What exactly Is Wrong with Polygamy anyway?

[Res Ipsa]

The Census wasn’t a scientific survey. It was a count.

Did the 1850s Census cover rural areas? and is there any evidence that single men in their 20s outnumbered young women? I suspect the age gap was larger in the 1850s.

The Census is a constitutionally required count. There are tons of available documentation about it. Have at it.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

A polygamist’s son posted this on r/exmo yesterday:

I don’t have a spouse yet. There are so many guys in my group that don’t get married because most of the girls marry into the leaders family. They teach us that it’s our fault we aren’t married. If we’d go on more service projects or carry women’s baby’s to their seats on Sundays for church we’d be worthy of a wife. Over time I’ve realized the obvious gaslighting here. Not to mention the only marital options in the group are with cousins. Mostly because nobody joins our group so there isn’t any other options. Oh and by the way the leader approves all marriages. Somehow his sons are always the worthy ones.

Perhaps OP wants to get involved in polyamory and is looking for justification to do so, but I haven’t seen it work out with in real life acquaintances; in fact 100% of them have ended up in disaster.

- Doc

[Doctor Steuss]

My suggestion to Kevin would be to read some of the journals, and interviews of Brigham Young’s wives. If a wealthy prophet of God was unable (or unwilling) to properly provide for his wives and children, neglecting and abandoning them with wonton disregard whenever he became infatuated with a new wife, what exactly is right with polygamy?

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

My suggestion to Kevin would be to read some of the journals, and interviews of Brigham Young’s wives. If a wealthy prophet of God was unable (or unwilling) to properly provide for his wives and children, neglecting and abandoning them with wonton disregard whenever he became infatuated with a new wife, what exactly is right with polygamy?

Don’t forget BY issued over 1600 divorces during his tenure, the vast majority of which were to polygamous spouses. Considering population metrics and cultural taboos, 1600+ divorces were astronomical.

- Doc

[KevinSim]

It seems to me the most important rebuttals to Kevin Sim's arguments are these questions from Physics Guy, which Kevin has not responded to:

1) Nothing in First-World countries is stopping any number of women from cohabiting with any number of men today. If there are lots of involuntarily single women today who would rather share a man than have no man, they are free to do that. Do you notice it happening a lot?

I don't notice it happening a lot. Does that mean it doesn't happen? In the not too distant past gay sex was illegal; gay couples therefore carried on their sex lives in what was called "the closet." Most people didn't see it happening. That didn't mean it wasn't happening.
And even if it isn't happening anywhere, that doesn't make it wrong.

Are you saying that historical Mormon polygamy was sustained by a large fraction of men enthusiastically opting for lifelong celibacy? Or are you acknowledging that historical Mormon polygamy was sustained by pedogamy, and proposing for modern society a new kind of polygamy that has nothing to do with Mormon history?

I never said anything about men opting for celibacy; I just pointed out that society today condemns some women whose faith is important to them, to lifelong celibacy. I also don't acknowledge anything yet about pedogamy, but yes, I propose the legalization of a new kind of polygamy that has nothing to do with that history. I've been responding to questions about polygamy in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but I made it clear in the OP that what I wanted to know was what was inherently wrong with marriages of three adults of any gender combination.

[Marcus]

Which concept PG fully addressed:

If you want to talk on Mormon Discussions about a modern form of polygamy that has nothing to do with anything Mormon, then you're going to have to be a lot clearer about that distinction.

Historical Mormon polygamy really existed so there is a lot to say about it, and a lot of people here know useful stuff about it. An unrelated hypothetical modern form of polygamy is harder for anyone to discuss usefully. So the gravitational pull away from a topic on which no-one can say much, towards one that holds more interest for many here, cannot just be ignored. You have to be very front-and-center about your specific focus on a non-Mormon, non-historical, hypothetical topic, in spite of the board's usual focus on Mormonism.

What is there to say about modern polygamy, anyway? There are no laws about how many consenting adults can live together or about which of them can have sex with whom. There are no limits on what contracts they can collectively sign for sharing income and property. People may have their own wishes for or against polyamory, and may even have opinions about whether polyamory is a good idea for others, but there is no specific social institution to discuss, here, either way.

Should governments create such a new social institution of polygamous marriage? That would mean making new laws about spousal support, child support, child custody, alimony, parental consent, division of marital property in case of divorce, entitlement to spousal benefits from employers, and doubtless much more. What happens when a marriage of seven with eleven children, occupying two houses and driving five cars, wants to divorce into three smaller groups? Do the biological parents have stronger claims in child custody disputes, or do non-biological-parent marital partners count as adoptive parents? Can a foreigner acquire citizenship by becoming an eleventh spouse?

Polyamory is a currently feasible lifestyle, and anyone who wants to pursue it is free to do so, for any reasons they may have. So what's to discuss about it?

Modern polygamous marriage, as a new legal institution, would be a huge can of worms. There are probably only one or two people on these boards who could have anything to say on these legal topics that would be worth reading by anyone else. So what's to discuss about it?

And what else could there be to discuss, about modern polygamy?

[huckelberry]

but I made it clear in the opening post that what I wanted to know was what was inherently wrong with marriages of three adults of any gender combination.

Kevin, I think there is a distinct possibility people do not know what you mean by inherently wrong. I do not know what you mean.

[KevinSim]

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?

[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?

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

In my opening post I asked what was wrong with three adults of any gender combination entering into a polygamous marriage. If this was ever incorporated into a bill that went before Congress, it would need to have a provision requiring that all three participants be adults.

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.

[doubtingthomas]

why is the former illegal and the latter legal?

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