What exactly Is Wrong with Polygamy anyway?

[Marcus]

As an example of the misleading nature of your cut and pasting, the rest of my post you truncated above explains my point:

Marcus, it would indeed be misleading, if I had actually been talking about polyamory. My best recollection is that I didn't respond to the bolded sections because I wasn't totally convinced I was talking abiut polyamory. Perhaps I should have stated that instead of just ignoring those sections. Marcus, can you explain to me why you think I'm talking about polyamory?

This is another good example of the misleading nature of your cut and pasting.

By picking out only that sentence, you changed the meaning of what I meant by “misleading,” and by so doing you not only missed my point about your posting strategy, you also bypassed the actual topic under discussion.

Your final question qualifies as sealioning, as described by Doc earlier, rather than furthering any point, especially given your own statement about your intended topic:

…I have made it clear from the outset that all I want is to consider the possibility that a marriage of three consenting adults might be better than the alternative.

To stay on topic, please address the ongoing discussion instead.

[Marcus]

The language of your question above implies that there cannot be a difference in equity unless there is a difference in legality.

No it doesn't. Manetho was implying that polygamy shouldn't be legal because it wasn't equitable. I was simply saying it was (or at least could be) equitable, and therefore asked Manetho why it shouldn't be legal. That doesn't mean I was equating equity with legality.

We will have to agree to disagree on that, then, as Manetho said nothing about the legality of polygamy being related to inequity. He was very specific as to his reasoning:

As everyone else on this thread has pointed out, an arrangement where one man has multiple wives, but the wives depend exclusively on the one man for everything one expects in a monogamous marriage, in inherently inequitable.

He did however, bring the subject back to polyamory, which was your stated preference for the subject:

In my opening post I asked what was wrong with three adults of any gender combination entering into a polygamous marriage. If this was ever incorporated into a bill that went before Congress, it would need to have a provision requiring that all three participants be adults.

Aha. What you're describing is more like modern polyamory, which, as I understand it, consists of groups or people who are usually all in relationships with each other. I think there are sometimes exceptions, where one member of a polyamorous group may be involved with only one or some members of the group, but in any case, it's a much more fluid, and much more voluntary, arrangement than Mormon polygamy….

This brings us right back to physics guy’s and other's points about polyamory.

[doubtingthomas]

This brings us right back to physics guy’s and other's points about polyamory.

Dr. Shades just wrote, " That means "pickiness" because she must hedge her bets by mating with the champion. That's why 20% of men have 80% of the sex. " Aren't you going to call him out for believing that polygamy is very prevalent?

[msnobody]

Marriage is meant to be a picture of Christ and the church. Polygamy would equate to whoring after other gods or idolatry. That is about all I have to say.

MsNobody, are you saying you don't want me to respond?

No, I’m not saying I don’t want you to respond. I just don’t have much if anything else to say on the topic.

[honorentheos]

I don't have time to hunt down the author of a Gospel Topics essay. And even if I did, my wife would kill me if she found out I was doing that kind of research on polygamy issues.

Her goal is to have children and to do a good job raising them. I could be biased by my Latter-day Saint upbringing, but my impression is that people raised by two parents end up significantly better off than those raised by single parents...My guess is that a child with both her/his parents actively involved in her/his life would on the whole grow up with more stability in her/his life than a child raised by a single parent,

I think a current spouse should have the right to veto a second marriage, but other than that each of the two marriages could be treated separately. There are ways to establish biological parenthood that work whether the parents are married or not, so I don't see any reason to believe custody disputes would be any more complicated in a marriage of three adults than a marriage of two.

Huh.

[IHAQ]

If power really does always corrupt, then the problem isn't polygamy; it's patriarchy. The problem is that the husband has more power than his wife has, or wives have. If in a three-way marriage all spouses have equal power, the problem would go away.

You now need to account for the power structure within the wives - for instance, Emma had more power than Joseph’s other wives and exercised that power to their detriment. A marriage between two women and a man is not “three-way” because the women aren’t married to each other and don’t have a marital relationship with each other.

No; if they're single, that means they haven't found a spouse yet. Which means the odds are against them. There's a good chance they will never get married. So I'm not against monogamy for them; I'm against a legal system that keeps a large fraction of them from getting married at all. Or are you talking about single twenty-year-old women? Their chances of getting married are better than the chances of all single women taken together. And after all, who cares about single women who are older than 35, right?

The legal system doesn’t prevent anyone (of legal age) from getting married. It prevents women from marrying men who are already married with a living spouse. Have you floated the idea of you taking a second wife with your first wife yet?

[Marcus]

If power really does always corrupt, then the problem isn't polygamy; it's patriarchy. The problem is that the husband has more power than his wife has, or wives have. If in a three-way marriage all spouses have equal power, the problem would go away.

You now need to account for the power structure within the wives - for instance, Emma had more power than Joseph’s other wives and exercised that power to their detriment. A marriage between two women and a man is not “three-way” because the women aren’t married to each other and don’t have a marital relationship with each other.

No; if they're single, that means they haven't found a spouse yet. Which means the odds are against them. There's a good chance they will never get married. So I'm not against monogamy for them; I'm against a legal system that keeps a large fraction of them from getting married at all. Or are you talking about single twenty-year-old women? Their chances of getting married are better than the chances of all single women taken together. And after all, who cares about single women who are older than 35, right?

The legal system doesn’t prevent anyone (of legal age) from getting married. It prevents women from marrying men who are already married with a living spouse. Have you floated the idea of you taking a second wife with your first wife yet?

Can anyone tell me who Shirley Cook is?

Is she sealed to anyone yet?

[Morley]

The same exact legal status they'd have in a monogamous legal system. I really don't see how there'd be any legal problems at all. Clearly both members of a married couple would have to consent before either one of them took a second spouse, but other than that the three-way marriage between Albert, Beth, and Charles could he treated legally as two separate two-way marriages, one between Albert and Beth, and one between Beth and Charles. What problems would arise from such a three-way marriage?

I think that there could be a metric tonne of a legal problems.

For example, Albert owns the Yellowstone Ranch. He courts and marries Beth--but later falls in love with their smoking-hot baby sitter, Charlene--after he sees a bit of her milky breast, as she bends over to adjust her Birkenstock. He knows he wants to marry her. He asks permission of Beth; she remembers her church teachings, and the prophet Joseph; and eventually grants it. Given he has Betty's consent, Albert proposes to Charlene and marries her. Now Albert has two spouses, Beth and Charlene. Because of community property laws, both Beth and Charlene are now part owners of the Yellowstone Ranch. Beth is not quite happy that this has reduced her share of the ranch, but she grumbles and lives with it.

Though her husband is married to two people, Beth only has one spouse, Albert. After a bit of jealousy, she channels her inner Emma and asks Albert if she also gets to marry someone else. Backed into a corner, Albert concedes that that is indeed her right.

In her skin-tight jeans, Beth is walking the ranch one day and sees a sweaty, shirtless Delbert shoving manure out of the barn. She swoons, licks the sweat off Delbert's pectorals, and decides to marry him. Beth is now married to both Albert and Delbert. Community property laws allow Delbert to own a portion of Beth's piece of the Albert-Beth-and-Charlene-owned Yellowstone Ranch.

However, it turns out that Delbert is already married to a simmering and swarthy Native American named Elmer--who was another perspiring, bare-chested cowboy in need of some pectoral sweat-licking. So, after marrying Beth, Delbert now has two spouses.

With his new share of the ranch, the not-quite-white-and-delightsome Elmer is happy to quit playing giddy-up and live off the part of the Yellowstone Ranch that was stolen from his people--but that now rightly belongs to him. One day, while roping calves, trying to learn to walk in pointy-toed cowboy boots, and inexplicably branding his own chest with a Y, Elmer glimpses a bit of side-boob of the previously-mentioned smoking hot baby sitter, Charlene--as she again bends over to adjust her Birkenstock. Having never been with a woman before, Elmer is smitten. He talks Charlene into marrying him. Now, both Elmer and Charlene each have two spouses. And, more--or different--shares of the Yellowstone Ranch.

Years pass. All the couples (or um, triples) on the Yellowstone Ranch have conjugal relations with their lawfully married partners (though, admittedly, they sometimes forget who is paired with whom). All have children, whether biological or adopted. The kids consider themselves to all be siblings, with many and various parents, who are both mean and nice to them. Everyone own parts of everything, but no one can agree on anything. Life is hell for everybody.

Years pass some more. Beth finally decides she's had her fill of sweat-licking and boob-glimpsing and asks for a divorce from Albert. Her attorneys and the courts face a conundrum. How do they divide up the ranch, award custody of the kids, and decide who gets the vinyl recording of Tom Jones singing "Why, Why, Why, Delilah"? In the matter of custody, they determine that biological parentage isn't much of a help because, as is the always the case, the state wants what is best for the child, regardless of whose spermatozoon won which race and which breast soothed the what infant.

[Marcus]

The same exact legal status they'd have in a monogamous legal system. I really don't see how there'd be any legal problems at all. Clearly both members of a married couple would have to consent before either one of them took a second spouse, but other than that the three-way marriage between Albert, Beth, and Charles could he treated legally as two separate two-way marriages, one between Albert and Beth, and one between Beth and Charles. What problems would arise from such a three-way marriage?

I think that there could be a metric tonne of a legal problems.

For example, Albert owns the Yellowstone Ranch. He courts and marries Beth--but later falls in love with their smoking-hot baby sitter, Charlene--after he sees a bit of her milky breast, as she bends over to adjust her Birkenstock. He knows he wants to marry her. He asks permission of Beth; she remembers her church teachings, and the prophet Joseph; and eventually grants it. Given he has Betty's consent, Albert proposes to Charlene and marries her. Now Albert has two spouses, Beth and Charlene. Because of community property laws, both Beth and Charlene are now part owners of the Yellowstone Ranch. Beth is not quite happy that this has reduced her share of the ranch, but she grumbles and lives with it.

Though her husband is married to two people, Beth only has one spouse, Albert. After a bit of jealousy, she channels her inner Emma and asks Albert if she also gets to marry someone else. Backed into a corner, Albert concedes that that is indeed her right.

In her skin-tight jeans, Beth is walking the ranch one day and sees a sweaty, shirtless Delbert shoving manure out of the barn. She swoons, licks the sweat off Delbert's pectorals, and decides to marry him. Beth is now married to both Albert and Delbert. Community property laws allow Delbert to own a portion of Beth's piece of the Albert-Beth-and-Charlene-owned Yellowstone Ranch.

However, it turns out that Delbert is already married to a simmering and swarthy Native American named Elmer--who was another perspiring, bare-chested cowboy in need of some pectoral sweat-licking. So, after marrying Beth, Delbert now has two spouses.

With his new share of the ranch, the not-quite-white-and-delightsome Elmer is happy to quit playing giddy-up and live off the part of the Yellowstone Ranch that was stolen from his people--but that now rightly belongs to him. One day, while roping calves, trying to learn to walk in pointy-toed cowboy boots, and inexplicably branding his own chest with a Y, Elmer glimpses a bit of side-boob of the previously-mentioned smoking hot baby sitter, Charlene, as she again bends over to adjust her Birkenstock. Having never been with a woman before, Elmer is smitten. He talks Charlene into marrying him. Now, both Elmer and Charlene each have two spouses. And, more--or different--shares of the Yellowstone Ranch.

Years pass. All the couples (or um, triples) on the Yellowstone Ranch have conjugal relations with their lawfully married partners (though, admittedly, they sometimes forget who is paired with whom). All have children, whether biological or adopted. The kids consider themselves to all be siblings, with many and various parents, who are both mean and nice to them. Everyone own parts of everything, but no one can agree on anything. Life is hell for everybody.

Years pass some more. Beth finally decides she's had her fill of sweat-licking and boob-glimpsing and asks for a divorce from Albert. Her attorneys and the courts face a conundrum. How do they divide up the ranch, award custody of the kids, and decide who gets the vinyl recording of Tom Jones singing "Why, Why, Why, Delilah"? They determine that biological parentage isn't much of a help because, as is the always the case, the state wants what is best for the child, regardless of whose spermatozoon won which race and which breast soothed the what infant.

That was the best short story I have read in a very long time. Thank you, Morley! What a treat.