Not always, not necessarily. I have no objection to, say, three adults entering into a consensual relationship, be it two men one woman, two women one man, three men, or three women. If they want some of the protections that marriage gives (whether it actually gets officially called 'marriage' or not) then they should be able to arrange that.

When has there ever been an example of a polygamous "marriage" where every individual party was fairly represented in the arrangement.

I'm split as to whether or not accepting SSM would open up the possibility of legalized polygamy being brought up as a serious proposal. Currently, Americans tend to be more individualistic — marriage rates are on the decline, while divorce rates are still considerable. But as the influence of other cultures continues to grow in our society, the idea of enslaved women may come along with that.

What culture/s might be going to introduce the idea of enslaving women into mainstream American culture, do you think?

Anyway, I don't see why we should assume if there were (say) three parties to a marriage, that necessarily means that one of the parties wants to have an advantageous position over the others, any more than when there are only two parties to the marriage. Traditionally, marriage has generally involved some degree of subservience for the woman.

EDIT: Not that I'm particularly in favour of polygamous marriage, and I accept that in practice most are indeed power grabs. I just haven't seen a convincing reason why it is immoral per se.

One practical problem with polygamy is exactly that issue of the woman being subservient, which US laws have largely eliminated. It used to be that women didn't have the same property rights as men, but now they do. Polygamy opposes that.

For instance, say a husband has two wives. Say the husband dies. In a two-person marriage, the surviving spouse would get 100% of their deceased spouse's assets, but in polygamy the surviving spouses would have to split those assets up. I guess the two wives could still stay in the same household, sharing equally. But what if one of them wants to remarry? How much of the shared marital property would she be able to take with her to the new marriage? Would she need a divorce from the other wife?

So the wives in a polygamous marriage don't really have the same property rights that the husband does. There are limits on what the women can do with their property that don't apply to the men.

Peter, I'm using polygamy in the sense of multiple marriage. It could be three woman marrying for all I care, so husbands wouldn't come into it (so to speak).

Polygamy as practiced might oppose equal property rights, but "multiple marriage" does not, per se.

Once upon a time, conventional marriage opposed equal property rights too. For some, it is still not an equal relationship. That suggests to me that the issue isn't the number of people in the arrangement.

Islam, obviously. Also, some Latin and Asian subsets.

What you are suggesting is a business partnership. Which marriage essentially is, but has gotten wrapped up in the politics of interpersonal relationships and procreation.

I'm surprised no enterprising attorney has yet put together a package of contracts that for all effects and purposes add up to the same thing as the marriage contract (co-ownership of property, power of attorney, etc.), which persons of any gender could sign and be legal in every state.

I don't know, Stephen, if you just don't know much about the issue or if you are attempting to push an agenda, but I've already described why, in a real, pragmatic, inescapable sense why polygamy is immoral, and for some reason, you've chosen to ignore it.

It's not simply those participating in the polygamous relationship that are harmed by it, it is the society in which it takes place.

This isn't merely conjecture, and it's not some kind of wishy-washy subjective harm that society suffers.

There is a large population of boys in Utah, Nevada, and Arizona who have been pushed out of the society they have been brought up in because they have become "excess males." They are dispossessed, disinherited, and unwanted. This is a real, negative, unwanted, immoral consequence on society of polygamy.

To you, this seems to be some sort of intellectual exercise by someone who's never gotten their hands dirty with the real world consequences of these thought experiments.

But it's not just the boys who are harmed. Do you honestly think that these young women being pressed into these relationships are unemotional, spiritless creatures who simply are moved about like tokens on a game-board?

In a polygamous society, there are powerless women raped and abused in ways that simply do not take place to the same degree in a monogamous society. Sure, there are abuses everywhere--we're human. But you can't examine the negative impacts of polygamy in every single society in which it is practiced, and then say, 'yeah, well that's just those guys, I'm talking about a different kind of polygamy-- a good kind.'

There is no good, benevolent type of polygamy. It's harmful to every society that's ever practiced it. That is, it's 'immoral.'

I know someone who is in a polyamorous relationship. She is part of an S&M "family" and it seems to work for them. But they don't bother to call it marriage. They're just a man and two women who enjoy each other's company and their freaky sex and decided to live together full time. All three left their legal spouses to be with each other.

But historically Carlton is right: whenever multiple-partner marriages have been legal, it has led to widespread exploitation of both genders. Like most laws, the banning of polygamy came about not because it can never have positive consequences for anyone but because in practice the vast majority of the consequences were negative.

Gay marriage on the other hand, has not proven to have a majority of negative consequences, and has had some benefit to society as a whole by promoting monogamy.

I haven't ignored it, I'm just not convinced by it.



I'd be surprised if those communities are equally accepting of polyandry as they are of polygyny. It seems the polygamy you're talking about is focused on the idea of a male with charge over several wives. I've already indicated I don't approve of such power imbalances. The institutionalisation of such arrangements in society is a bad thing, but it's a bad thing for reasons unrelated to the number of people in the relationship. (Again, traditional marriage has often been a pretty shit deal for the woman; the two person limit didn't do them much good.)



I neither said that nor suggested it. You and I agree: pressing people into relationships = bad. Whether multiple marriage is allowed or not, let's agree that young women should not be treated as tokens on a game-board. Glad we've got that cleared up.

Now, do you agree that adult women should be allowed to enter into consensual relationships?



I'm not advocating a "polygamous society". That's like saying because I think that gay men should be a able to marry that I advocate a "gay marriage society".



Then you will be able to answer my question: what is it about three woman wanting to enter into a 'marriage' (let's not be pedantic about the name - we're talking about a marriage-like arrangement) that is immoral?