What exactly Is Wrong with Polygamy anyway?

[KevinSim]

Why did you take out the rest of his post that addressed what you said you really wanted to talk about?

Good grief! Responding to these threads is a complicated process. Marcus, do you really expect me to remember why I responded to one portion of a thread and not another? I will say one thing. Something said in response to something else often tends to be bigger than the original, so if a poster actively involved in a thread doesn't filter some parts out, then each successive post is going to grow without bound. So letting some parts go without responding to them is not a crime.

Aha. What you're describing is more like modern polyamory, which, as I understand it, consists of groups or people who are usually all in relationships with each other. I think there are sometimes exceptions, where one member of a polyamorous group may be involved with only one or some members of the group, but in any case, it's a much more fluid, and much more voluntary, arrangement than Mormon polygamy.

I'm all for voluntary arrangements, as I stated in the OP.

As everyone else on this thread has pointed out, an arrangement where one man has multiple wives, but the wives depend exclusively on the one man for everything one expects in a monogamous marriage, in inherently inequitable. Polygamy and polyamory are not equivalent, and if you're advocating polyamory, you're not advocating anything the LDS church has historically supported.

I know I'm not advocating anything the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has historically supported. I thought I said that in the OP too. It's like people saw me mention the LDS Church, saw me mention polygamy, and then didn't read anything else. As for inequity in a marriage, I can kind of see your point, Manetho, but "an arrangement where one man has multiple wives, but the wives depend exclusively on the one man for everything one expects in a monogamous marriage" is not the type of marriage I'm talking about.

[KevinSim]

why is the former illegal and the latter legal?

Who the hell cares? Nobody here thinks it should be illegal.

Excellent, DoubtingThomas! I'm glad to hear you agree with me.

[huckelberry]

anecdotal, Only case I am personally aware of folks trying a polygamous arrangement the first wife agreed with the idea. the threesome lasted a couple months or a bit less and the first wife left leaving the fellow with one wife. That is probably what all intended in the first place but were slow to say so.(first wife was looking for a way out with fewer hard feelings, no children involved )

[Marcus]

As everyone else on this thread has pointed out, an arrangement where one man has multiple wives, but the wives depend exclusively on the one man for everything one expects in a monogamous marriage, in inherently inequitable.

If it really is inherently inequitable, wouldn't it be that inequitable whether the man in question is married to the second woman or not? In other words, is there some difference in equity between a man married to two women, and a man married to one woman who is also carrying on a long term affair? And if there is no difference in equity, why is the former illegal and the latter legal?

You are equating inequity with legality, which is not how the terms equitable and inequitable are being used in this conversation. It is a specious comparison.

[Marcus]

Why did you take out the rest of his post that addressed what you said you really wanted to talk about?

Good grief! Responding to these threads is a complicated process. Marcus, do you really expect me to remember why I responded to one portion of a thread and not another?

Well, yes, actually I do, as do most serious posters here.

As an example of the misleading nature of your cut and pasting, the rest of my post you truncated above explains my point:

Aha. What you're describing is more like modern polyamory, which, as I understand it, consists of groups or people who are usually all in relationships with each other. I think there are sometimes exceptions, where one member of a polyamorous group may be involved with only one or some members of the group, but in any case, it's a much more fluid, and much more voluntary, arrangement than Mormon polygamy.

As everyone else on this thread has pointed out, an arrangement where one man has multiple wives, but the wives depend exclusively on the one man for everything one expects in a monogamous marriage, in inherently inequitable. Polygamy and polyamory are not equivalent, and if you're advocating polyamory, you're not advocating anything the LDS church has historically supported.

The bolded part is about your topic. The one and only sentence you lifted and responded to is not.

If you want to stay on topic, then do it.

[doubtingthomas]

Excellent, DoubtingThomas! I'm glad to hear you agree with me.

I don't think anyone here disagrees with you on that point.

[IHAQ]

Yeah, so even if the arrange is bad for one or more of the participants, as long as some are happy that's okay?

IHAQ, why does the arrangement have to be bad for any of the participants?

I don’t know why, but it always is. Something to do with a humans “survival of the fittest” instincts when placed within a group vying for a single thing - in this case, the attention of one man. And, as you should know, power corrupts. A polygamous man always abuses his harem in some way or another. Always. The onus is on you to show that isn’t the case. That you haven’t done so this far should be informing your view.

Is your wife aware you think there's something better than monogamy?

It's not monogamy I'm arguing against, IHAQ; it's celibacy. The alternative to polygamy is not monogamy; it's monogamy for the lucky and celibacy for the unlucky.

Well that seems to be a distinction without a difference. You certainly appear to be arguing against monogamy for single women.

[Brack]

It's non-existent. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has run DNA tests on all yhe children born to Joseph Smith's polygamous wives during the times he might have fathered them, and none of them matched Smith's DNA. So it didn't keep in line with Jacob 2:30. This has puzzled me to no end. Joseph Smith was a very fertile man. He and Emma got pregnant nine times during the relatively short time they were married. How does a man as fertile as Smith was consummate forty marriages without a single plural wife getting pregnant? I haven't been able to figure this one out.

I don't believe that Jacob 2:30 allows God commanding polygamy. The phrase "raise up seed unto the Lord" is also found in 1st Nephi 7:1. 1st Nephi 16:7 records that Nephi and his brethren took just one wife each.

"... but that his sons should take daughters to wife, that they might raise up seed unto the Lord in the land of promise." - 1st Nephi 7:1

"...I, Nephi, took one of the daughters of Ishmael to wife; and also, my brethren took of the daughters of Ishmael to wife; and also Zoram took the eldest daughter of Ishmael to wife." - 1st Nephi 16:7

[KevinSim]

Why are you thinking of stopping at two wives, though? If two would be fine, what would be wrong with three or more? If three would be too many, why are you sure that two would not be?

Physics Guy, if you want to try to pass a bill that would legalize four-adult, five-adult, etc., marriages, that's fine with me. My strategy is to take an incremental approach, start with three-adult marriages and then move on to larger numbers if it looks like there might be a need. There is, after all, a big chance that there might not be a need.

What relationships do you imagine between half-siblings or between stepchildren and their parent's non-parental spouse? What legal status would you assign to these relationships?

The same exact legal status they'd have in a monogamous legal system. I really don't see how there'd be any legal problems at all. Clearly both members of a married couple would have to consent before either one of them took a second spouse, but other than that the three-way marriage between Albert, Beth, and Charles could he treated legally as two separate two-way marriages, one between Albert and Beth, and one between Beth and Charles. What problems would arise from such a three-way marriage?

[KevinSim]

What alternative? Monogamy?

No, Doctor Steuss; as I told IHAQ, the alternative to polygamy is not monogamy; it's monogamy for the lucky, and celibacy for the unlucky.

If three consenting adults want to be in a committed relationship with each other, more power to them. If your wife wants a second husband, and you are ok with it, then I certainly see no problem with it.

Glad to hear you approve!