Polygamy is the state or practice of having two or more mates at the same time, this includes both Polygyny (the union of one man with more than one woman - literally, ‘many females’) and Polyandry (the union of one women with more than one man: literally, ‘many males’). Polygamy is a social phenomenon that has existed for thousands of years in cultures around the world. Polygamy is believed by some to be condoned in the original texts of many faiths - in the Bible from Lamech’s marriage to Adah and Zillah in Genesis (4:23), to Joseph’s four wives (Gen 29-30). In Judaism, most of the prophets - God’s messengers - were polygamous. Solomon is said to have had 700 wives. In Islam, the Koran tells us that after the battle of Uhud many widows were left, who were married to already married men (4:3). In modernity, most religions ban the practice and it is rare in Islam. In most countries, including all western ones and some Islamic ones, polygamy is illegal, although some Muslim states (e.g. Saudi Arabia) do allow it. Apart from these Islamic examples, polygamy does continue in some African societies.
In America, substantial controversy surrounds Mormon fundamentalist forms of polygamy. In the 1840’s, Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormon Church, approved the practice of polygamy. In 1896, Utah's leaders were forced to abandon polygamy in order to achieve statehood. Polygamy is a felony in the state – albeit not often prosecuted. In 1953, the American public reacted adversely to a ‘polygamy raid’ in Utah, causing a reduction in the enforcement of polygamy laws in Utah and elsewhere in the United States in subsequent decades. For more than a century, the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints (to give the Mormons their proper name) has expelled those practising polygamy. Polygamy has been maintained, however, by break-away Latter Day Saints Churches such as the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints (FLDS). This church was led by Warren Jeffs before his high-profile arrest in 2007. In 2008, starting on April 4, Texas State officials "raided" a FLDS community in Elderado, Texas, and took 416 children there into temporary legal custody in an effort to protect them from allegedly abusive conditions. This has enlivened the polygamy debate in the United States and internationally. Many polygamists and non-polygamists strongly advocate the practice. And, with an HBO show called "Big Love" that features a more-or-less happy polygamous family, many are taking a fresh look at the arguments.
This debate revolves around numerous questions. Does government have a compelling interest in legalizing polygamy, or is criminalization justified? Should the government be tolerant of polygamy and polygamous lifestyles? For religious polygamists, does the state need to allow for "freedom of religion" in the practice of polygamy?
Or are these religious beliefs directly clashing with core laws, individual rights, and democratic principles, thus justifying government intervention? Can polygamous marriages uphold principles of gender equality, or are they inherently misogynistic? Is polygamy generally a good social planning model for states? Can it help increase population size in needed times? Or, does it leave too many men without wives, causing social strife? Do polygamous families function as strong support networks that relieve strains on government?
Is it impossible to enforce anti-polygamy laws adequately? Is polygamy too widespread to carry out enforcement of the law consistently? Are raids on polygamist communities highly damaging and traumatizing to polygamist communities? Is the enforcement of polygamy laws driving communities into the shadows subsequently making enforcement of polygamy laws much more difficult?
Are governments engaging in moral double standards by criminalizing polygamy. Is polygamy no worse than adultery, for instance?
Can polygamy be separated from religion, or is it fair to treat it as effectively always faith-based? How does this affect questions surrounding free choice? If polygamy is typically religious, and a belief exists that God commands it, does that mean that women have less of a choice in opting to engage in the practice? Does polygamy have a long standing history in various religions and cultures? Does this provide it greater credibility as a legitimate religious belief and practice, perhaps providing it more protection under "freedom of religion"?
Does polygamy generally uphold the legal right of consent? Or are women forced into marriages and into other actions within their marriages? Do religious, polygamist males have too much authority "from God" to control women? Are polygamist wives frequently abused in the name of God? Is polygamy intrinsically abusive? Does polygamy create harmful competitions between wives?
What does polygamy do to the institution of marriage and family? Does it share the same principles of love and affection as in monogamous marriages? Does it help reduce divorce rates? Are polygamous families stable? Does it satisfy the mutual interests of husband and wives? Do polygamous wives become destructively jealous of one another? What about the children? Are their interests upheld in polygamous marriages?
Government role: Should governments be tolerant of and stay out of polygamy?
[]
[]
Yes
Criminalizing polygamy violates the right to freedom of religion The state has a duty to respect religious beliefs. Polygamy is typically practiced as an extension of religious belief. The state should not be in the business of saying that polygamous religious beliefs are wrong, while other religious beliefs are right.
Consenting adults should be free to engage in polygamy As long as consenting adults freely choose to engage in polygamous marriages, the government has little cause to intervene. It should be assumed that individuals will engage in contracts only when it is in their mutual interests. Some defend laws against polygamy on the basis that women are not actually freely consenting to polygamy, even if they say so; that social/communal and religious doctrine are forcing them to do so. But this assumes far too much, opening an unruly debate about what constitutes free will in decision-making. On a legal basis, only clear evidence that women are being forced to engage in polygamous contracts should be used to invalidate such contracts. Otherwise, polygamy should be legalized on the basis that the vast majority of these women claim to engage in polygamous contracts by free will.
If polygamy is bad for individuals, let them figure it out on their own The government should not play "big brother" for the very reason that it is incapable of teaching people how to live their own lives. If polygamy is bad for individuals, we need to trust that they can figure that out on their own. If we can't trust individuals to figure this out, then we demean their capacity to reason and to assume responsibility over their own affairs. Even if we were to assume that polygamy is bad, it is clear that government laws and intervention are incapable of instructing individuals to do right. Or, at least the government it is not more capable than social and individual reasoning in guiding individuals to do right. This reasoning is validated by the fact that, despite laws against polygamy, the practice continues to be widespread. Maybe that is because it is actually not bad.
In tolerant societies why single out and criminalize polygamy? There are many "life styles" in a modern democracy that are seen by many as detestable, such as hard-core pornography, but that are nevertheless legal and tolerated. In a tolerant society, shouldn't polygamy also be tolerated?
We must consider polygamy's best-case not just worst-case scenarios. A prejudice seems to exist in analyzing polygamy, in which the worst case scenarios are over-emphasized and sometimes used to paint the whole picture of polygamy. But, without also considering the common best-case scenarios involved in polygamy, such selectiveness can be viewed as prejudiced or at least ignorant. We need to be open-minded to instances in which consenting polygamist families live exceptionally happy and model lives. The reality is that many of them do. This should dampen the apparent prejudices of those that focus squarely on abusive scenarios within polygamist communities; scenarios that exist in all other communities too. It is also necessary to realize that legislators must consider the average polygamous scenario so as to better understand the inherent qualities of the practice, rather than simply exceptional polygamous practices.
Polygamous families provide good financial support networks Larger families with multiple wage earners are more resilient against challenges they face. They have a greater safety net. This greater self-sufficiency in polygamous families reduces the strain on governments of having to act as a safety net when things go bad.
Legalizing polygamy will save millions of dollars in welfare fraud The problem is that many polygamists exist in the shadows and don't pay taxes. And, yet they seek welfare checks. If polygamy was legalized, polygamists would be forced to come out of the shadows, pay taxes, and subsequently avoid commiting welfare fraud.
Legalization will allow polygamists to positively contribute to society By bringing polygamy out of the shadows, legalization will enable polygamists to become more active and contributory members of society.
Perhaps, just perhaps, reintroducing polygamy would be a way of fulfilling God's promise to Abraham that his progeny would become as numerous as the grains of sand on the seashore."
Polygamy is valuable in communities with a shortage of males"The Case for Polygamy". Time. 1968 - "A missionary for 16 years in Tanzania, Father Hillman points out that in much of the underdeveloped world there is a shortage of men willing and able to take on families. Polygamy thus provides the only hope of marriage for many women. 'In such a socioeconomic context," writes Hillman, "the Christian insistence on an immediate change from [polygamy] to monogamy might very well cause much more harm than good. It is not at all certain that the average Christian missionary has either the mandate or the competence to change social structures that are not in them selves evil but are in fact serving constructive purposes.'"
Criminalizing polygamy unfairly alienates immigrant polygamistsMartha Bailey, Chief author of a 2006 Queen's University study calling for the legalization of polygamy in Canada told The Canadian Press, "Polygamous marriages are legal in some countries. They come to Canada, the vast majority of them will not know the law and they have no legal protection. They could be prosecuted. Suddenly, they're living in fear."[3] -
If polygamy can sometimes be acceptable, all forms of it should be legal. If we agree that some forms of polygamy are acceptable (say with one man and three wives), it is difficult to logically impose restrictions on the number of wives or children that could be involved in a polygamous marriage because they would be, by necessity, arbitrary. Total legalization, instead, is the answer. This could see some sensible guidelines, such as that partners need to be able to provide for one another adequately (which is performed in Muslim communities).
[]
[]
No
Religious polygamists often see their religious laws as above state lawJohn R. Llewellyn, former polygamist. "Polygamy vs. common sense". Retrieved 4.24.08 - "One last remark about our Founding Fathers. Wilford Woodruff had a dream where a few of the Founding Fathers came to him and wanted to become Mormons, so he had all the signers of the Declaration of Independence baptized in a Mormon ritual called, Baptism for the Dead. As a result, many Mormons behave as if the Constitution is a Mormon document and everything Mormon, including plural marriage, is constitutional. I suppose that notion is good for Mormon self esteem, but once again, a real stretch of the imagination." In general, when a church sees its polygamy laws as above state laws, the state has a right to intervene.
Polygamy leaves some men with no women to marry; socially destabilizing With a effectively parity between male and female populations worldwide and in most societies and communities, allowing men to marry multiple wives carries the risk of leaving many men with now wives to marry. The costs of this effect are enormous. It can be devastating to these men and their hopes and dreams. It also has many ill social effects, including the below:
Anti-polygamists would argue, with some justice, that feelings of gender equality are impossible in a family where, simply to prevent anarchy, the man must organize his wives like a military unit with himself as the commanding general."
Most mormon polygamy priesthoods uphold "the freedom to be oppressed" This is a faulty principle that is similar, in some ways, to freedom of association principles. It posits that if someone feels that they are being unjustly oppressed in a polygamist community, they have the freedom to leave. But, as long as they want to remain in the community, they are subject to the authority and possibly the oppression of the priesthood. This is faulty in the basic sense that it denies the unfettered reach of a nations laws to all of its citizens. No priesthood can offer a citizen the choice to forfeit inherent rights that are protected by a nation's constitution; those rights cannot be forfeited and are considered inherent in all citizens.
Polygamy will always be sexist with patriarchal polygyny predominatingJonathan Rauch. "One Man, Many Wives, Big Problems. The social consequences of polygamy are bigger than you think". April 3, 2006 - "The second crucial word is 'polygyny.' Unlike gay marriage, polygamy has been a common form of marriage since at least biblical times, and probably long before. In his 1994 book The Moral Animal: The New Science of Evolutionary Psychology, Robert Wright notes that a 'huge majority'of the human societies for which anthropologists have data have been polygamous. Virtually all of those have been polygynous: that is, one husband, multiple wives. Polyandry (one wife, many husbands) is vanishingly rare. The real-world practice of polygamy seems to flow from men's desire to marry all the women they can have children with.
Moreover, in America today the main constituents for polygamous marriage are Mormons and, as Newsweek reports, 'a growing number of evangelical Christian and Muslim polygamists.' These religious groups practice polygyny, not polyandry. Thus, in light of current American politics as well as copious anthropological experience, any responsible planner must assume that if polygamy were legalized, polygynous marriages would outnumber polyandrous ones — probably vastly."
Legalizing polygamy could spread the institution and its social harms Legalizing polygamy would have the likely effect of increasing the practice, although perhaps not to the extent that it proliferates on a massive scale. But, if the practice is deemed harmful, any marginal increase in it can be concluded as bad, and should be cause for concern and pause among legislators who are considering legalizing it.
Legalized polygamy opens a slippery slope to legalizing polyamory. Indeed, if patriarchal polygamy is legally recognized, it would only be fair to legalize all forms of multi-partner relations. This is precisely the problem, as it would open the floodgates to the legalization of polyamory in gay, lesbian, and bisexual communities.
Legalizing polygamy would open a slippery slope to legalizing other immoral lifestyles. If we legalize polygamy, why not legalize, say, beastiality (sex between men and animals). The problem faced here regards moral boundaries. Where do we draw the line, if we legalize polygamy?
Few societies have population problems that can be solved with polygamy. Polygamy might be a demographic solution in countries with large female populations and small male ones, but such major demographic discrepancy are very, very rare. And, over time, it is clear that populations even out naturally and irrespective of government policies.
If polygamy is legalized, would the state allow marriages with 100-wives? Opening the door to legal polygamy opens serious questions about instances in which a man marries 100 wives and has 1,000 children. Isn't this an abusive form of polygamy? And, if so, how does the state regulate polygamy? Does it put a cap on the number of wives and the number of children? Assuming that such caps would be arbitrary and indefensible, the state would have to criminalize all forms of polygamy, or allow for the 100-wives scenario. It is better to criminalize it.
Polygamy is legal in failed societies and illegal in succesful ones There is a common trend internationally surrounding polygamy. The only states in which polygamy is legal are underdeveloped or unsuccessful ones. No modern democratic state legally permits polygamy. This basic trend goes against polygamy, suggesting that polygamy is not an ingredient in the development of a modern state. There are good reasons for this that will be outlined below, such as the fact that polygamy is not sustainable in a society where there are equal numbers of men and women (it leaves many men without opportunities for marriage). All of this suggests to leaders and legislators in states that desire to modernize that they should not legalize polygamy.
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
Enforcement: Is it impossible to appropriately enforce anti-polygamy laws?
[]
[]
Yes
Polygamy is widespread, making full enforcement impossible and thus arbitrary. If polygamy cannot be enforced across the board because it is too widespread, it will only be enforced selectively. When laws are enforced selectively, they are enforced arbitrarily, undermining basic principles of equality in justice.
Legalizing polygamy will reduce harm of prosecution to individuals. Part of the case against polygamy is that it is, supposedly, harmful to those that practice it. It is, therefore, odd that little consideration is given to the harm that enforcing anti-polygamy laws inflicts on polygamists and their communities. Legalizing polygamy would eliminate the damage done by raids on polygamous communities, the division of spouses, the separation of children from their mothers, and the general trauma of being prosecuted for a the conduct of ones entire life.
The difficulty of enforcing the law is no reason to legalize polygamy. Laws are often hard to enforce. Laws against rape, burglary, and even murder are good examples. Does that mean the government is wrong in having these laws? Obviously not. The same applies to polygamy. Expendiency should not be a consideration in polgymy laws. Polygamy laws should be based mainly on principles over practicality. The principles underlying opposition to polygamy are strong. The case in favor of this is made above and below. Assuming that these principles are "righteous", it is important to make a strong effort, despite the difficulties, to uphold them them. If the law does not reflect justice and its underlying righteous principles, then of what value is the law? If it is based entirely on expedience and practicality, then justice, principle, and morality lose their power, and just about anything can be justified in the name of practicality. Therefore, if anti-polygamy laws are difficult to enforce, enforcement mechanisms should be improved first; justice and principle should not sacrificed to practicality without a fight.
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
Double standards: Is government applying a moral double standard against polygamy?
Polygamy is no worse than modern serial monogamy Serial monogamy is the practice of, in the context of marriage, marrying one person, divorcing them, marrying another person, divorcing them, and moving on and on through husbands and wives. This is very common in the West, with divorce rates as high as 50%. Pro-polygamists legitimately ask, "so it's OK to marry-divorce-marry-and-divorce, but it's not OK to marry all of those wives at the same time? Why?"
Polygamy is a better alternative to adultery, divorce, and remarriage Adultery, divorce, and re-marriage are practices that are highly tense, bitter, costly, destabilizing, traumatizing, and damaging-for-children. Polygamy avoids much of the experience by bringing everyone into one stable family. While there certainly may be some costs associate with such polygamous families, are these costs any worse than those associated with the very common experiences of adultery, divorce, and remarriage.
[]
[]
No
Polygamy is deeply sexist while adultery, divorce, and re-marriage are not. Polygamy almost always assumes a patriarchial polygynous form (one man, many wives). Patriarchy is sexist in the basic sense that males hold a dominant position. Typically, this is re-enforced by religious interpretations that demean women and empower men. These sexist elements are not inherently shared by adultery, divorce, and re-marriage.
Polygamy is hierarchal and unequal while adultery, divorce, and re-marriage are not. Polygamy typically assumes a hierarchical structure, in which the man is king and in which senior wives assume dominance over junior wives. Sometimes, the priesthood exists even above the man, having the power to strip a man of his wives if he contravenes the priesthood. This is all deeply unequal and undemocratic. Adultery, divorce, and re-marriage do not, conversely, violate basic individual rights.
Polygamy establishes a rights-violating contract, while adultery, divorce, and re-marriage do not. Polygamy inherently violates the principle of consent. It does so first by offering women a choice to join a community in which their rights are set aside and they are subject to hierarchical oppression and non-consensual new-marriages (among other things). This is an invalid contract, as no individual can agree to forfeit their inherent rights in this way. Adultery, divorce, and re-marriage do not fit into this category in the simple sense that they do not seek to establish invalid contracts that breach individuals rights. Rather, adultery is the act of breaching a contract and divorce is the act of ending a contract, but neither are acts of establishing invalid contracts that breach individual rights.
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
Religion: Is polygamy a legitimate religious belief protected by "freedom of religion"?
Deuteronomy contains a rule for the division of property in polygamist marriages. Old Testament figures such as Abraham, David, Jacob and Solomon were all favored by God and were all polygamists. Solomon truly put the "poly" to polygamy with 700 wives and 300 concubines. Mohammed had 10 wives, though the Koran limits multiple wives to four. Martin Luther at one time accepted polygamy as a practical necessity. Polygamy is still present among Jews in Israel, Yemen and the Mediterranean.
Indeed, studies have found polygamy present in 78% of the world's cultures, including some Native American tribes. (While most are polygynists — with one man and multiple women — there are polyandrists in Nepal and Tibet in which one woman has multiple male spouses.) As many as 50,000 polygamists live in the United States.
Given this history and the long religious traditions, it cannot be seriously denied that polygamy is a legitimate religious belief."
Criminalizing polygamy violates the right to freedom of religion Given that polygamy has such a long history as a religious tradition, and that it can be considered a legitimate religious belief, how can governments deny individuals their free right to practice these beliefs. Doesn't that violate the principle of "freedom of religion". We shouldn’t stop people from practicing their faiths. Polygamy is legal within the Muslim faith. Why should the validity of such marriages not be recognized? It’s no less than a slur on the faith concerned.
The bible provides support to polygamy (Genesis 2:24): "Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife and they become one flesh."
Legalization will dissolve paranoia on both sides of the fence. Prejudices and misunderstandings between polygamous and non-polygamous communities worsened by the fact that polygamy's illegality, in many countries, drives the practice under-ground. Legalizing it will bringing into the open and subsequently increase mutual-understanding and tolerance on both sides of the fence.
[]
[]
No
Polygamy is practiced mainly for religious reasons, so can't be seen in secular terms Some contend that Polygamy is simply a marriage contract and that it should not be pigeon-holed, for legal purposes, as solely a religious phenomena. Indeed, if religion had nothing to do with polygamy, it might be considered less threatening, as it could be considered more of an act of free will, instead of an act of obedience to God's will. But, the reality is that over 90% of polygamy is practiced by Mormons, Muslims, and others as an act of faith and obedience to God's supposed commandments. For legislators, this is important, as it reveals that polygamy really is being conducted in obedience to God's will, in competition with both free will and the laws of almost all secular states. Polygamy is a religious phenomena, and needs to be treated as such by the state.
They would like you to think it means polygamy is a religious undertaking. But it doesn’t mean that at all. The fact of the matter is that it doesn’t mean anything, its just another illusion to justify a human desire.
The Biblical patriarchs practiced polygamy for economic, social and political reasons. Religion had nothing to do with it. To say polygamy is biblical is to say incest, rape and murder is biblical. You can find it all in the Bible." [see rest of article]
The Bible or Quran are read as instructing only patriarchal polygyny. The Bible and Koran support polgyny (one male many wives) but not polyandry (one women many husbands). The reason for this is clear – women are objects and a man can have more than one, but a man is more significant - he is head of the household. Therefore, it is wrong to support polygamy in accordance with the Bible or Koran, and this necessitates following a sexists, misogynist form of polygamy: polygyny only.
Whilst polygynous marriages are technically possible in the Muslim world, they are very rare - because the requirement that all wives are treated ‘fairly’ (Koran 4:3) is almost impossible to meet. It is not possible to love one person as much as another, impossible to give one person as much thought or time as another. The very low rate of polygyny in Islam points to the problems innate in polygamy more generally.
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
Consent: Does polygamy involve the consent of female wives?
[]
[]
Yes
Consenting adults should be free to engage in polygamy As long as consenting adults freely choose to engage in polygamous marriages, the government has little cause to intervene. It should be assumed that individuals will engage in contracts only when it is in their mutual interests. Some defend laws against polygamy on the basis that women are not actually freely consenting to polygamy, even if they say so; that social/communal and religious doctrine are forcing them to do so. But this assumes far too much, opening an unruly debate about what constitutes free will in decision-making. On a legal basis, only clear evidence that women are being forced to engage in polygamous contracts should be used to invalidate such contracts. Otherwise, polygamy should be legalized on the basis that the vast majority of these women claim to engage in polygamous contracts by free will.
Most polygamous women freely and eagerly join polygamous families There are thousands of accounts by polygamous women of their free choice to join a polygamous marriage for the very reasons that they continue to enjoy and approve of the relationship. Who is to say that these women are "brain-washed", acting on behalf of the priesthood, or otherwise not acting by their own free will? What about instances of women coming from outside of polygamist communities, where their free will could not be "corrupted" by environmental influence, and marrying into polygamous families. How could we call this something other than free will?
It can be ensured that all polygamists are of consenting age It is indeed a crime for girls to be forced to marry as minors. These crimes should be punished and the law should be enforced. But, that these crimes are occurring occasionally in polygamist communities is not an argument against polygamy. Existing laws can be used to ensure that girls are not forced to marry before a certain age. Serenity Valley. "The Argument for Legalization of Polygamy". Later-day Saint Liberation Front. February 28th, 2006 - "As a special category of marriage, maybe we could require all participants in polygamy to be of a certain age of consent—say, 18 or 20 years old. In combination with educational requirements, this could help ensure that all participants in polygamous marriages are truly consenting. Then, polygamy would have a chance of either becoming what most of us consider a safe lifestyle, or of dying out. (The latter seems more likely; just as childbirth rates fall among well-educated women, so might rates of polygamous marriage)."
Legal polygamy could require that wives consent to adding new wives It is an understandable complaint that polygamous wives are often subject to the unilateral decision of a husband to marry additional wives. But, with the consent of all existing wives, there is no consensual legal argument against polygamy. This consensual relationship could be protected by the law if polygamy was legalized and regulated.
[]
[]
No
Polygamy ordains men to dominate and abuse wives The basis problem with polygamy is that it is almost always connected to religions in which men are religiously empowered as superior and dominant beings. This is often related to the Biblical story of eve's original sin in eating the apple in the garden of eden. This is a sin that polygamous fundamentalists believe carries through all women today, rendering them inferior to men. This is couple with a belief that men have a divine connection with God no held by women. As such, men in fundamentalist polygamous communities are placed in a position of absolute dominance over their wives, which opens the door to any variety abuses, which can be justified in terms of either man's superiority or his divine revelation. This is an inherent problem in polygamy.
Women are forced by God's "commandments" to perform polygamy. Polygamy has to be viewed in its predominantly religious context, in which women are led to believe that God has "commanded" that they marrying into polygamous unions. The punishment for disobeying this "commandment" is eternal damnation in hell. Presented with a choice between being expelled from their Church's and communities as well as eternal damnation and joining a polygamous marriage (which only entails foregoing certain individual rights guaranteed by a man-made constitution), these women will obviously choose to obey God's commandment. That's why there is not really a "choice"; the only way they can "choose" against polygamy is if they forswear their churches, communities, friends, and the "God" that they have been taught.
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]