Is polygamy ethical?

[Alyrium Denryle]

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".

In response to your prior post. In biology we separate the two, polygamy is the catch all for all multiple mating, and polygyny and polyandry are separated. However in the vernacular, and in legal terms, polygamy is almost always what I would refer to as polygyny.

[Adrian Laguna]

In response to your prior post. In biology we separate the two, polygamy is the catch all for all multiple mating, and polygyny and polyandry are separated. However in the vernacular, and in legal terms, polygamy is almost always what I would refer to as polygyny.

Yeah, it seems that in vernacular if you mean the literal polygamy and want to make sure it's not confused with polygyny, then you have to say "polyamory". Though technically I would say that the two are distinct in that polygamy means several people married to one, and polyamory means several people married to each other.

[Sidewinder]

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'm thinking about China under the imperial dynasties, when large numbers of men would be removed from the list of competitors for a woman's affection (becoming a monk and live in celibacy, becoming a eunuch for the chance to be H. R. Haldeman to the emperor's Richard Nixon, starving to death during the many famines China experienced, dying upon the spears of Huns or bandits, etc.). Now that many of these removal measures are diminished (we hope with regards to famine and banditry), it's understandable that the people will pay for favoring sons over daughters.

[Korto]

It's ethically neutral. I can see no problem with it, or to any other marriage arrangement (eg, homosexual. I have trouble thinking of other examples of "unusual" marriages), as long as it's between informed, consenting, adults. (Strictly, "Adults" is unnecessary in that statement as by definition if you're not adult, you can't consent.)

Knife wrote:

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.

You seem to feel that the People are here for the benefit of the State. I'm sure this is a belief that many governments would like to foster. Kim Jong-il's, for instance.

[PeZook]

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

Since when?

Marriage in civil law is mostly a civil contract between two parties, enforced by the State. The contract pretty much concerns financial matters like inheritance, but also custody of children and spouses.

That's it. The only reason for elaborate gold-gilded ceremonies are millenia of religious dogma and mysticism surrounding the concept.

From this perspective, the problem with polygamy are not insurmountable, but quite difficult and would require a lot of thought.

[Knife]

You seem to feel that the People are here for the benefit of the State.

Hey look! A straw man. I wonder what you'll do with it?

I'm sure this is a belief that many governments would like to foster. Kim Jong-il's, for instance.

Cool! Looks like you knocked that straw man down.

Marriage in civil law is mostly a civil contract between two parties, enforced by the State.

Hey dumbshit, if the state has to enforce it, it's part of the fucking deal ain't it?

The contract pretty much concerns financial matters like inheritance, but also custody of children and spouses.

Which distrabution of said shit is overseen by the state at the end of contract. If all parties involved are unable to, guess who gets the money/property/or children? The State.

No you are not marrying the state, I never said that, but the state is the organization who recognizes the marriage as an authority. If you enter into a contract with another person, the state is part of the contract by simple implication since it's the entity authorizing and recognizing it.

[PeZook]

No you are not marrying the state, I never said that, but the state is the organization who recognizes the marriage as an authority. If you enter into a contract with another person, the state is part of the contract by simple implication since it's the entity authorizing and recognizing it.

You used the words:

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

(bolding mine)

Marriage doesn't happen between the married couple and the state, not any more than any other civil contract. It's just a particularly named civil contract which is usually done in a certain way. And even then, there's plenty of variations: financial matters and property can be shared or kept separate, children can bear the name of one or the other, spouses can be granted autority to make some decisions but not others, etc.

All the State does is enforce the terms of this contract. When you buy a Snickers bar, do you sign a contract between the State and you, or between you and the seller?

[Darth Wong]

It's ethically neutral. I can see no problem with it, or to any other marriage arrangement (eg, homosexual. I have trouble thinking of other examples of "unusual" marriages), as long as it's between informed, consenting, adults. (Strictly, "Adults" is unnecessary in that statement as by definition if you're not adult, you can't consent.)

So you make no allowance whatsoever for social consequences in your system of ethics?

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.

You seem to feel that the People are here for the benefit of the State. I'm sure this is a belief that many governments would like to foster. Kim Jong-il's, for instance.

Are you serious, or are you really this stupid? The state doesn't need to legally recognize personal activities in order to give you the freedom to conduct them. You are employing the same logic as fundies who think that they're being oppressed if they can't erect religious displays on public property or write their beliefs into law.

The reason the state recognizes marriage is that marriage is important for lots of other things that are the state's business, like income taxes, inheritance rights, child custody, hospital visitation, power of attorney, etc. It is also important for regulatory issues, such as insider trading. That's why marriage is recognized by the state; it has nothing to do with your retarded attempt to turn this into some kind of FREEDOM! issue.

[Darth Wong]

Marriage doesn't happen between the married couple and the state, not any more than any other civil contract. It's just a particularly named civil contract which is usually done in a certain way. And even then, there's plenty of variations: financial matters and property can be shared or kept separate, children can bear the name of one or the other, spouses can be granted autority to make some decisions but not others, etc.

Certain legal issues are unique to marriage, however. It's not just any civil contract. For example, the state cannot compel a person to testify against his or her spouse in court. This condition is actually not in the contract itself; it is a state condition which is imposed on all marriage contracts. Also, sharing of financially sensitive information between spouses is considered insider trading and is illegal: this is another condition which is imposed on all marriage contracts but isn't actually in the contract itself. The state is a third party in the contract.

All the State does is enforce the terms of this contract. When you buy a Snickers bar, do you sign a contract between the State and you, or between you and the seller?

See above. The state adds material to the contract.

[Knife]

You used the words:

Hmm, perhaps an unfortunate choice of phrase on my part. Between as in the two getting married AND the state.

Marriage doesn't happen between the married couple and the state, not any more than any other civil contract. It's just a particularly named civil contract which is usually done in a certain way. And even then, there's plenty of variations: financial matters and property can be shared or kept separate, children can bear the name of one or the other, spouses can be granted autority to make some decisions but not others, etc.

Indeed, but where did I make that argument that a marriage recognized by the state is a static system? Hint: I never did.

All the State does is enforce the terms of this contract. When you buy a Snickers bar, do you sign a contract between the State and you, or between you and the seller?

When you fuck over the seller and don't pay the right price, who comes to get ya? Seriously what the fuck is wrong with you people?

You enter into a contract with another person (or in respect to this thread, six people) and the fucking state recognizes it, thus giving perks and privileges to the contractee's, the state has a stake in the contract. I have never argued any sort of Orwellian bigbrother matchmaking government organization, rather recognizing that any insitution that government sanctions or society in general, that entity has an interest in it.

Since Government has issues in a plural marriage, wellfare abuse, child abuse, medicaid abuse, etc..., they very much indeed have cause to not sanction an actual marriage between one guy and six women.

That fucking said, nothing stops these people, IMO anyway, from living under one roof as one husband and one wife and five 'spirit wives'. That's where I entered this debate initially. It's not legal for them to be 'married' but it's not illegal for them to live like they are married.

[Korto]

So you make no allowance whatsoever for social consequences in your system of ethics?

The good of the community is the root of all ethics, however I don't believe there would be significant social consequences. If it turns out I'm wrong, I would be forced to re-examine my position. That's life.

Are you serious, or are you really this stupid? The state doesn't need to legally recognize personal activities in order to give you the freedom to conduct them. You are employing the same logic as fundies who think that they're being oppressed if they can't erect religious displays on public property or write their beliefs into law.

Their beliefs are already written into law. Marriage is between one man and one woman.
Allowing people to marry who they please does not repress the rights of others. It was against the law in (at least) some US states for a black to marry a white, but they could live together. I'm currently lost to see the difference between this law and that one.

The reason the state recognizes marriage is that marriage is important for lots of other things that are the state's business, like income taxes, inheritance rights, child custody, hospital visitation, power of attorney, etc. It is also important for regulatory issues, such as insider trading. That's why marriage is recognized by the state; it has nothing to do with your retarded attempt to turn this into some kind of FREEDOM! issue.

And if your argument is that polygamous marriage would create a real on-going cost in these areas, rather than just change-over costs, that sounds reasonable. It would also answer me about the difference between this law and the mixed-marriage one. The question would then be is the cost to the state high enough to justify restricting a tiny minority's freedom to marry. I will concede it could be, and it's not something that I'd considered.

You seem to feel that the People are here for the benefit of the State.

Hey look! A straw man. I wonder what you'll do with it?

Perhaps. I certainly don't know you well enough to say what you do and don't believe. However, I don't believe people should be required to show a benefit to the state for them to gain some right, but the state show the harm.

[Alyrium Denryle]

The good of the community is the root of all ethics, however I don't believe there would be significant social consequences. If it turns out I'm wrong, I would be forced to re-examine my position. That's life.

Imagine the consequences of a polygamous marriage (multi male or multi female) in which the one partner dies. Leaves two individuals in possession of inheritance rights. Or in the case of an injury, power of attorney . The tax code wouldnt be too bad, but that alone is going to cause a lot of legal confusion. What happens in the case of divorce? Does the separating parter have the rights to a proportional fraction of the marital assets?

What about child custody in cases where there are multiple males and one female?

Polygamous marriages open up a legal clusterfuck, that would require an overhaul of a good portion of our civil code. With other unusual marriages (like gay marriage) all it requires usually is changing one line of text.

I'm currently lost to see the difference between this law and that one.

See above.

[Broomstick]

The good of the community is the root of all ethics, however I don't believe there would be significant social consequences. If it turns out I'm wrong, I would be forced to re-examine my position. That's life.

Imagine the consequences of a polygamous marriage (multi male or multi female) in which the one partner dies. Leaves two individuals in possession of inheritance rights. Or in the case of an injury, power of attorney.

How would this be different than, say, a married couple becoming injured or ill and power of attorney/medical decisions/inheritance then falls upon multiple children?

This is not an abstract notion - three years ago both my parents simultaneously came down with pneumonia and almost died - the medical decisions were left to us three surviving sibling to hash out. As it happens, my family being composed of rational adults, we worked things out by consensus. For several months we took over our parents lives, seeing that their bills were paid, making medical appointments, talking with doctors, etc...

It is nothing unusual for more than two relatives to be left to deal with inheritence, power of attorney, and all those other legal issues.

What happens in the case of divorce? Does the separating parter have the rights to a proportional fraction of the marital assets?

That would seem to be a logical consequence. Why would that be an issue?

What about child custody in cases where there are multiple males and one female?

Given that women still usually wind up with custody I'd expect that to happen and the men to have visitation rights, possibly alimony/child support payments, and so on. Really, regardless which parent wound up with custody I would expect the others to have visitation rights and child support responsibilities. Again, why is this such a leap of logic? In fact, having multiple non-custodial parents might be a benefit, potentially reducing each individual's child support payment, and insulating the child against any one of the non-custodials suffering financial problems.

[Surlethe]

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 the state shouldn't recognize one male and two females, why should it recognize one male and one female? Put differently, why is the number of wives (or husbands) the reason the line is drawn at two in a marriage? If the line is arbitrary, why can't it be extended?

[Lusankya]

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

If the state is already acknowledging them, then they will not change anything by making it part of the law. All they will do is cement their rights.

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'.

You have not provided any reason why the state SHOULD NOT, moron. SHOW ME HOW LEGAL RECOGNITION OF CONSENSUAL RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THREE OR MORE PEOPLE IS HARMFUL TO THE STATE, or shut up.

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.

In the example I gave of myself (a female), Rob and Todd (both male), all members of the relationship do have equal standing. Remember, polygyny is only a subsection of polygamy.

Certainly any laws pertaining to polygamy should ensure that all members are equal. In fact, that is exactly why I put that proviso in. I'd be quite happy if laws legalising polygamy required that the parties involved undertook counselling to ensure that they were all completely comfortable with the relationship - but if their relationship is equal, then it is beneficial to them for the state to recognise it, and it is in no way harmful to the state.

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.

So your point is.... it's moral for the state to allow Rod's parents to deny me access to him because a) they disapprove of our relationship and b) the state doesn't recognise the relationship that I have with him. WHy?

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.

It is a right that is afforded to people in monogamous relationships. If someone is part of a polyamorous relationship that is, for all intents and purposes the same, then it is up to you to produce the objective reasoning as to why the people in the polyamorous relationship should not have that right.

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?

You are constantly saying "what's in it for the state", yet you have not shown that it is detrimental to the state to recognise consensual polyamorous unions. One could say the exact same thing regarding the recognition of homosexual unions. If the action is ethical, and is neutral in terms of benefit to the state, then yes, the state should recognise it.

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.

The primary issue is not welfare - if your welfare system can't handle polygamy, then amend the welfare system. That's a matter of a legal technicality and is not relevant to the main point: that being whether or not consensual polyamorous relationships harmful to the individual or the state. If they are not harmful (and you have done absolutely nothing to show that they are), then the main legal point to consider is whether or not the state recognises the members of the relationship as having a status equal to that of a spouse in a monogamous relationship. If the relationship is the same, then what reason is there for the polyamorous relationship to have a lower status?

[Mayabird]

Found the article.

Linked to the LA thread.

As a rarity, it'll just disappear into the statistics and not be a problem. But if a section of the population, even a smallish one, starts doing it, there can be (and were, in past times) huge societal effects, all bad.

And let's be honest here. Most polygamous marriages will be one man, lots of women and rarely the other way around. It won't balance itself out.

[Surlethe]

Found the article.

Linked to the LA thread.

As a rarity, it'll just disappear into the statistics and not be a problem. But if a section of the population, even a smallish one, starts doing it, there can be (and were, in past times) huge societal effects, all bad.

And let's be honest here. Most polygamous marriages will be one man, lots of women and rarely the other way around. It won't balance itself out.

That's what I was getting at in the OP. If we suppose that (properly done) there are no harmful local consequences of exclusive polygamy, the global consequences determine the morality of the action. Therefore, it seems to follow that if polygamy is a rarity, it is ethical, while if it is widespread, it is unethical. This is quite an interesting result, to say the least: the morality of the action is dependent on the culture.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Found the article.

Linked to the LA thread.

As a rarity, it'll just disappear into the statistics and not be a problem. But if a section of the population, even a smallish one, starts doing it, there can be (and were, in past times) huge societal effects, all bad.

And let's be honest here. Most polygamous marriages will be one man, lots of women and rarely the other way around. It won't balance itself out.

To bounce off that, they probably wont intermingle within the population. They will probably come together in smallish communities (otherwise it might be kinda hard to find willing mates, females willing to share a male) where the males that are born will be... well... screwed, and not in the way they prefer.

[Sidewinder]

Polygamous marriages open up a legal clusterfuck, that would require an overhaul of a good portion of our civil code.

IIRC, when polygamy was still legal in China, at least one of a dead man's spouses would be shafted when the inheritance was distributed; the unfortunate spouse's children will be shafted with her, and end up starving or sold into slavery. (At least that was the impression I got from most media about ancient China, with VERY FEW exceptions.)

[Korto]

I want to retract my statement to Knife, and extend an apology.
He accurately called me up on a strawman, and then I made a "perhaps..." reply as a way of not admitting it. It was childish of me, and I apologise.

[Darth Wong]

Frankly, the biggest reason to prevent polygamy in law is the fact that numerous agencies and businesses are obligated to provide support for a family. Countless employee compensation contracts, for example, were negotiated under an assumption of monogamous families.

While one can admittedly produce a rather large family with a monogamous relationship, truly gigantic families are made possible through polygamy, with attendant social and business costs. As a monogamous man, I might have two, three, possibly four kids. But a polygamist could easily have twenty or more, and under his employment contract, his employer would be obligated to provide health coverage for all of them.

[Lusankya]

Frankly, the biggest reason to prevent polygamy in law is the fact that numerous agencies and businesses are obligated to provide support for a family. Countless employee compensation contracts, for example, were negotiated under an assumption of monogamous families.

While one can admittedly produce a rather large family with a monogamous relationship, truly gigantic families are made possible through polygamy, with attendant social and business costs. As a monogamous man, I might have two, three, possibly four kids. But a polygamist could easily have twenty or more, and under his employment contract, his employer would be obligated to provide health coverage for all of them.

How do those work anyway? I'm guessing you're talking about America, but are they required to support all of a man's children regardless of their mother's status, or just the ones living with the father, or just the ones to his current legal spouse (however that is defined)? If the first second case is tre, then if there's no law preventing a man from having one wife and x "spirit wives" or whatever, then legalising polygamy wouldn't make a particularly huge difference in regards to these employee contracts. The biggest difference would be in parental leave, I guess, since a man with enough wives could theoretically be permanently on parental leave.

[Knife]

If the state shouldn't recognize one male and two females, why should it recognize one male and one female? Put differently, why is the number of wives (or husbands) the reason the line is drawn at two in a marriage? If the line is arbitrary, why can't it be extended?

Because while the State shouldn't have to burden itself with unreasonable expenses, it still has to face reality. A large swath of the population indeed pairs off for long periods of time and makes it easy to confer certain perks and privilages to those individuals, to make two into one entity under the law. Making six into one entity is putting undue burden on the state, however if the people involved wants to 'make that decision themselves' and carry their own burden then the state should stay out of it.

I want to retract my statement to Knife, and extend an apology.
He accurately called me up on a strawman, and then I made a "perhaps..." reply as a way of not admitting it. It was childish of me, and I apologise.

No worries man.

If the state is already acknowledging them, then they will not change anything by making it part of the law. All they will do is cement their rights.

And shell out the money and services to those huge groups. Why is this so hard to grasp?

You have not provided any reason why the state SHOULD NOT, moron. SHOW ME HOW LEGAL RECOGNITION OF CONSENSUAL RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THREE OR MORE PEOPLE IS HARMFUL TO THE STATE, or shut up.

Actually, in this thread I've mentioned plenty. It's an undue burden on the state, in light of known examples of well fair abuse, tax fraud, child abuse, spousal abuse. Since the State is part of the marriage contract too, it makes the state defacto parent in the case of all others in the contract unable to live up tot he contract, arbiters of the estate and all the children (and there are plenty of examples of polygamous families with huge amounts of children).

You want to live with your spirit husband and eight sister wives, go for it. But the state doesn't have to subsidize it.

In the example I gave of myself (a female), Rob and Todd (both male), all members of the relationship do have equal standing. Remember, polygyny is only a subsection of polygamy.

But is your example the exception to the rule? Do these example exsist in enough numbers to justify codifying them in law?

Certainly any laws pertaining to polygamy should ensure that all members are equal. In fact, that is exactly why I put that proviso in. I'd be quite happy if laws legalising polygamy required that the parties involved undertook counselling to ensure that they were all completely comfortable with the relationship - but if their relationship is equal, then it is beneficial to them for the state to recognise it, and it is in no way harmful to the state.

I have to admit that under such a thing I really wouldn't care if they did get married. However such a scheme would probably benefit all persons wanting to marry and also cost a shit load of money the taxpayers would have to bare and be a large clumbsy government body. Not necessarily beneficial to the state.

So your point is.... it's moral for the state to allow Rod's parents to deny me access to him because a) they disapprove of our relationship and b) the state doesn't recognise the relationship that I have with him. WHy?

Actually when you brought this up first, I said it's Tom's responsibility to ensure you have access. There are multiple forms of legal ways Tom can ensure his wishes in case of emergencies where he believes his wishes may conflict with the wishes of 'closest relative' including changing that 'closest relative'.

Adding marriage to poly relationships is a clumsy way to do what you want in this example since a lot of the ones I see like this have to do with other forms of relations. Uncles and nephews, Boyfriends/Boyfriends/Girlfriends.

It is a right that is afforded to people in monogamous relationships. If someone is part of a polyamorous relationship that is, for all intents and purposes the same, then it is up to you to produce the objective reasoning as to why the people in the polyamorous relationship should not have that right.

Which I feel I've pretty much gone over in the last couple posts.

You are constantly saying "what's in it for the state", yet you have not shown that it is detrimental to the state to recognise consensual polyamorous unions. One could say the exact same thing regarding the recognition of homosexual unions. If the action is ethical, and is neutral in terms of benefit to the state, then yes, the state should recognise it.

Without typing it all out again, your are taking the burden on the state and multiplying it by however many wives/husbands you add plus multiplying it by the children produced.

The primary issue is not welfare - if your welfare system can't handle polygamy, then amend the welfare system. That's a matter of a legal technicality and is not relevant to the main point: that being whether or not consensual polyamorous relationships harmful to the individual or the state. If they are not harmful (and you have done absolutely nothing to show that they are), then the main legal point to consider is whether or not the state recognises the members of the relationship as having a status equal to that of a spouse in a monogamous relationship. If the relationship is the same, then what reason is there for the polyamorous relationship to have a lower status?

So putting enourmous societal strain on social programs isn't enough reason for the state not to recognized such a legal standing? Pfft.

[Broomstick]

Frankly, the biggest reason to prevent polygamy in law is the fact that numerous agencies and businesses are obligated to provide support for a family. Countless employee compensation contracts, for example, were negotiated under an assumption of monogamous families.

While one can admittedly produce a rather large family with a monogamous relationship, truly gigantic families are made possible through polygamy, with attendant social and business costs. As a monogamous man, I might have two, three, possibly four kids. But a polygamist could easily have twenty or more, and under his employment contract, his employer would be obligated to provide health coverage for all of them.

How do those work anyway? I'm guessing you're talking about America, but are they required to support all of a man's children regardless of their mother's status, or just the ones living with the father, or just the ones to his current legal spouse (however that is defined)? If the first second case is tre, then if there's no law preventing a man from having one wife and x "spirit wives" or whatever, then legalising polygamy wouldn't make a particularly huge difference in regards to these employee contracts. The biggest difference would be in parental leave, I guess, since a man with enough wives could theoretically be permanently on parental leave.

Generally, family medical policies only cover dependents actually living under the same roof as the covered individual. The most common exception is young adult dependents who are in college who are typically covered by their parent(s)' policy

So if a person is divorced and does not have custody of the kids their policy wouldn't cover the kids. If a person is divorced and does have custody then the person's policy covers the kids. Also, if you have an elderly parent or parents living with you as your legal dependent then they, too, could be covered, but not if they were in a nursing home. Typically, since those over 65 in the US can get medicare this is rare, but if you have a parent 50 years old who is disabled being supported by a 25 year old child then it could apply.

[Knife]

Frankly, the biggest reason to prevent polygamy in law is the fact that numerous agencies and businesses are obligated to provide support for a family. Countless employee compensation contracts, for example, were negotiated under an assumption of monogamous families.

While one can admittedly produce a rather large family with a monogamous relationship, truly gigantic families are made possible through polygamy, with attendant social and business costs. As a monogamous man, I might have two, three, possibly four kids. But a polygamist could easily have twenty or more, and under his employment contract, his employer would be obligated to provide health coverage for all of them.

How do those work anyway? I'm guessing you're talking about America, but are they required to support all of a man's children regardless of their mother's status, or just the ones living with the father, or just the ones to his current legal spouse (however that is defined)? If the first second case is tre, then if there's no law preventing a man from having one wife and x "spirit wives" or whatever, then legalising polygamy wouldn't make a particularly huge difference in regards to these employee contracts. The biggest difference would be in parental leave, I guess, since a man with enough wives could theoretically be permanently on parental leave.

Based on this post, I thin you and I have a disconnect. I have no problem with man X marrying woman Y and then having spirit wife Z, A, B, C etc... but the state shouldn't have to recognize Z, A, B etc... and confer all legal and financial status because of undue burden. If all persons involved want to shoulder the responsibility themselves, go for it, but the state and society in general shouldn't have to subsidize it.

There are plenty of ways to address your single points that doesn't need the one big over reaching 'marriage' to address, rather singular solutions to the problems as they arise in a case by case situation.

So again, as I started this, not legal but it doesn't have to be illegal.