Defense for Canadian Polygamists Cites Gay Marriage

[Kanastrous]

VANCOUVER, British Columbia - Canada's decision to legalize gay marriage has paved the way for polygamy to be legal as well, a defense lawyer said Wednesday as the two leaders of rival polygamous communities made their first court appearance.

The case is the first to test Canada's polygamy laws.

Winston Blackmore, 52, and James Oler, 44, are each accused of being married to more than one woman at a time. The charges carry a maximum penalty of five years in prison, British Columbia Attorney General Wally Oppal said.

But Blackmore's lawyer, Blair Suffredine, said during a telephone interview that marriage standards in Canada have changed.

"If (homosexuals) can marry, what is the reason that public policy says one person can't marry more than one person?" said Suffredine, a former provincial lawmaker. Canada's Parliament extended full marriage rights to same-sex couples in 2005.

Suffredine said the case is also about religious persecution.

Blackmore and Oler lead rival polygamous factions in Bountiful, a town in southeastern British Columbia. Blackmore is charged with marrying 20 women and Oler is accused of marrying two women.

Blackmore openly acknowledges having numerous wives and dozens of children but has said his community abhors sexual abuse of children.

Blackmore, who has an independent sect of about 400 followers in Bountiful, once ran the Canadian arm of the Utah-based Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but he was ejected in 2003 by that group's leader, Warren Jeffs. Jeffs is in jail awaiting trial in Arizona on four counts of being an accomplice to sexual conduct with a minor.

Oler is the bishop of Bountiful's FLDS community loyal to Jeffs.

Even though many of Bountiful's residents are related, followers of the two leaders are not allowed to talk with each other.

FLDS members practice polygamy in arranged marriages, a tradition tied to the early theology of the Mormon church. Mormons renounced polygamy in 1890 as a condition of Utah's statehood.

The trial of the two men will continue Feb. 18.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28776588/

---

Well, it actually *has* happened...polygamists trying to turn marriage enfranchisement for gay people into an argument in favor of legalized polygamy. The conservatypes who argued this would happen, turned out to be right about something.

Anyone think this will get traction?

[General Zod]

Well, it actually *has* happened...polygamists trying to turn marriage enfranchisement for gay people into an argument in favor of legalized polygamy. The conservatypes who argued this would happen, turned out to be right about something.

I find it darkly hilarious that they're effectively using the same argument conservative douchebags have been using against gay marriage for years in trying to get polygamy legalized. I'm not terribly familiar with the precedent behind legalizing gay marriage in Canada, but I'm betting it has nothing to do with that particular slippery slope.

[Surlethe]

Well, it actually *has* happened...polygamists trying to turn marriage enfranchisement for gay people into an argument in favor of legalized polygamy. The conservatypes who argued this would happen, turned out to be right about something.

Did you think it wouldn't? The reason it's a slippery slope fallacy is because the assertion "gay marriage legal implies polygamous marriage legal" is (at this point) a non-sequitur, not because polygamists will try it.

[Kanastrous]

I'm referring to the conservatalkers who kept insisting just wait, you'll see, gay marriage will be seized upon by polygamists to try and legalize *their* unions too!, not whether or not the polygamists' case has any merit.

C'mon, conservatypes being right about something *is* kind of worth noting, when it happens.

[General Zod]

I'm referring to the conservatalkers who kept insisting just wait, you'll see, gay marriage will be seized upon by polygamists to try and legalize *their* unions too!, not whether or not the polygamists' case has any merit.

C'mon, conservatypes being right about something *is* kind of worth noting, when it happens.

Since it hasn't even been ruled on yet, you might be jumping the gun a bit there.

[Kanastrous]

I'm agnostic regarding the actual merits of their case, or the likely outcome. The conservatypes just turned out to be right, regarding the attempt.

[Broomstick]

My objection to these religious loons is not their plural marriages but that these marriages all too frequently involve underage girls and coercion. A bunch of 30 year olds all deciding to marry is one thing - 60 year old men marrying 14 year old girls is another.

[Kitsune]

The next step in the slippery slope of course is pedophilia.

Problem is that I can marshal specific arguments against pedophilia, I have trouble doing the same again polygamy

[Posner]

My objection to these religious loons is not their plural marriages but that these marriages all too frequently involve underage girls and coercion. A bunch of 30 year olds all deciding to marry is one thing - 60 year old men marrying 14 year old girls is another.

Yeah I have the same feeling about it. A couple of other non Jesus related objections to polygamy is that it would wreak havoc with family law- divorce, child support, wills etc. and that it will lead to a bunch of men with wives. I think that the legal system could just deal with the legal conundrums. I doubt that polygamy has the legs in the current Western culture to seriously affect the landscape of the dating scene. But then again, maybe it will be insidious like the Bible thumpers say about homosexuality because polygamy is actually a choice. I read in Matt Ridley's The Red Queen that polygamy can be better for women in some ways because they can flock to the best husbands and not get stuck with an evolutionary dud.

[Broomstick]

I've also known a couple group "marriages" (not legal, of course) that involved women with multiple husbands. Hence, I said "plural marriage" rather than restricting it to just one form. It's probably a rare form than multiple wives, but it certainly can and does exist. One was a woman with two husbands, another was a man and wife who are in a relationship with a transexual (they all live under one roof, the husband can't father children and the still-transitioning transexual was the father of their child although socially that person is a female parent. That's two moms, one of whom fathered a child. Yeah, a little confusing for most of us at first. I didn't ask for details, none of my business.)

Yes, it could complicate divorce law and child custody, but it's not like messes don't occur with the current system's serial monogamy. Very few people are going to marry more than one person if historical experience is anything to go by, societies where plural marriage is the norm are quite rare and usually a result of extreme environments.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

There is no valid argument against polygamy, as long as it's a plural marriage format in which everyone is married to everyone else in the relationship, and divorce proceedings proceed normally allowing one partner to leave the rest and (potentially) claim his/her biological children, with the usual strict and aggressive social services to prevent abuse of any of the spouses involved. Legalizing gay marriage and legalizing polygamy are not really all that different, and I hope to see polygamy legalized in Canada soon. It's misogynistic culture that produces abuse in polygamous relationships, not polygamous relationships which produce misogynistic culture, since we have plenty examples of misogynistic attitudes and behaviours in societies which have been monogamous for thousands of years.

[General Zod]

There is no valid argument against polygamy, as long as it's a plural marriage format in which everyone is married to everyone else in the relationship, and divorce proceedings proceed normally allowing one partner to leave the rest and (potentially) claim his/her biological children, with the usual strict and aggressive social services to prevent abuse of any of the spouses involved. Legalizing gay marriage and legalizing polygamy are not really all that different, and I hope to see polygamy legalized in Canada soon. It's misogynistic culture that produces abuse in polygamous relationships, not polygamous relationships which produce misogynistic culture, since we have plenty examples of misogynistic attitudes and behaviours in societies which have been monogamous for thousands of years.

I don't have any issues against legalizing polygamy (between consenting adults at any rate) personally, I just find the approach in the OP distasteful.

[bobalot]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there a case against polygamy because it could lead to social unrest?

As I understand it, in communities that do practice it, there starts to be a "surplus" of unmarried men who don't have any chance to get married and this causes social unrest? I'm pretty sure this happens in tribal regions where polygamy is practiced. I'm sure I have read on this forum about leaders of the more fringe Mormon sects "banishing" young men for trumped up offenses in order to cut down on competition.

With gay marriage, the two people were never likely to get married, so gay marriage would have little effect on the actual running of society. Polygamy has the potential to let things get ugly. India and China are going have a big problem with whacked out male to female ratios (which is due to selective abortions, not polygamy). There are predictions that 10% of the young men in India may not be able to get a partner, which could lead to serious unrest. I think polygamy has the same sort of effect, cutting down the number of available women.

Your thoughts?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there a case against polygamy because it could lead to social unrest?

As I understand it, in communities that do practice it, there starts to be a "surplus" of unmarried men who don't have any chance to get married and this causes social unrest? I'm pretty sure this happens in tribal regions where polygamy is practiced. I'm sure I have read on this forum about leaders of the more fringe Mormon sects "banishing" young men for trumped up offenses in order to cut down on competition.

With gay marriage, the two people were never likely to get married, so gay marriage would have little effect on the actual running of society. Polygamy has the potential to let things get ugly. India and China are going have a big problem with whacked out male to female ratios (which is due to selective abortions, not polygamy). There are predictions that 10% of the young men in India may not be able to get a partner, which could lead to serious unrest. I think polygamy has the same sort of effect, cutting down the number of available women.

Your thoughts?

Polygynous (male with multiple women) societies have been stable for thousands of years; India and China's problems are caused by abortion of female fetuses. There's no evidence that polygyny will cause any problems. Furthermore, Polyandry would also be legal, which would at least partially rectify the ratio (though is liable to be rather more rare), and beyond that, some of the marriages are liable to group marriages with multiple men and women. And lots of people into the polyamorous lifestyle practice free love, anyway, so those single males would still be potentially getting laid.

It is in short another specious argument.

[Samuel]

Well, if the number of available women drops compared to men, you will get men offering better deals. The invisible hand moves to marriage!

Seriously though, I doubt the numbers will be high enough to affect the pool of available singles. Even in societies with polygamy, the numbers are low.

[Duckie]

I can't particularly see anything wrong with Polygamy or its -androus twin. For one, it's a 'adults are going to do it anyway in secret, why don't we just legalize it so that we can regulate such marriages, regulate divorce in a fair way, legislate on it, prevent abuses with said laws, et cetera' issue like many things such as Gay Marriage.

That said, even in societies where it's been allowed such as arab lands, you don't see many men taking multiple wives- for one, you have to support both of them equally, it makes survival harder, et cetera. The number of people with more than one wife is about the same number as (and usually the same people as) the upper class men. Or at least it was in the pre-ottoman Caliphate. I don't know about beyond that.

For one, who would want to deal with 2 sets of in-laws? You have to really love two people to want to marry them rather than just have sex with them on and off (as Harem-like or non-marriage situations of 3+ relationships are). Second, peoples' math on societal problems is off if we assume that this is post gay marriage and allows women to marry multiple men (unlike muslim countries)

People use the time-told example of
1) Equal men and women
2) One rich guy has 200 wives
3) 200 men aren't getting laid
4) 200 men are causing social ills due to frustration

without realizing in a polygamous society that allows anyone to marry anyone:
1) Equal men and women
2) One rich guy has 200 wives
3) 200 men also get picked up by some rich girl for her harem (equally as improbable in my opinion)
4) Equal men and women

Now, I'm no Polygamy Expert, but this is just what I'm thinking and because I have a neat diagram strategy to go with it:

Marriage Geometry

This one is the one a lot of people miss. If you have a Lambda Λ marriage where one woman marries two women, that's totally different from a Δ marriage where three men marry eachother. Because one of them has only two lines of affection/sex, while the other has three and causes all partners to be connected. The Lambda is the simplest geometric form of Harem (which is a single line with radiation off of it) and the Delta the simplest form of Group Marriage (which is a geometric shape with all diagonals connected, like a pentagram would be 5-Group Marriage). You could suppose other shapes like Wheel (Harem with all or some of the harem girls connected to eachother but not the Sultan or something) or even more complex shapes but let's just ignore those.

Is the Λ marriage fair? Should it be allowed? I don't know. Δ is obviously more equal, but sometimes there might be 2 women who want to marry the same man but don't want to marry eachother because they're both straight.

The Λ is probably far more open to abuse and is probably going to be less stable, since 2 people love 1 person instead of 3 people loving eachother. And prohibiting the Λ would just make those women in the Λ example fake-marry eachother in a Δ and do the same thing, wouldn't it?

If the same person can be in multiple polygamous marriages, Λ could also lead to the fascinating form of N, M, or even Λ/V if something bizarre happens, or even ΛΔ or the like, which would be strange, strange things. even without Λ shapes, Δ could lead to hourglass shapes. That would be very strange.

Lots of questions that fascinate me more than make me think Polygamy would be a bad idea. After all, a single N shaped marriage would be vanishingly rare, so I doubt you'd ever hear of these things being a problem.

Also, Harem Limitation- This was what Muħammad's reforms of marriage were, besides 'treat all your wives equally'. He said '4 wife maximum' (thus, V, Y and X marriages are the only allowed). Which was meant to prevent rich people from having harems of 40 women and thus making it so that poor people couldn't get any (since no rich women or the ability to marry multiple men existed to balance out). Would modern Polygamy need a limit? If so, what's a fair limit? Or would the fact that you don't need to marry to have sex (or shouldn't, if western culture didn't associate them) prevent you from seeing 200-wife harems like the days of old?

Wow, I've been posting a huge message on this without realising it. Sorry for it being rambling, but it's such a fascinating subject on how this stuff would mesh with modern western societies and so forth.

[Broomstick]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there a case against polygamy because it could lead to social unrest?

As I understand it, in communities that do practice it, there starts to be a "surplus" of unmarried men who don't have any chance to get married and this causes social unrest? I'm pretty sure this happens in tribal regions where polygamy is practiced. I'm sure I have read on this forum about leaders of the more fringe Mormon sects "banishing" young men for trumped up offenses in order to cut down on competition?

There is a difference between permitting multiple marriage and mandating.

If you look at societies like our current Islamic ones all men are permitted up to 4 wives... but almost all men have no more than one. That is in part because of the laws that require the men to support all their wives equally, but also because a lot of men don't want more than one wife. Monogamous men really do exist.

Now, in those Fundy Mormon sects polygamy is mandated. A man needs three wives to get to heaven. Worse yet, the rest of his family rides on his coattails so if he doesn't get to heaven neither does anyone else in the family. That insistence on polygamy is what causes the problems and the oversupply of young men. Also in those sects the emphasis on marriage is reproduction, not companionship, which is the opposite of current marriage practices in mainstream North America. Forcing women to squirt out babies to the exclusion of all else is damaging. A more typical American woman is likely to bring some sort of job or career to a group marriage making it far more likely she'll leave if things don't work out. Abuse still occurs, but it's not nearly as likely or institutionalized.

And, as pointed out, if what you legalize is not polygamy but plural marriage you could have groups where the male:female ratio is equal or with more men than women in the group.

[ray245]

I can't particularly see anything wrong with Polygamy or its -androus twin. For one, it's a 'adults are going to do it anyway in secret, why don't we just legalize it so that we can regulate such marriages, regulate divorce in a fair way, legislate on it, prevent abuses with said laws, et cetera' issue like many things such as Gay Marriage.

That said, even in societies where it's been allowed such as arab lands, you don't see many men taking multiple wives- for one, you have to support both of them equally, it makes survival harder, et cetera. The number of people with more than one wife is about the same number as (and usually the same people as) the upper class men. Or at least it was in the pre-ottoman Caliphate. I don't know about beyond that.

For one, who would want to deal with 2 sets of in-laws? You have to really love two people to want to marry them rather than just have sex with them on and off (as Harem-like or non-marriage situations of 3+ relationships are). Second, peoples' math on societal problems is off if we assume that this is post gay marriage and allows women to marry multiple men (unlike muslim countries)

People use the time-told example of
1) Equal men and women
2) One rich guy has 200 wives
3) 200 men aren't getting laid
4) 200 men are causing social ills due to frustration

without realizing in a polygamous society that allows anyone to marry anyone:
1) Equal men and women
2) One rich guy has 200 wives
3) 200 men also get picked up by some rich girl for her harem (equally as improbable in my opinion)
4) Equal men and women

Now, I'm no Polygamy Expert, but this is just what I'm thinking and because I have a neat diagram strategy to go with it:

Marriage Geometry

This one is the one a lot of people miss. If you have a Lambda Λ marriage where one woman marries two women, that's totally different from a Δ marriage where three men marry eachother. Because one of them has only two lines of affection/sex, while the other has three and causes all partners to be connected. The Lambda is the simplest geometric form of Harem (which is a single line with radiation off of it) and the Delta the simplest form of Group Marriage (which is a geometric shape with all diagonals connected, like a pentagram would be 5-Group Marriage). You could suppose other shapes like Wheel (Harem with all or some of the harem girls connected to eachother but not the Sultan or something) or even more complex shapes but let's just ignore those.

Is the Λ marriage fair? Should it be allowed? I don't know. Δ is obviously more equal, but sometimes there might be 2 women who want to marry the same man but don't want to marry eachother because they're both straight.

The Λ is probably far more open to abuse and is probably going to be less stable, since 2 people love 1 person instead of 3 people loving eachother. And prohibiting the Λ would just make those women in the Λ example fake-marry eachother in a Δ and do the same thing, wouldn't it?

If the same person can be in multiple polygamous marriages, Λ could also lead to the fascinating form of N, M, or even Λ/V if something bizarre happens, or even ΛΔ or the like, which would be strange, strange things. even without Λ shapes, Δ could lead to hourglass shapes. That would be very strange.

Lots of questions that fascinate me more than make me think Polygamy would be a bad idea. After all, a single N shaped marriage would be vanishingly rare, so I doubt you'd ever hear of these things being a problem.

Also, Harem Limitation- This was what Muħammad's reforms of marriage were, besides 'treat all your wives equally'. He said '4 wife maximum' (thus, V, Y and X marriages are the only allowed). Which was meant to prevent rich people from having harems of 40 women and thus making it so that poor people couldn't get any (since no rich women or the ability to marry multiple men existed to balance out). Would modern Polygamy need a limit? If so, what's a fair limit? Or would the fact that you don't need to marry to have sex (or shouldn't, if western culture didn't associate them) prevent you from seeing 200-wife harems like the days of old?

Wow, I've been posting a huge message on this without realising it. Sorry for it being rambling, but it's such a fascinating subject on how this stuff would mesh with modern western societies and so forth.

Another question has been raised, whereby men are allowed to have wives at an older age.

The attractiveness of your spouse will fade as our body becomes older and older. If you are allowed to have more than one wife for instance, it is plausible that you might end up getting more attracted to a younger girl for instance, and start to ignore your older wife.

Just because you are married does not mean you have to share the same amount of concern to your spouse. What will happen to younger males in this scenario? Will such an act cause a huge age difference between the males and the females?

Polygamy cause an effect on a micro-level as compared to a macro-level, from the examples of Middle-east and China for instance.

[Broomstick]

Another question has been raised, whereby men are allowed to have wives at an older age.

The attractiveness of your spouse will fade as our body becomes older and older. If you are allowed to have more than one wife for instance, it is plausible that you might end up getting more attracted to a younger girl for instance, and start to ignore your older wife.

In the US there is a tendency for the ignored older wife to divorce the man and take half his stuff plus lifetime alimony payments. This makes neglecting the older wife expensive.

Also, contrary to the belief of the young, older men don't always want to dump women of their age for younger women. Yes, old men like the way 20 year olds with perky tits look. That doesn't mean they find them good companions. They may want to fuck a 20 year old, that doesn't mean they want to live with them. If all an older man wants is sex with younger women he doesn't have to be married - what he really needs is lots of money and/or clout.

[ray245]

Another question has been raised, whereby men are allowed to have wives at an older age.

The attractiveness of your spouse will fade as our body becomes older and older. If you are allowed to have more than one wife for instance, it is plausible that you might end up getting more attracted to a younger girl for instance, and start to ignore your older wife.

In the US there is a tendency for the ignored older wife to divorce the man and take half his stuff plus lifetime alimony payments. This makes neglecting the older wife expensive.

Also, contrary to the belief of the young, older men don't always want to dump women of their age for younger women. Yes, old men like the way 20 year olds with perky tits look. That doesn't mean they find them good companions. They may want to fuck a 20 year old, that doesn't mean they want to live with them. If all an older man wants is sex with younger women he doesn't have to be married - what he really needs is lots of money and/or clout.

Although I have to wonder, given that males tends to be more dominant and more assertive as a whole, is it really fair to women?

In a balanced relationship, both sides are viewed as equal, however, can a polygamist family view the males and females as equal? How does that affect the mentality of the children? Can they see their father and mothers as equals?

[Rye]

That raises another question, if a man marries several women, do they share their money with him individually or everyone, and if one leaves, do they get a mere fragment of the super-relationship's material wealth? I mean, it's unlikely all the women will have the same means when they enter the marriage, but when they leave it, does that mean they get the same "severance package" or are they going to try and work out what each bride brought to the marriage? If the guy leaves, does he get half of everything his wives have pooled?

As for populations being stable for years with polygamous setups, isn't that mostly down to war and disease? With volunteer militaries and much less tribal warfare to waste all the extra men on, unless we can turn loads of them gay or start producing girls, you would get a load of fuckstrated guys. In principle, I would be cool with mature adults doing whatever so long as nobody got hurt and it all worked, but I am unconvinced that in general it's for the best.

[Duckie]

That raises another question, if a man marries several women, do they share their money with him individually or everyone, and if one leaves, do they get a mere fragment of the super-relationship's material wealth? I mean, it's unlikely all the women will have the same means when they enter the marriage, but when they leave it, does that mean they get the same "severance package" or are they going to try and work out what each bride brought to the marriage? If the guy leaves, does he get half of everything his wives have pooled?

As for populations being stable for years with polygamous setups, isn't that mostly down to war and disease? With volunteer militaries and much less tribal warfare to waste all the extra men on, unless we can turn loads of them gay or start producing girls, you would get a load of fuckstrated guys. In principle, I would be cool with mature adults doing whatever so long as nobody got hurt and it all worked, but I am unconvinced that in general it's for the best.

Fact: Legalizing polygamy means legalizing polyandry unless something stupid is going on
Postulate: About as many men want to marry women as women want to marry men.
Postulate: As many men will marry as many women polyandrously as the reverse polygamously, unless culture outright encourages one or bans the other.
Conclusion if postulates are correct: There will be almost 0 net change in available singles.

Refute one of the postulates for me, because it seems there's a huge wall of stupid going on with people considering polygamous societies in which only men choose whom they marry rather than a western society where, shock of shocks, women can marry men too.

The fact that patrifocal polygamous tribal societies have a surplus of men worn down by disease and war does not mandate any society which has polyandry and polygamy in it to do so either, for the simple reason that there will be an equal number of polyandrous women unless you can demonstrate that there won't be.

[Broomstick]

Although I have to wonder, given that males tends to be more dominant and more assertive as a whole, is it really fair to women?

Women are not being FORCED to marry a man with another wife. Assuming a woman has her option for economic independence (which, in mainstream western society is the case) it puts her in a much better bargaining position to say "I will not share my man with another woman". If no woman is forced into this arrangement and any woman in such an arrangement is able to leave if she desires how is that unfair?

In a balanced relationship, both sides are viewed as equal, however, can a polygamist family view the males and females as equal? How does that affect the mentality of the children? Can they see their father and mothers as equals?

You can't guarantee that in a monogamous relationship. The question is nonsensical because how a child views men and women in regards to to status has much more to do with how parents treat each other and the views of society than the precise legal arrangements between any given man and woman.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there a case against polygamy because it could lead to social unrest?

As I understand it, in communities that do practice it, there starts to be a "surplus" of unmarried men who don't have any chance to get married and this causes social unrest? I'm pretty sure this happens in tribal regions where polygamy is practiced. I'm sure I have read on this forum about leaders of the more fringe Mormon sects "banishing" young men for trumped up offenses in order to cut down on competition.

With gay marriage, the two people were never likely to get married, so gay marriage would have little effect on the actual running of society. Polygamy has the potential to let things get ugly. India and China are going have a big problem with whacked out male to female ratios (which is due to selective abortions, not polygamy). There are predictions that 10% of the young men in India may not be able to get a partner, which could lead to serious unrest. I think polygamy has the same sort of effect, cutting down the number of available women.

Your thoughts?

Polygynous (male with multiple women) societies have been stable for thousands of years; India and China's problems are caused by abortion of female fetuses. There's no evidence that polygyny will cause any problems. Furthermore, Polyandry would also be legal, which would at least partially rectify the ratio (though is liable to be rather more rare), and beyond that, some of the marriages are liable to group marriages with multiple men and women. And lots of people into the polyamorous lifestyle practice free love, anyway, so those single males would still be potentially getting laid.

It is in short another specious argument.

No. It really is not. The polygynous societies that have been stable for thousands of years artificially bias their operational sex ratio by killing their males. One way or the other. Tribal warfare, wars of expansion. The sort of the polygyny you get in a western culture when you remove those confounds are FLDS sects. I am not talking about the marriage of underage girls. I am referring to the expulsion of young males by older more powerful males. This can either be done officially (as with the lost boys) or unofficially. But in human societies whenever you have sexual conflict like that someone is getting screwed in a way they don't like. WHen someone gets screwed, bad things tend to follow.

People use the time-told example of
1) Equal men and women
2) One rich guy has 200 wives
3) 200 men aren't getting laid
4) 200 men are causing social ills due to frustration

without realizing in a polygamous society that allows anyone to marry anyone:
1) Equal men and women
2) One rich guy has 200 wives
3) 200 men also get picked up by some rich girl for her harem (equally as improbable in my opinion)
4) Equal men and women

Now, I'm no Polygamy Expert, but this is just what I'm thinking and because I have a neat diagram strategy to go with it:

You have a faulty assumption. That faulty assumption is that polygyny and polyandry will occur at the same rate. It wont. The way a female's biology works out, she is far more willing to share a male than a male is to share a female with another male. Why? Women dont have to worry about cuckoldry. Men have psychological mechanisms in place to prevent other males from laying their proverbial egg in their proverbial nest. Polyandry is most assuredly not one of them.

Postulate: As many men will marry as many women polyandrously as the reverse polygamously, unless culture outright encourages one or bans the other.

Culture only manages fine detail and application when it comes to sex. Biology is the determining factor here. There is a reason polyandry has reared its head less than a half dozen times (IIRC) in human societies. The conditions under which it can work are very very rare, essentially the risk from infighting among males has to outweigh the fitness loss from cuckoldry. That does not happen often.

[ray245]

Women are not being FORCED to marry a man with another wife. Assuming a woman has her option for economic independence (which, in mainstream western society is the case) it puts her in a much better bargaining position to say "I will not share my man with another woman". If no woman is forced into this arrangement and any woman in such an arrangement is able to leave if she desires how is that unfair?

Ahh, keep forgetting about that aspect. I keep thinking of polygamy as something from ancient times, whereby women are viewed as goods. Sorry about that.