I tend to lean libertarian on these kinds of issues. The key here would be that ALL parties must enter into agreement when a new partner is brought in. In the Mormon marriages covered in the articles, at least for the second family, it seemed to be up to just one partner whether he wanted to bring in a new person. That may be where some of the power imbalance comes in.
Also, without the commitment and social pressure factors which comes from within the Mormon faith, polygamy might result in more divorce rather than in more stability in marriages. I remember watching a documentary about a commune from the 60’s or 70’s. “Free love” abounded, but there was quite a lot of negative fall out for the children of that experiment in living.
It will be interesting to see if polygamy does surge in popularity among secular communities.
Some great points. Concerning the whole issue of marriage, I just wish the government would walk away. In Canada the traditional definition of marriage has been thrown away. I don’t care how individuals want to define it, but the problem is the government and courts have forced a new definition upon society.
Some gay people in fact are also against gay marriage. Something about it changing their unique perspective and lifestyle, and forcing the traditional, conservative idea of marriage onto their community.
I feel on the marriage issue, Ron Paul has it nailed correctly.
i quite like Ed’s post towards the start. it’s generally not something that works, but it seems to work for some. the ones i’m thinking of however are not restricted by gender…so it isn’t one man->multiple wives. it is more interconnected than that, with partners sharing partners, so there isn’t a simple mathematical issue here of one guy gets all the women, and a few other guys don’t. actually, a few guys could be with the same women. it’s not about ownership, or proprietary rights, but about love and honesty and commitment as infinite resources…something i kind of agree with, in principle.
now for me, i’d not have the time or energy for more than one woman the way my life has shaped up, but i applaud people that can make it work…at the very least it is a miracle of scheduling ability! 
what i like from it is the idea that a guy doesn’t have any rights to another person…it can’t be taken for granted. so it all has to be worked at. very very different from the idea of swinging or casual sex (though again i am not as against those in principle as some are, provided everything is done responsibly and nobody is treated as merely a thing, though those are absolute minefields and the Bible is wise to warn us about that!).
so yeah…i find in the Bible no single definition of a “nuclear family” that God expects out of everyone. instead i see God saying that sex is beautiful, sex is important as a part of Love, and that Love is the most important thing of all. i see Him saying the various ways that we ought to treat each other as co-creations of God, and fellow royalty. if someone can do all that in an open/polyamourous/polygamous/polyandrous, pansexual and/or casual sort of environment…well who am i to judge. it doesn’t all come down to simple mathematics in the end: love is infinite.
but likewise, not all of us can do this responsibly, should know and respect our (and our partners’) limitations and act and commit and trust in love.
really though, we ought to be less concerned about who’s sleeping with or married to who, and more about social justice and ending war.
Hi Puddy
Just to clarify, what I said was that there is no justification for polygamy (or polygyny) in the modern west, hence my comments don’t apply to Abraham and other OT figures. I do think there was probably reasonable justification for polygyny in a patriarchal society such as that of the ancient Israelites – the protection and care of widows etc.
Regarding your point about the labelling of malefactors as “the polygamist …”, the issue here is that polygamists are in a tiny minority among the general population, but punch well above their weight, as it were, when it comes to things like leading cults (the diabolical trio of Warren Jeffs, Jim Jones and David Koresh spring readily to mind). Also, polygamy is illegal in most western countries, and considered distasteful, if not downright immoral, by the vast majority of people in the west, whereas monogamy is the cultural (and religious) norm.
There are lots of things that the Bible doesn’t explicitly condemn, but which most decent people would nevertheless consider sinful, immoral or whatever. Whenever the Bible is silent on an issue we need to apply the guiding principles as taught by Jesus – selflessness, kindness, forgiveness, neighbour love etc – to arbitrate on it. And by that measure, in today’s western society, I would say that polyagmy fails miserably. Indeed, *contra *Matt’s opinion (sorry Matt ) I would go so far as to say that far from adopting a laissez faire, ‘live and let live’ attitude to it, we should actively oppose polygamy - polygyny in particular; it both subjugates and demeans women, promotes inequality between the sexes, and is all too often the doorway to both psychological and sexual abuse, including of children. In short, it stinketh.
I concede that there is a miniscule minority of people for whom polygyny, or indeed polyandry, really does work. But then there is a minuscule minority of people who practise every manner of sexual behaviour or fetish that the mind of man can dream up, legal or no. Experience shows quite unequivocally that human beans just aren’t made to ‘share’ their beloved with another man or woman, and the consequences of attempting to do so are almost invariably destructive. I have seen the fruit of unfaithfulness and adultery, and it is rotten to the core.
All the best
Johnny
sorry to pick you up on this mate, but what would legally be called polygamy (and certainly what is called polyamoury) doesn’t count as adultery as there is accountability, honesty and responsibility to each partner, so the word adultery wouldn’t apply (unless someone for some reason was keeping someone else on the side, or was breaching a rule of trust initially agreed on, and that would be almost totally pointless). adultery implies a promise has been breached dishonestly, and without consideration of anyone else in the situation, the exact opposite of what i was talking about.
these same people would agree that such a breach of trust is hurtful and evil.
Hi James
No, you’re quite right to pick me up. I unfairly conflated polygamous, polyamourous, polygynous, polyandrous, *whatever * behaviour with adultery, when of course you are right to point out that some practitioners of those particular sexual mores may very well be entirely loving and faithful within the parameters of their chosen relationships.
No, what I was attacking, and rather overegging the pudding in the process, was polygamy as practised in a cultic environment, eg the FLDS (Warren Jeffs’ mormon offshoot), where women are born, brought up or brainwashed (often all three) to believe that polygamy is a good thing.
I guess – somewhat reluctantly, I confess – that if ‘normal’, well adjusted consenting adults choose, entirely of their own free will, to enter a polygamous or polyamorous relationship, then who am I to gainsay that? Personally I would say more fool them, but what do I know ? Chacun a son gout, as they say in Paris.
But marrying a twelve-year-old girl off to some 60 year-old lech, as per the odious Jeffs? Nay nay and thrice nay. 
Cheers
Johnny
I 100% agree with all of that, Johnny (and i am being accurate with that percentange )
I do think you have some valid points Johnny. Thanks for not taking some of what I said personally.
I think among believers polygamy will remain rare in the west. Yet (if it becomes legal) and there are a few believers that are in a plural marriage, I would consider this to be before the Lord. The dais can sort this out.
Let’s say a man grows up being friends with two sisters. They are always spending time together. Their bond increases. The sisters themselves are inseparable. Soon it becomes apparent that they both deeply love their childhood friend, and shortly thereafter it becomes evident that the man loves both of them dearly. What should be done? Should the man flip a coin?
Puddy
Hi All -
This is beginning to remind me of that song about –
‘Pretty little Polly Perkins of Paddington Green’ –
With all these ‘polys-’ cropping up all over the place!
I hadn’t realised that polygamy has become a second amendment issue in the US (little Englander that I am); and that this, as much as the high profile shock horror stories have facilitated the frenzied debate on the internet.
So I’ve had a rethink. I’m a liberal – a politics of human frailty liberal rather than a L’Oreal ‘because I’m worth it’ liberal – as such I’m still a firm believer in a non-coercive state, especially in matters of religion. So if people – consenting adults – want to enter into a polygamous arrangement – especially from matters of religious conscience – I don’t think this should be a criminal offence. I don’t in general approve of polygamous relationships for reasons I’ve given above (there might well be exceptions – and will cross that bridge if ever I come to it). However it’s not for me or the state to interfere.
In the context of a Western liberal democratic state polygamy is something of a life style choice – I’m sure that even for some women it can entail all of the excitement of begin different, being special, standing out from the crowd. Likewise some educated well educated and sassy Muslim girls in the UK adopt working the veil as an act of exciting defiance – particularly of their parents. Fundamentalism is the new punk rock! However, in societies where polygamy is the norm and societies where veiling is the norm women with an ounce of education and independent mindedness experience both as oppression.
Societies in which polygamy is practised as the norm invariably, as part of polygamy, adopt the insitution of child brides. I guess this is part of a view of women as primarily breeders – when a girl has had her first period she is ready to breed. It’s not for me to criticise this view in terms of tribal society where resources are scarce, and infant mortality is high. I note that until the nineteenth century in some states of the USA a girl could be married as early seven years of age, while in the UK the age limit was twelve years of age.
Put it this way – although i think a liberal state can accommodate polygamy – which i think will always appeal only to a minority – there is no way that it can allow or promote the institution of child brides.
Blessings
Dick
Johnny, old boy, no worries 
And we’re totally in agreement on the whole cult leader thing… I even said that children being pushed into polygamous marriages is one exception to all of this, and is not acceptable, so we’re in agreement there.
I’m on the same page with James and the ol’ Prof on all of this, just so you know 
Blessings to you my friend
Matt
Hi Puddy -
I was htinking about a very strained CHristmas party I attended four years ago. It was the English faculty party at the College where I used to work. Everyone was so terribly polite - ni a very middle class English way - but the conversation was really quite competitive; ‘Tabitha Penfold, my former A star student has just got a First at Cambridge’ said one, another held forth about Schubert’s lieder dropping the opus numbers into his conversation as he bubbled along like ‘The Trout’ 
. Not really my scene - too refined for the old ruffian
Just imagine if I’d turned up there with my host of plural wives - now that would have given them something to talk about back at the office!!! Unfortunately I think I would have had dfficulty mustering the girls - most of my women firends wodl reply ‘in your dreams mate’ to such a suggestion 
- even if only for a prank 
. So I would have to have paid Corpselight and Johnny Parker to do a female impersonation turn for me - and I’m sure I would have to have paid through the teeth for that.
On a related topic, if I could make a wish for you that would come true, I’d wish you lots of relaxed, companiable and affectionate friendships with women in the life that stretches before you -
love and blessings
Dick
Coreection - I’d pay through the nose - not through the teeth
Great to hear from you! I needed some kind words today. Yes, that would be a funny prank. I admit I do love Shubert’s lieder. I was just talking on the phone with my Dad about polygamy, but he can’t see it.
Concerning women, I have had opportunities. I really liked a German lady I met in the Yukon. (It always seems to be a German gal) and we conversed for awhile, (Even with hand written letters) however, I said a few things to her, and that was the end of our friendship. (My comments may have been too blunt, and unpolished) I will always care for her. If only she knew my heart. (However, she is back in Germany)
One thing I told her, is that I didn’t think we would ever see each other again, but we can have a deep friendship. I guess I was feeling down and discouraged. Maybe Women take words too seriously?
So you see my friend, I am a failure. (Now I am rambling)
My luck, I will suddenly find 3 soul mates, and have to Marry all of them!
Blessings
Puddy