on equal footing with polygamy…

Polygamy is multiple spouses. In my answer I pointed out that polygyny (multiple wives) is economically unfeasible in the modern world. It had two practical purposes. 1) It provided for a lot of children, which we all agree is no longer necessary or desireable. 2. When women were required to do most of the manual labor and men were off with the herds, co-wives could share the work.

On the other hand polyandry is a great idea. There would be more adults supporting fewer children. Think of every child having a nice home, enough financial stability for health care and a good education.

If there was competition for a wife’s attention, most men would keep themselves sharp, probably show more appreciation for wife and family. Guys wouldn’t have to carry the whole financial and emotional load alone and they would always have buddies to hang out with.

Of course women would have the burden of choosing compatible guys but think about the benefits. You could choose husbands with different abilities and interests. One escort for the opera, another guy who can do home repairs, never having to be a single parent, an adequate income. And if a guy treats you badly, banish him to the garage. lol

Watch Big Love on HBO. It’s. A great show and it really delves into all of this issues raised above.

@Marina – The male-domination format that you describe is hard for me to accept, since it is clearly true that it’s not consent-based and the women are probably not happy. However, I don’t think it’s the only form practiced today, it’s just the kind that gets the most press. Up there in my first quip, I linked to a story about a group marriage of three women and two men where everyone seems empowered. That is the kind I support (if people want to do it) – the kind where everyone concerned is doing it out of choice and is happy there.

@tinyfaery Big love is awesome

@laureth and jayne I have trouble separating the ideal from the actual. The numbers are similar to the numbers for domestic violence. Are men sometimes the victims of domestic violence? Yes, about 2% of the time or less. Clearly, as a societal problem we need to deal with the 98%. It is similar for polygamy.

In terms of strictly the ideal, I think it would be difficult for all partners to have their needs met equally in a group marriage. I also think most human beings are not self-assured enough or highly evolved enough to overlook inevitable inequities and jealousies.

@Marina – re: “I also think most human beings are not self-assured enough or highly evolved enough to overlook inevitable inequities and jealousies.”

I agree. And I think that’s why most people are probably better suited to monogamous relationships. But even if that “most people” is 98% of the population, I still think that the 2% of “highly evolved” people should not be held under the tyranny of the majority.

They aren’t. They can form any family group they want using any ritual they want. They just can’t have the legal bond of civil marriage.

Should they be able to have it? In my world, it would be OK, but I can’t get real excited about it.

To the original question, I wonder if one argument against polygamy would be a social one—i.e., overconsumption of a common resource (partners). If any given party is allowed to take more than a fair share of partners, doesn’t it mean that less attractive or eligible members of the society are more likely to end up single—and therefore without progeny—and therefore without someone reponsible for them in their old age? so they become a burden to society? Isn’t it in the society’s best interest to see that as many members as possible produce their own committed (and filially obligated) offspring?

I can easily imagine this kind of concern as being a source (the source?) of what evolved into cultural and religious taboos.

At the same time, the society as a whole would have an interest in the orderly succession of leaders and the consolidation of property (and avoiding splinter wars), so it might be in the society’s interest to observe a double standard for chieftains, kings, tribal leaders, etc. (I suppose it is also wise to keep them happy.)

In any society that lived a lot closer to the edge than we do, fairness wouldn’t have entered into it at all, nor would preference or maturity. If you ask what is best for collective survival, that might be monogamy.

Someone who has studied social history, especially of cultures that have the practice of polygamy in their past, probably knows the answer to this point; but intuitively it makes some sense to me.

In theory, though, it would be the most successful, wealthy men who had many wives (in that old kind of system). Their “better” genes would make a number of offspring, supposedly improving the next generation, whereas less successful men would weed themselves out of the genetic garden.

It was thought best for the survival of poor families to have daughters (because someone would probably marry them, even if they were third or fourth wife to a chieftain), and for rich families to have sons (who could attract many women, whereas poor men might not get any).

Don’t you think the question is very clever in asking us to come up with arguments against plural marriage, rather than for it?

The only viable argument against plural or group marriages is that it makes divorce incredibly complicated. (I’m assuming for the moment you mean “marriage” in the legal sense, of an offically recognized status.) But the problem with that is that we already have a very similar situation—the legal partnership. A legal partnership can have many different partners, with different degrees of investment and ownership; and when one of the partners wants to leave, it can be made to happen in a nice structured way. It doesn’t quite handle the situation of children gracefully, but I don’t think pair-marriage divorce does that either, in the general case.

I know a few people who are practicing polyamorists, and I’m very good friends with one. He says that the single biggest adjustment is that you have to stop thinking “Is my partner giving me everything s/he can?” and you start thinking “Am I getting everything I, personally, need?” And the reason for this—well, let’s take a single need. Some people are very tactile and need a lot of snuggling. Others need less, or are very physically standoffish. In a pair relationship, the question you ask yourself is, is my partner having his or her needs fulfilled elsewhere? In a group relationship, the question you ask yourself is, am I getting as much snuggling as I need? Are my partners getting as much snuggling as they need? And if you really are getting as much snuggling as you need, then being jealous because your two partners are being tactile with each other is just silly.

It’s that shift from “am I getting everything I possibly can” to “am I getting everything I need and most of what I want” that makes the real difference between monogamy and polyfidelity.

And I think group marriage is only a resource-consumption problem if all the relationships are structured the same way—all with one man and many women, or all with one woman and many men. In a society where men and women have equitable power and status, you’re likely to wind up with mixed groups of men and women, and the one man with three wives is likely to be balanced out by the one woman with three husbands and the two men and two women in a group.

@daloon And have us prove a negative? I don’t see what’s so funny about the way it was asked.

Lurve, @cwilbur. Very much what I wish I could have explained, but better.

@petethepothead: as asked, @cwilbur‘s response is non-responsive, since it talks about positive things about plural marriage. cwilbur’s post doesn’t attempt to offer a viable argument against plural marriage. It is not on topic, and given the rather strict interpretation of the importance of staying on topic here on fluther, it’s a surprise the post has not been removed by a moderator.

The question is a leading question, not an open-ended question. It presumes that no one would defend plural marriage, or rather, it prohibits supporters of plural marriage from answering, leaving the impression that everyone is against it, which isn’t true.

I’m not sure how proving a negative comes into it. I don’t know that we are trying to “prove” anything (just giving reasons why plural marriage doesn’t work); and I have no idea which “negative” you might mean, should anyone be so foolish as to try to prove it.

@daloon – I was assuming that all of the pro-poly answers are just long, essay-size answers that mean, “No, I cannot offer a viable argument against plural marriage.”

@laureth: Hmmm. I guess that’s one way of spinning it.

No, I can’t offer a viable reason against plural marriage.

There. I said it.

Gee, wasn’t that an interesting comment?

My only viable reason is personal. I don’t share. Otherwise, as long as it is all adults involved, and they are all happy, who cares?

@Darwin But you share with us!

@galileogirl – I share some things with you all. Not everything, especially not my husband. :-)

I agree that as far as I’m concerned, plural marriage is a viable option and one I wouldn’t oppose on legal grounds. Even IF I have any morals against it, I am ardently opposed to anyone legislating based on religious moral beliefs. Since it doesn’t hurt anyone else, I don’t know why it shouldn’t be allowed (much like gay marriage, pot smoking, etc.).

However…if I may play devil’s advocate…

Where is the limit?

Let’s say plural marriage becomes legal, as (hopefully) does gay marriage. So let’s imagine a scenario (if you will) in which a giant group of consenting adults of both genders all want to get married to eachother in one big group. Let’s say 55 in total. What then? Could that work?

Most of us think of that and realize it’s an absurd scenario, but does that mean it wouldn’t happen? Look at octomom!

So the question is: Where’s the limit? If we make plural marriage legal, where can we draw the line and say, “that’s too many” without infringing on their religious and personal rights. 4? 5? 10?

Ooh, can I marry Fluther?

@bananafish: if 55 consenting adults want to tie themselves together legally, what business is it of anyone else? Why does there need to be a limit?

A lot of the outrage at octomom is because she’s doing all of this at taxpayer expense. As long as the 55 people don’t want me to pay for their poor judgment and excesses, I don’t have a problem with whatever they want to do.

Of course everyone understands that all of these different combinations have been part of different cultures. The only thing that keeps us monogamous (rather we practice serial monogamy because most of us have had more than one partner in our lifetimes) is because the way we have been socialized and practicality.

Of course polygyny is the most common historically because so many cultures are paternalistic. However in some cultures ie in the Himalaya and ancient India, fraternal polyandry occured. And in many cultures there was spouse sharing as part of festivals or even a way to accomodate visitors.

As far as everybody “all in”, that occured in some communal living arrangements in the 60’s and 70’s. It still occurs today, not as polygamy, but rather as an orgy. Probably the thing that keeps it from growing to 55 participants or more is simply space. For more than a dozen, you would pretty much have to rent a hall.

As far as human behavior goes, there is nothing new under the sun. <:o}

“As far as human behavior goes, there is nothing new under the sun.”

What about sexting?

Puhleaze…Sexual images have been shared since the earliest cultures at least. They have been found on sheepskin, walls, bowls, right up to the earliest tintypes, moving pictures and online. The technology may be new, the behavior isn’t.

@galileogirl: a 55-person group marriage has the same relationship to an orgy as a two-person marriage has to a one-night stand—which is to say, it’s awfully reductionist to consider a nuanced relationship involving the whole person to just sex.

I have seen plenty of two person relationships that weren’t very nuanced. And to be fair, I did say there were practical problems with the 55 person relationship having to do with space>leading to problems with intimacy>leading to little nuance. I definitely don’t recommend orgies, big or small. But I have heard of swingers who do and we all have to find the relationships that we are comfortable with, as people have done for millenia.

@galileogirl – That’s true. I actually heard that the first guy to invent the wheel stumbled upon it while he was carving a giant boob to worship (and fondle).