Polygamy -- one view : eventually dangerous for a society

[alfreda89]

Here's a article on why polygamy is not something to be lumped into the "gay marriage" debate. In fact, the author suggests that single sex marriages can stabilize a society, while allowing one man multiple wives (polyandry, one woman, several husbands, is almost extinct in the world) guarantees that some men will never marry -- and an unmarried young man is a candidate for wars, gangs, etc.

This column is dated today, so look fast. From the article:

"So far, libertarians and lifestyle liberals approach polygamy as an individual-choice issue, while cultural conservatives use it as a bloody shirt to wave in the gay-marriage debate. The broad public opposes polygamy but is unsure why. What hardly anyone is doing is thinking about polygamy as social policy.

If the coming debate changes that, it will have done everyone a favor. For reasons that have everything to do with its own social dynamics and nothing to do with gay marriage, polygamy is a profoundly hazardous policy."

http://nationaljournal.com/rauch.htm

Comments

[madspark.livejournal.com]

Yes, I've heard this before. One thing I'm curious about, though, is that if there is a certain percent of gay (male) marriage above that of lesbian marriage, that will allow for more polygyny without upsetting the equilibrium.

But if gay and lesbian partnerships balanced out, then additional polygyny could be hazardous.

In general, it may be that such edge practices would have not significant effect on society as a whole. If they became mainstream and harems grew to be significant -- Donald Trump and his 500 wives -- yeah, the smooth wheel of society might develop more of a wobble.

The article is quite passionate about it.

[alfreda89.livejournal.com]

The article is quite passionate about it.

He did seem that way, didn't he? But if the "dumping" of youths so they will not grow up to be competition for the silverbacks in the outlawed Mormon poly offshoot is true, we already have trouble.

And -- I read somewhere that Utah basically can't do anything about the poly families, because if they do, all those kids get dumped on the state foster care rolls, and it would swamp them.

That's double trouble. And it's building in Texas and Montana.

[incandragon.livejournal.com]

Hmm. I suspect they're being a little too narrowly focused.

The article says it's about polygamy, but even states that the dire scenarios are from sex-selected infanticide. (No mention of the roving gangs of unmarried Mormons in previous centuries.) It seems that the core problem is monogamous heterosexual expectations paired with an inequal gender ratio.

According to their hypothosis, it seems the more gay couples and the higher the divorce rate, the more stable the society would be.

Still, it's a great seed for a story idea!

[alfreda89.livejournal.com]

Well, I just deleted my reply while trying to check the definition of something, drat it. But the major gist of it was, I could actually see more stability in this model -- but only if the stigma of married vs. unmarried, children vs. childless no longer existed at any age. I can tell you that when a woman nears fifty, she is invisible to any man who doesn't know her personally -- just for an example.

Of course, stability vs. actual individual happiness don't necessarily have to be the same thing. Unless you take the constitution literally.

[tigresa.livejournal.com]

This article provides a compelling reason to resuscitate polyandry! ;)

[alfreda89.livejournal.com]

I could see benefits of it -- but we'd have to increase the status of women, so they were not overwhelmed by the men. Our society doesn't place women in a very high status range (the average woman).