Is polygamy ethical?

[Surlethe]

Lately, my fiancee has been quite interested in the polygamy case going on in Texas. She's also become interested in the HBO series Big Love, and I've been watching it with her. So I've been kicking around a pretty basic question: is polygamy generally unethical? Given that all parties are consenting adults and the arrangement, in and of itself, does not cause harm to any individuals, there seems to be no easy-to-find reason to condemn it.

The arguments against polygamy that I've seen or can think of tend toward two directions: they either associate polygamy with the notion of marrying creepy old perverts to preteen girls and declare it guilty by association, or they describe the deleterious effects on society of polygamy's upsetting of the male:female ratio. (For example, I've seen the competition among young men for females because of Islamic polygamy blamed in part for suicide bombing: hyperaggressiveness is caused by stringent competition.)

The former is obviously logically flawed; there is no reason why polygamy should necessarily entail underage marriage. The latter is interesting, but it seems to imply that the ethicality of polygamy is dependent upon the general moral zeitgeist. In a society where polygamy is widely practiced, polygamy would seem to be immoral because of its effects on society; in a society where it is not widely practiced, the effects of a statistically irrelevant number of polygamists would not cause problems. In either case, the marginal effect of a polygamous marriage is null on the general society, so it seems that the prevalence of the practice is what determines its morality.

That all said, living in a monogamous relationship is work enough as it is. Balancing four or eight people, instead of two, would require the patience of gods. Polygamous marriage as a lifestyle to rival a healthy monogamous marriage in commitment and love seems wildly impractical, to say the least. But that doesn't make it inherently immoral.

[Darth Raptor]

Outside instances of institutionalized abuse like you find in polygamist religious sects, it's ethically neutral. In theory. However, the ethics of polygamy are, in my view, totally eclipsed by all of the very real practical implications. The question of whether polyamory is acceptable is totally up to the individuals involved, but whether polygamy as a marital institution is acceptable, the answer is a clear and resounding "no". But again, the legal issues are totally divorced (hurr!) from the moral issues of whether the "marriage" could qualify as a standing army.

[apocolypse]

Honestly, I haven't quite figured out what the issue is (inherently) with polygamy. I think part of it is that the majority of the polygamy cases we hear about are exactly as you describe, i.e. mixed with pedophilia and/or incest, so it becomes "bad" by default and this has pretty firmly embedded itself in peoples' minds.

Perhaps initially, far back in human civilization, it may have been a bad idea as you could have one man spreading far more of his own genetics than some other men. So I can see why it would be frowned upon from that angle. But we're far enough along in population that this isn't as big a threat imo.

[Surlethe]

The question of whether polyamory is acceptable is totally up to the individuals involved, but whether polygamy as a marital institution is acceptable, the answer is a clear and resounding "no".

Why? What legal ramifications are there that do not have ethical implications? And why should an ethically neutral action be illegal?

Not that I want to derail the thread from a discussion of the ethics of polygamy, mind you. I'm just curious about the reasoning behind your claim.

[Zixinus]

So many things can depend on cultural environment and situations. Polygamy can not only ethical but moral in some and downright destructive in others. Just think at how people expect for love to be like. Most people here could not realistically imagine having two lovers at once that know about each other. For others it can be evident.

[Junghalli]

As long as it's between consenting adults I personally do not see why it would be unethical.

[Darth Raptor]

Why? What legal ramifications are there that do not have ethical implications? And why should an ethically neutral action be illegal?

Not that I want to derail the thread from a discussion of the ethics of polygamy, mind you. I'm just curious about the reasoning behind your claim.

Polygamy is indefensible as a marital institution, not a practice. The paternalism, abuse, increased competition and everything you listed in your opening post only applies to polygamy when it's recognized and/or imposed by society, especially by certain types of societies. The harm of three or more consenting adults in a simultaneous sexual relationship is either nil, negligible or none of our damn business. Polygamy becomes harmful (and thus unethical) when it's institutionalized to the extent seen in Mormon enclaves or Muslim nations. Therein lies the distinction.

[Lusankya]

The question of whether polyamory is acceptable is totally up to the individuals involved, but whether polygamy as a marital institution is acceptable, the answer is a clear and resounding "no".

Why? What legal ramifications are there that do not have ethical implications? And why should an ethically neutral action be illegal?

Not that I want to derail the thread from a discussion of the ethics of polygamy, mind you. I'm just curious about the reasoning behind your claim.

The only real legal worry that I can thinkg of is that our tax, divorce and inheritance institutions aren't set up to properly accomodate polygamy. Of course, the answer to that would be to change the tax system, but that would be upsetting the status quo.

Mainly, though, I think that Darth Raptor's confusing having polygamy legalised with having it institutionalised. See, as you know, the moment polygamy becomes legal, EVERYONE will become polygamous, and soon the sanctity of marriage will be destroyed. Oh, and polygamy will also inevitably lead to paternalism and abuse.

This is the way I see it: let's say I meet and fall in love with two handsome bisexual gents. Let's say that they also fall in love with me and each other. Why can't we have our relationship legally recognised? Should we be forced to live a life in which none of us is afforded the protection of a legally sanctioned marriage? If something happened to me or either of my handsome gents, then their or my families could theoretically block me from any of the rights that I would expect were I in a monogamous relationship with them.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Second Lusankya. Society shouldn't forbid the organization of families on the basis of polygamy on the understanding that it's basically a co-operative organization based on mutual romantic desire.

[Darth Raptor]

Forbid, certainly not. I should clarify that I don't think polygamy should be illegal, but rather 'not legal'. To grant polygamous marriages all the rights, privileges, and other assorted benefits afforded to monogamous marriages? How does that work? It doesn't. Not that I can see.

[Lusankya]

Forbid, certainly not. I should clarify that I don't think polygamy should be illegal, but rather 'not legal'. To grant polygamous marriages all the rights, privileges, and other assorted benefits afforded to monogamous marriages? How does that work? It doesn't. Not that I can see.

What the hell doers "not illegal" but "not legal" mean? And stop being a moron. Here. I'll change what you just said slightly so you can see exactly how much of a moron you're being:

Forbid, certainly not. I should clarify that I don't think maternal guardianship should be illegal, but rather 'not legal'. To grant both parents all the rights, privileges, and other assorted benefits afforded to fathers? How does that work? It doesn't. Not that I can see.

Seriously. Polygamy is something that doesn't work in our current legal framework, because our current legal framework was set up to deal with monogamy. And to be honest, it wouldn't be that hard to change our framework to fit polygamy: just make all members of the marriage co-spouses. If one spouse dies, then the other two become beneficiaries of their will. Any two members of the marriage have the same rights and responsibilities in regard to the third member as any monogamous spouse would have. In the case of consent for medical treatment when the third member is unable to give consent, then work the consent out in the same way that you work out parental consent in the case of a minor (in regards to whether it requires the consent of one or two spouses).

Easy, no?

[eyl]

I'm not sure if it can be generalized to polygamy in general or to the manifestations particular to their culture in particular, but studies (and experience) among Israel's Bedouin* have shown that polygamy** tends to lead to neglect and abuse (for example, especially of the "earlier" wives (and their children) - which, among other things, can result in mental issues and other problems.

*While polygamy is illegal in Israel, a blind eye is often turned towards polygamy among the Bedouin. There has recently been an initiative formed to attempt to combat this.
**It should be noted that by and large polygamy among the Bedouin tends to take the form of wives married one after the other, rather than the situation some here have been describing of several partners coming together and choosing to form a union.

[Broomstick]

Humans are a marginally polygamous species. Meaning most mating is in pairs but sometimes larger groupings.

Let's look at some polygamous societies, shall we?

Among neolithic-level hunter-gatherers (Kalahari Khoi-San, New Guinea highlanders, Amazonian tribes, etc.) most of the time adults paired off one man and one woman. Once in awhile you get a man with more than one wife, almost invariably a highly successful hunter or other man who commands unusually large resources. There is also another variant that occurs when the women's gathering provides significantly more food than the man's hunting, environments where two women working together are needed to keep a hunter and his children fed. Where you don't have more than one wife you will, in such environments, see grandma or sisters helping out with the food gathering as an extended family unit. Polygamy is permitted but not mandated in these situations.

Now, polyandry does occur, although it is much rarer. Most notably, there were some North American native peoples in the arctic who practiced it. They also killed off a lot girl infants at birth. That is because, in their environment, almost all food was from hunting, only the men hunted, and it took two men to supply a woman and her offspring with food. It was very much a survival issue. But the men did not live simultaneously under one roof - one would be on a hunting expedition, then come back to stay with his wife for awhile while the other went off hunting. In practice a sort of sequential monogamy. There was a Tibetan group where a woman would not only marry a man but all his brothers as well. However, it was also common for brothers to be away for extended periods of time, perhaps with some in monasteries full time while others traveled for various reasons. As a result, frequently only one husband at a time was in residence with the wife. One effect of polyandry is to limit births, which is a form of population control in harsh environments. Such societies usually not only permit but prefer/mandate multiple husbands which makes sense for a statistically odd custom based on need. Also, polyandrous relationships in societies almost always involve related males, most commonly brothers.

So, for our most distant ancestors, multiple mates was either a survival strategy, or else something earned by a man for extraordinary ability in providing resources (and if he's that good a hunter a little extra gene-spreading is probably a good thing for the species.

Now, move forward in history to where rulers start acquiring harems. Like... ancient Egypt. The common people of Egypt tended to pair off. The Pharaoh, however, had a harem. Because he was Important and commanded Many Resources. If having multiple wives was a proof of fitness then it's not surprising kings acquire them (or that modern politicians have mistresses) For lesser men, having multiple wives made them look wealthy and/or powerful. However, where in prehistoric/tribal societies with multiple spouses the spouses tended to be equals or nearly so, and the later spouses were much valued for their contributions, in ancient historical societies multiple wives became status symbols as much as household contributors and in some cases were a drain on household resources. Wives held less and less power, and one wife could be displaced in her husband's favor. So it was civilization that contributed to abusive polygamy.

It is interesting to note, by the way, that most men in Muslim societies still have only one wife. Polygamy is permitted but not mandated. It is also interesting to note that the prophet Mohammed was a reformer, explicitly stating in the Koran that a man may have no more than four wives at a time (prior to that there was no limit) and he must provide EQUALLY for all wives. While this is not always practiced, the mandate is that you can not neglect one wife for another. This can get quite expensive and bothersome. Among ethical Muslims this probably limits the occurrence of plural wives even among men who can afford them. It also allows most men to marry and reproduce at some point in their lives.

Please note that it is only in societies where there are survival issues that you see mandated polygamy, and that the trend overall with humanity is one mate at a time.

Now, let's look at that FLDS group. First of all, polygamy is mandated - ALL men in the group must have three wives to get to heaven. This is not an issue of physical survival (hypothetically, such would be in a society where something kills off 2/3 of the men before they reproduce). The result is a surplus of young males, because they don't limit births (quite the opposite) nor do they in any way adjust the birth ratio (old style would be infanticide, as an example). Young horny men with no chance for mating are a societal danger. So they drive these young men out of town, literally, and abandon them. You know, it would have been a hell of a lot kinder for them to have given these boys up for adoption as infants rather than raise them up to be angry young men. The reduction of breeding males leads to inbreeding. This is not a healthy society. It's not a normal human society, even by polygamous standards. It generates angry, sexually frustrated young males to foist on the surrounding area and also whittles away at the gene pool to the point that FLDS members has significant rates of genetic disease.

Unfortunately, our monogamous society usually only sees such dysfunctional polygamy, not situations where it is a healthy and viable family strategy. If all you know of polygamy is something like FLDS then yeah, you think it's horrible and unhealthy.

[CaptainZoidberg]

How do they determine what 20% or so of males get to reproduce? It's probably based on loyalty, but I think it would be interesting if they used psychometrics. I wonder how quickly the mean IQ would go up...

[Broomstick]

I'm sure nepotism is a HUGE factor in who gets to reproduce, followed by loyalty to the ruling family(s).

[Knife]

Forbid, certainly not. I should clarify that I don't think polygamy should be illegal, but rather 'not legal'. To grant polygamous marriages all the rights, privileges, and other assorted benefits afforded to monogamous marriages? How does that work? It doesn't. Not that I can see.

What the hell doers "not illegal" but "not legal" mean? And stop being a moron. Here. I'll change what you just said slightly so you can see exactly how much of a moron you're being:

Actually makes perfect sense. Marriage is a contract between the people involved and the state, religion only counts if you believe that sort of thing, but the state matters whether or not you believe in the state or not. So why one can say 'the state shouldn't make it illegal' for a bunch of people to cohabitate, it doesn't mean the state has to sanction it with an actual marriage.

[Oskuro]

In my opinion, polyamorous relationships are OK as long as everything is consensual and respectful.

I belive that the problems associated with polygamy often arise because women in those situations are treated more as possesions than actual consenting persons, thus leading to the aforementioned abuse and neglect, or in worse cases, to what the cult was doing.

Both legally, and personally, it should all flow from the basic premise that every member of a relationship has the same rights, and can choose for itself. Once that premise is broken, I'd consider any relationship, even monogamous, to be immoral.

[Mayabird]

I posted an article at Librium Arcana one time about the societal effects of widespread polygamy, which are similar to what India and China are about to go through due to the practice of selectively aborting female fetuses. I can't find it right now (and it might be a while until I can, because I'll be gone for most of the weekend), but it generally leads to unrest as lots of young men are unable to find a wife and women get increasingly commoditized. Maybe I can find it again Sunday evening.

[Adrian Laguna]

Some people seem to be confusing polygamy with polygyny. Polygamy doesn't necessarily create shortages of available women.

[Lusankya]

Forbid, certainly not. I should clarify that I don't think polygamy should be illegal, but rather 'not legal'. To grant polygamous marriages all the rights, privileges, and other assorted benefits afforded to monogamous marriages? How does that work? It doesn't. Not that I can see.

What the hell doers "not illegal" but "not legal" mean? And stop being a moron. Here. I'll change what you just said slightly so you can see exactly how much of a moron you're being:

Actually makes perfect sense. Marriage is a contract between the people involved and the state, religion only counts if you believe that sort of thing, but the state matters whether or not you believe in the state or not. So why one can say 'the state shouldn't make it illegal' for a bunch of people to cohabitate, it doesn't mean the state has to sanction it with an actual marriage.

So a bunch of people can cohabitate in a marriage-like relationship, but the state doesn't have to sanction it with marriage?

I suppose that means that gay people are allowed to cohabitate in a marriage-like relationship, but the state doesn't have to sanction it with marriage?

Now please explain to me why it should be "not illegal but not legal".

Seriously, this whole "the state doesn't have to sanction polygamy" thing is exactly like homosexual discrimination. The only difference is that it discriminates against people polyamorous relationships, as opposed to people in relationships with someone of the same gender.


If I fall in love with Rob and Todd, and Rob and Todd both fall in love with me and each other, for what ethical reason should the state be able to deny us the ability to, say, gain equal access to each other in the case of a medical emergency? If Todd dies without leaving a will, why shouldn't Rob and I be entitled to share the same inheritance as a monogamous spouse? Why shouldn't we all be allowed equal guardianship of our children (if we have any)? Why should our freely entered polygamous relationship be worth any less in the eyes of the law than a freely entered monogamous relationship?

[Knife]

So a bunch of people can cohabitate in a marriage-like relationship, but the state doesn't have to sanction it with marriage?

Indeed. Welcome to the real argument.

I suppose that means that gay people are allowed to cohabitate in a marriage-like relationship, but the state doesn't have to sanction it with marriage?

Sure, men/women have this relationship all the time. It's called boyfriend/girlfriend. Not a shocker that gay couples will have it too. Oh, I see what you did there?

Pfft. Marriage is still a contract with the state, doesn't matter whom it's with, you need the state to 'legalize it'. I agree that 'marriage' should be between consenting adults. Kind of blows a hole in your rebuttal doesn't it?

Now please explain to me why it should be "not illegal but not legal".

You skipped over my point and straight to the chliche response. Marriage is between the party involved and the state. You want Polygamy to be legal, you need to show the state how it's beneficial to the state. I don't remember any right in either the US constitution nor the UN charter of rights about two individuals being recognized as one under the law.

Seriously, this whole "the state doesn't have to sanction polygamy" thing is exactly like homosexual discrimination. The only difference is that it discriminates against people polyamorous relationships, as opposed to people in relationships with someone of the same gender.

It is exactly like the homosexual situation in that an argument about it's legality and practicality is needed for the state to recognize it. There the two separate.

Two consenting adults, whether man/man or man/women or woman/woman are a bit different when it comes to resource management, tax code or economics than co habitation of multiple adults (not even venturing into multiple women per man).

If I fall in love with Rob and Todd, and Rob and Todd both fall in love with me and each other, for what ethical reason should the state be able to deny us the ability to, say, gain equal access to each other in the case of a medical emergency?

None, how does that make it a marriage? If your dear aunt Petunia falls ill and you disagree with how Uncle Tom handles her care; what reason does the state have to grant you the ability to equal access to her health care?

If Todd dies without leaving a will, why shouldn't Rob and I be entitled to share the same inheritance as a monogamous spouse?

Todds wishes? Why is that hard? Or another variable included, what if Todd also love Bill just as much as Rob?

Why shouldn't we all be allowed equal guardianship of our children (if we have any)?

Why would you assume it has anything to do with children rather than property?

Why should our freely entered polygamous relationship be worth any less in the eyes of the law than a freely entered monogamous relationship?

Indeed, why? Justify it.

[Lusankya]

So a bunch of people can cohabitate in a marriage-like relationship, but the state doesn't have to sanction it with marriage?

Indeed. Welcome to the real argument.

Can you explain why not? If the only distinguishing feature between a monogamous relationship and a polyamorous relationship is the number of individuals involved, why should these individuals be denied the right to have their relationship recognised?

Sure, men/women have this relationship all the time. It's called boyfriend/girlfriend. Not a shocker that gay couples will have it too. Oh, I see what you did there?

If you had ever heard of a common law marriage, then you would know that monogamous heterosexual and (in some areas) gay couples can benefit from state recognition of such a relationship. People in polyamorous relationships do not receive such recognition.

Pfft. Marriage is still a contract with the state,

No it isn't. It's a contract between two people. Unless you really want to get married to Uncle Sam.

doesn't matter whom it's with, you need the state to 'legalize it'.

Yes - the state is an entity that protects your rights, and you have not provided any decent argument as to why the state should not legalise it.

I agree that 'marriage' should be between consenting adults. Kind of blows a hole in your rebuttal doesn't it?

How does any of that blow a hole in my relationship? Unless you're backtracking and saying that they can now be "separate but equal" or some crap like that.

You skipped over my point and straight to the chliche response. Marriage is between the party involved and the state.

You're either wrong or lying. Marriage is a contract between two people. The state is merely the entity that recognises it.

You want Polygamy to be legal, you need to show the state how it's beneficial to the state. I don't remember any right in either the US constitution nor the UN charter of rights about two individuals being recognized as one under the law.

Bzzzt! Wrong! I don't need to show that it's beneficial. YOU need to show that it's necessarily detrimental, assuming that all partners are of equal standing within the relationship.

It is exactly like the homosexual situation in that an argument about it's legality and practicality is needed for the state to recognize it. There the two separate.

Two consenting adults, whether man/man or man/women or woman/woman are a bit different when it comes to resource management, tax code or economics than co habitation of multiple adults (not even venturing into multiple women per man).

So your argument is ... our tax code isn't set up for it. How is that an ethical argument? Since when was legalism a moral code... Oh! That's right! IT ISN'T.

If I fall in love with Rob and Todd, and Rob and Todd both fall in love with me and each other, for what ethical reason should the state be able to deny us the ability to, say, gain equal access to each other in the case of a medical emergency?

None, how does that make it a marriage?

Oh, silly me! I assumed that since we were talking about polygamy here, you'd understand that "falling in love with" meant "falling in love with, to the extent that we would enter a polygamous marriage were there not laws preventing it". Next time I'll write it in crayon for you, ok?

If your dear aunt Petunia falls ill and you disagree with how Uncle Tom handles her care; what reason does the state have to grant you the ability to equal access to her health care?

The state doesn't grant Uncle Tom the right to deny me access to her. Without state sanction of the relationship between Rod, Todd and I, then if our families disapproved of our relationship, then we could be denied even access to each other in the case of a medical emergency. How is that moral?

If Todd dies without leaving a will, why shouldn't Rob and I be entitled to share the same inheritance as a monogamous spouse?

Todds wishes? Why is that hard?

I have no idea what you're talking about. Maybe you don't understand that lots of people are young and think they're immortal and don't take out a will. That is why there are methods for distributing assets in the absence of a will. If the state doesn't recognise polyamorous relationships, then people in such relationships are essentially denied this right.

Or another variable included, what if Todd also love Bill just as much as Rob?

Then maybe Todd can marry Bill, assuming that Rob and I are happy to consent to this! .... oh, that's right - he can't! The state won't recognise it.

Why shouldn't we all be allowed equal guardianship of our children (if we have any)?

Why would you assume it has anything to do with children rather than property?

Why would I assume that what has anything to do with children rather than property? If you're talking about marriage, then recall that marriage is required in many regions in order for people to be allowed to adopt (children, that is, not property - I know this point is confusing for you). Nothing about my relationship between Rob and Todd precludes children - all it means is that I would like Rob and Todd to both be legally considered the fathers of my children.

Why should our freely entered polygamous relationship be worth any less in the eyes of the law than a freely entered monogamous relationship?

Indeed, why? Justify it.

I believe that you are the one who should justify why people in polyamorous relationships should not be allowed to get married.

[Knife]

Can you explain why not? If the only distinguishing feature between a monogamous relationship and a polyamorous relationship is the number of individuals involved, why should these individuals be denied the right to have their relationship recognised?

The part in the relationship between interested parties and the State. Why is this so hard? It's the varible you don't account for and yet you want to bitch and whine about it.


Adult contractee's and the state. Why should the state be left out of it?

If you had ever heard of a common law marriage, then you would know that monogamous heterosexual and (in some areas) gay couples can benefit from state recognition of such a relationship. People in polyamorous relationships do not receive such recognition.

So the state can aknowledge them without making them a part of law? Sure, I'm down with that.

Yes - the state is an entity that protects your rights, and you have not provided any decent argument as to why the state should not legalise it. [/quote]

You have not provided any decent reason why the state should? Any number of people 'should' be able to live under one house under the law. However when you want to STATE to recognize such a thing you' ve gone beyond what the standard of 'if it don't hurt people' ideal into 'what's best for the people and what is best for the state'.

How does any of that blow a hole in my relationship? Unless you're backtracking and saying that they can now be "separate but equal" or some crap like that.

Unless you're saying that a boy friend and girl friend is separate but equal to a marriage. Oh wait.

Bzzzt! Wrong! I don't need to show that it's beneficial. YOU need to show that it's necessarily detrimental, assuming that all partners are of equal standing within the relationship.

except they are not in polgamy. Show that two, three, or four wives are equal under plogamy to be equal standing under the law.

Oh, silly me! I assumed that since we were talking about polygamy here, you'd understand that "falling in love with" meant "falling in love with, to the extent that we would enter a polygamous marriage were there not laws preventing it". Next time I'll write it in crayon for you, ok?

Do that please. Since normal marriage is a 50 percent failure rate, such distinction might mean an enoursouse amount.

The state doesn't grant Uncle Tom the right to deny me access to her. Without state sanction of the relationship between Rod, Todd and I, then if our families disapproved of our relationship, then we could be denied even access to each other in the case of a medical emergency. How is that moral?

My point exactly. Account for it in both of your models.

I have no idea what you're talking about. Maybe you don't understand that lots of people are young and think they're immortal and don't take out a will. That is why there are methods for distributing assets in the absence of a will. If the state doesn't recognise polyamorous relationships, then people in such relationships are essentially denied this right.

So it is up to you to produce the objective reasoning to that right.

Then maybe Todd can marry Bill, assuming that Rob and I are happy to consent to this! .... oh, that's right - he can't! The state won't recognise it.

Sure, what's in it for the state? You keep saying the state should recognise it without saying why? Two guys, two girls, one guy and a girl date all the time without being recognized as one enitity. Explain why the state shoud recognize your version or equlaity?

Why would I assume that what has anything to do with children rather than property? If you're talking about marriage, then recall that marriage is required in many regions in order for people to be allowed to adopt (children, that is, not property - I know this point is confusing for you).

Meh, I have no problem divorcing this notion from marriage. Next.

Nothing about my relationship between Rob and Todd precludes children - all it means is that I would like Rob and Todd to both be legally considered the fathers of my children.

Has nothing to do with the state recognizing you and rob nor tod as one enity.

I believe that you are the one who should justify why people in polyamorous relationships should not be allowed to get married.

Sure; married means a contract between those interested parties and the state.

Justify why the state should recognize a 'marriage' between on male and two wives or one male and six wives or any mix in between.

If you want to have one wife and thirty six spirt wives, go for it. Don't expect the state to support you and give you special status thus.

[Broomstick]

Some people seem to be confusing polygamy with polygyny. Polygamy doesn't necessarily create shortages of available women.

Although technically incorrect, in common usage "polygamy" and "polygyny" are used interchangeably, or nearly so. No doubt this is, in part, because polygyny is the most common form of polygamy.

It doesn't help that I've encounter at least two computer spellcheckers that flag "polygyny" as incorrect, and one of them wants to correct it to "polygamy".

[Adrian Laguna]

It doesn't help that I've encounter at least two computer spellcheckers that flag "polygyny" as incorrect, and one of them wants to correct it to "polygamy".

I actually had to consult Merriam-Webster to ensure I was spelling it right. Oddly enough, my checker does recognize "polygynous".