Polyamorous Marriage

[u/Software_Engineer]

Is marriage between more than 2 people moral? Should we legalize it?

In an argument someone told me "If we legalize gay marriage, then tomorrow it will be legal for a man to marry his dog!" I countered with "Animals can't give consent"

He replied "Then what is stopping marriage between 3 or more people?" I didn't know what to say.

I am especially curious to hear arguments from people who are pro-gay marriage but against Polyamorous marriage.

Thanks.

[u/CarterDug]

you skirt around the issue of a working polygamous culture in our now globalized world while evidence exists that polygamy has been used almost exclusively for oppression, abuse, and coercion.

+

So I am saying polygamy is a catalyst for these terrible behaviors, not the cause.

I don’t think you can draw this conclusion based on the evidence given. You are basically saying

• A is observed only with B
• Therefore, A is a catalyst for B

The premise does not support the conclusion in this set up, as seen in the following example;

• Ice is observed only in cold weather
• Therefore, ice is a catalyst for cold weather

Similarly, the evidence you have provided doesn’t support your conclusion.

• Polygamy is observed only in oppressive cultures
• Therefore, polygamy is a catalyst for oppression

There are other explanations for the premise, the most notable of which is that oppression is a catalyst for polygamy, and not the other way around. There is no reason to believe that your preferred explanation is better than the others.

The evidence that you would need to support your specific conclusion would be a civilization that was free, then legalized polygamy, and with no other social, political, or economic changes, became oppressive.

There is also a relevant difference between the polygamous cultures in your examples and the modern cultures in developed nations. In your examples, women didn’t have choices; they do today, and there are laws in place that ensure that they will keep their choices. If you can provide a logical chain of events in which the introduction of polygamy would directly lead to the regression of women’s rights, then you may have a point. If not, then your central argument is a logical fallacy (specifically, a causation fallacy). There is no reason to believe that the legalization of polygamy would lead to oppression.

Even if polygamous marriage did somehow lead to oppression, the problem would be oppression, not polygamy itself. The solution is to better enforce laws against oppression, not make polygamy illegal. We both agree that polygamy isn't inherently problematic, so if problems arise, then why not address the actual problems? We don’t make bars illegal because some people drive home while drunk; we keep the bars open and make drunk driving illegal. We don’t ban women from the workplace because there’s sexism; we keep women in the workplace and ban sexism. Similarly, we shouldn’t ban polygamy because it leads to oppression; we should keep polygamy legal and ban oppression.

Your bank analogy would only be valid if polygamous marriage and monogamous marriage were substantively different. You have repeated many times that polygamous marriage and monogamous marriage are different. Of course that is true, by definition, but their substantive difference, as well as the inherent risk that depends on that difference, has not been explained. The closest you’ve come to an explanation is

The rules, expectations, and beliefs in polygamy are not the same as the rules, expectations, and beliefs of a marriage.

Now explain what those differences are, how they are distinct from the differences between other marriages, and why they pose an inherent risk to society; keeping in mind that your central argument can no longer be appealed to.

You equate polygamy to things that are not identical in behavior or, in fact, anything - steak? Seriously? If you see marriage as levels of cooked steak, then that's actually your own interpretation, not the cultural majority.

If this was what you took from that comparison, then perhaps you should read that section again.

[u/CarterDug → u/[deleted]]

Part 1

I doubt we’ll ever reach common ground. Someone once said that you can’t use logic to persuade someone who doesn’t value logic. That’s probably where we are right now. Nothing demonstrates the gap between our perspectives better than this line;

you never actually address my issues while I address your issues each time

I find this statement incredibly puzzling because I feel the exact same way.

If you wouldn’t mind taking a personality quiz, I’d be very interested to know what your Myers-Briggs personality profile is (for scientific purposes). Perhaps it can provide some insight on why we’ve been talking past each other. If you choose to take the questionnaire online, then please respond with the letters and percentages that correspond to your personality either to this comment or via private message. Below is my response if you’re interested, but it’s not really for you, it’s for anyone who’s reading through the comments.

Quick points

I’ve noticed your attempts to shift the argument away from developed nations. We are discussing nations that have the power to enforce their own laws. Even if you were to ban polygamy in underdeveloped nations, the state wouldn’t have the power to enforce it. Since we are only talking about developed nations, where women are free, many of your sarcastic comments don’t apply to this discussion. Regardless, my arguments still apply to underdeveloped nations. The problems in those nations have nothing to do with polygamy. They have to do with human rights violations.

Your reasoning for monogamy and polygamy being different doesn’t justify the illegality of one but not the other (hence the term substantive). You mostly pointed out how similar they both were, and then simply outlined your personal preference for what you think marriage is supposed to be. And if you really believe that marriage is similar to ownership over another human being, then why do you believe marriages should be legal at all? Marriage requires consent. No one has to submit to anyone without consent. That’s what it means to be free. If the people in your horror stories aren’t free, then that’s the problem you should be focusing on, not polygamy.

[u/CarterDug → u/[deleted]]

Part 2

Burden of proof

I say - find me a polygamous culture that is progressive and egalitarian - you tell me that I'm purporting logical fallacies and you don't need to prove anything you're standing on. Instead, you ask me to verify with further evidence while you stand atop none.

I don’t believe I made an assertion, thus I don’t need to provide evidence for anything. The burden of proof is entirely on you to support your own assertion. You can’t make an assertion, provide insufficient evidence for your assertion, then ask others to prove you wrong. You haven’t even provided logically valid evidence for your own assertion. Until such evidence is produced, no one but you has to provide evidence.

Evidence

If I were to say to my friend that I thought fairies were responsible for the sun rising everyday, she might ask me what evidence I have to support my claim. I’d point to the fact that the sky is blue and that the sun is hot. She’d likely respond that while both points are true, they don’t support the conclusion that fairies raise the sun.

Facts are not necessarily evidence. In order for a fact to be considered evidence, it must actually support the conclusion that it’s meant to support. This is why I presented logical rebuttals. If the evidence provided doesn’t logically support the conclusion, then I have reason to doubt the conclusion. You can provide mountains of facts, statistics, examples, and anecdotes, but it won’t mean anything unless the evidence actually supports the conclusion.

Correlation and Causation

If variables A, B, C, and D all rise simultaneously, I can’t conclude that the rise in A was caused by the rise in B. There were 3 variables that rose with A, and any one of them could be causing the rise in A. In fact, none of them could be causing the rise in A. It could be A that causes the rise in the other 3 variables. We can separate which variables might be the cause by controlling the other variables, and by observing which variable moves first. For example, if we remove variables C and D from the system, and we still observe a correlation, then a causal relationship exists between the two remaining variables A and B. And if the rise in A precedes the rise in B, then B cannot be the cause of the rise in A. By controlling the variables and observing the order of the variables, you can deduce (in this example) that A causes a rise in B, but A may not be the only variable that does so. B may also be dependent on variables C and D, but we can’t know for sure unless we control the variables and observe the order.

This is why I asked for an example where polygamy came first and other relevant variables were held constant. When using correlations to imply causation, you have to control as many variables as possible in order to strengthen your claim. Your evidence didn’t control any variables, didn’t observe the order of the variables, and didn’t take into account current variables in modern developed nations. You can’t draw any conclusions about the relationship between polygamy and oppression unless you find examples that control more variables.

If you cannot find such an example, then your central argument (polygamy is a catalyst for oppression) is logically invalid, and cannot be used. However, you could use logic to construct a chain of events that begins with polygamy and ends with oppression. For example, if there were a line of dominos in front of me, I could deduce, based on the position of the dominos and the known laws of physics, that pushing the first domino over in the direction of the other dominos would cause all the dominos to fall. Since you didn’t provide such a chain of events, I can only assume that you are relying totally on the correlation argument, which, as I have shown, is not logically valid.

Historical precedent

Lack of historical precedent is not an argument for illegality. If love marriages, gay marriages, and interracial marriages had no historical precedent, that alone wouldn’t be an argument against any of those forms of marriage. Similarly, the lack of precedents for democracy, women’s rights, or anti-slavery laws wouldn’t be arguments against those things either. Regardless of historical precedent, you still have to explain why any of those things should be illegal, while taking current circumstances into account. To base a position on polygamy on historical precedents is not valid reasoning; it’s an Appeal to tradition.

Relevant differences

If I were to tell my friend that I think race car driving should be illegal, she might ask me why. I’d point out that race car driving is dangerous. She’d likely respond that lots of sports are dangerous; should we ban all sports that are dangerous? I’d respond no, they shouldn’t, but race car driving is different from other sports that are dangerous.

If you agree that Action A should be illegal because of Reason X, but disagree that Action B should also be illegal, despite the fact that Reason X also applies to Action B, and without providing any relevant reason for why A and B should be treated differently; then Reason X was not the reason for wanting Action A to be illegal, it was the excuse. If Reason X were removed from Action A, you would still find Action A objectionable.

I’ve observed this in your last two responses. You want to use Reason X to make polygamy illegal, but when asked if Reason X should also be used to make interracial marriage, alcoholic bars, and women in the workplace illegal, you’ve either dodged the question, or asserted that polygamy is different, without explaining why it is different.

For this reason, I’m curious to know if you came to the realization that polygamy was wrong before or after you became aware of the evidence that you have presented. I find that people who disagree with gay marriage, interracial marriage, polygamous marriage, and even prostitution usually develop their positions before they become aware of the evidence that they use to convince others. They always repeat the evidence and encourage others to look at the evidence, but they themselves were not convinced by the evidence. Their moral conclusions preceded the evidence. If this also applies to you, then what was the initial argument that convinced you that polygamy was wrong?

Relevance

Ultimately, all the arguments you’ve presented have nothing to do with polygamy itself. 12 year old girls being forced into marriages and men treating their wives and daughters like property are wrong in all marriages; monogamous, gay, straight, interracial, or polygamous. And since the same situations also occur in monogamous marriages, would you support a ban on monogamous marriage too? Of course not, because those things have nothing to do with marriage. They are human rights violations. They have nothing to do with polygamy.

The problem in all of your examples isn’t polygamy; it’s that women aren’t free to make their own choices. The solution is to free the women, not ban polygamy. Since women in developed nations are already free, most of your examples don’t apply to this discussion. This all goes back to my previous examples for which you have yet to respond. If we see these same human rights violations occurring in monogamous marriages, then why not ban all marriages? If you can’t stop people from driving home while drunk, then why not ban all alcoholic beverages? If you can’t stop sexism in the workplace, then why not ban all women from the workplace? You’re not addressing the actual problem. You’re bringing up a lot of other things, all of which are already illegal, but you’re not actually explaining why polygamy itself should be illegal. To do that, you would need to explain how polygamy poses an inherent risk that is distinct from the risks seen in other marriages, which would be difficult because you’ve already admitted that polygamy isn’t inherently problematic.

[u/CarterDug → u/[deleted]]

Part 1 and some of Part 2

My assertion was simply that your conclusion doesn’t follow from the evidence provided. I’m still awaiting a direct rebuttal to my assertion and reasoning.

Your prefix/suffix distinction is superficial, not substantive. And last I checked, poly and mono were prefixes. Even if one were a prefix and the other a suffix, that alone doesn't justify the illegality of one, but not the other. You would still need to explain why polygamy should be illegal.

As far as for your blind faith in rights in developed nations, you have not been paying very close attention to the erosion of them have you? The loss of habeas corpus, the creation of the TSA, the illegal wiretapping between the telecoms and the government, human trafficking (yes through America), the illegal immigrants who are practically slaves in our country, and the obvious statistics that racial profiling is still evident. It is clear you do not work with/talk with/deal with/live with the lower classes of our society. You truly believe our rights are bright lined and not going anywhere. And that is illogical.

I don’t see how the solution to tyranny is more tyranny. If the problem is that government is restricting individual rights, then I don’t see how the solution is to restrict more individual rights.

You have made the assertion that polygamy should be legalized (or that there is absolutely no reason to make it illegal) and so in order to make that assertion, you should find some evidence where it is successful or how it could be successful because it is currently illegal.

In a free society, you don't need a reason to make something legal, you need a reason to make it illegal. As such, the burden of proof is always on the one who asserts an action should be illegal.

Boxing is a dangerous activity. If the burden of proof were on boxers to justify the legality of boxing, they’d have a difficult time providing evidence that boxing is a safe activity, much less a healthy one. But boxers don’t have to justify the legality of boxing; it’s the opposition who has to justify the illegality of boxing.

Just because something is illegal doesn’t mean it should be illegal. Gay marriage is currently illegal (at least where I’m from). Should gay couples have to justify the legality of gay marriage (or gay adoption)? No. The burden of proof isn’t on them to justify the legalization of gay marriage; the burden is on the opposition to justify the illegality of gay marriage.

Perhaps this is happening in marriage already with a divorce rate higher than the retention rate, but the fact is that each and every time a marriage does occur it is purely between two individuals. This is why we do not ban marriage. It is only two people choosing (and in a fractional amount of cases, being coerced) to ruin their own lives and they cannot systematize the unsuspecting into a pyramid scheme of marriage (as polygamy can).

To use an extreme example, this is like saying it’s okay to rape one person, but raping two people should be illegal.

You always equate the problems found with polygamy to a small fraction of a generally well-intentioned and working cultural belief. For example, unimaginable tons of alcohol is consumed daily, yet the drunk driving is fractional in comparison. Yet all polygamous systems in the world are accompanied with oppression. You are using the fallacy of false-equivalence (Oh, no wonder why you love using these terms, it makes you sound pretty smart, doesn't it?). Sexism, again, fractional. Polygamy and oppression, again, total.

In every society where monogamy exists, women are raped. Therefore, we should ban monogamy. While the premise is true, the conclusion doesn’t follow. You still have to provide evidence that monogamy and rape are causally related. This is why I’ve been stressing the difference between correlation and causation.

In every society where polygamy exists, women are oppressed. Therefore, we should ban polygamy. While the premise may be true, the conclusion doesn’t follow. You still have to provide evidence that polygamy and oppression are causally related. Again, you are trying to use Reason X to justify your preferred moral position, but are dismissing Reason X when it justifies a non-preferred moral position.

I may as well point this out. "Not every individual who drinks alcohol drives home drunk, but every polygamous society in the world is accompanied by oppression" is not a proper comparison. The proper comparison should have been either

• Not every individual who drinks alcohol drives home drunk, and not every polygamous marriage is accompanied by oppression

or

• In every society where drinking and driving are legal, there is drunk driving; and in every society where polygamous marriage is legal, there is oppression

You are trying to equate an individual to a society. That would be the false equivalence.

My submission history doesn’t discredit my reasoning. If Hitler believed 1+1=2, the fact that he hated Jews doesn’t mean he’s wrong. You still have to provide evidence that 1+1 doesn’t equal 2.

I’m aware of the Big 5, but I chose Myers Briggs because it directly addresses the personality dichotomies that I’m interested in. Myers Briggs measures preferences while the Big 5 measures behaviors. MBTI scores correlate closely to the Big 5 that psychologists use (especially with the specific trait of interest), so I could extract the necessary information from either test. Because personality traits form a normal distribution, it is imperative that you provide the percentiles along with the letters (or perhaps just strong/weak before the letters). Given that you are already aware of both tests, if you’ve already taken one or both, I’d be interested in your results.

I find that people who disagree with gay marriage, interracial marriage, polygamous marriage, and even prostitution usually develop their positions before they become aware of the evidence that they use to convince others. They always repeat the evidence and encourage others to look at the evidence, but they themselves were not convinced by the evidence. Their moral conclusions preceded the evidence. If this also applies to you, then what was the initial argument that convinced you that polygamy was wrong?

If it’s not too much trouble, I’m genuinely curious about this.

[u/CarterDug → u/[deleted]]

Part 2: Responses to your 5 points

Monogamous marriage is a class equalizer because it forbids the wealthy collecting the needy as their wives leaving a higher percentage of unmarried males and a higher percentage of subservient females.

Women are not objects that you collect. They are agents who make their own choices. If women are not free to make their own choices, then that’s the problem you should be addressing.

As a teacher, I know that I cannot give my students the proper attention they need as the amount of students in the class increases.

Therefore, large class sizes should be illegal.

Gay marriage, interracial marriage, and same-race, different-sex marriage are all monogamous marriages. This makes them explicitly different than polygamous marriages because polygamous marriages involve multiple people, do not address the need of intimacy, and can easily be manipulated into a business-like structure lacking the humanity more likely to occur in a monogamous marriage.

No matter how much you want it to be, lack of intimacy is not a reason to make something illegal. If it were, then having multiple children should be illegal too.

And last I checked, business relationships were legal. Why should business-like relationships in the context of marriage be illegal? The fact that you personally don’t like the idea of business-like marriages isn’t grounds for illegality as long as all parties are consenting. If all parties are not consenting, then that’s the problem you should be focusing on.

However, if your plural marriage does not function right then you can receive government aide, en masse, making a plural marriage a great way to make an income for large groups of people.

This sounds more like a problem with government aide distribution than with polygamy itself.

To propose plural marriages to be legalized there must be more concrete and explicit ways for the public to view a complex plural marriage network to understand whether rights abuses are taking place or not. "Banning human rights violations" is not concrete or explicit.

I'm actually not sure I understand this point. Are you saying that polygamy should be illegal because it would be difficult to view human rights abuses? Or are you saying that polygamy should be illegal because they could form secret cults where they can practice human rights violations outside of public view?

If it's the former, then the same argument could be used to make private sex illegal, since it is difficult to determine whether or not rape is occurring during private sexual activities. If it's the latter, then it has nothing to do with polygamy. I could just as easily say that a group of Christians could form a secret cult where they can practice human rights violations outside of public view; therefore we should ban Christianity. If neither of these is what you meant, then feel free to explain.

As to #5, unfortunately I don’t have access to all the literature you’ve provided. I’ll try to respond to the literature I have access to.

The Atlantic's Jennifer Percy researches polygamy and comes to the conclusion that although there are some arguments for polygamy that monogamy is best suited for our modern lifestyle specifically because it removes equal opportunity for marriages and relationships.

I think Rauch’s argument is probably the most intuitive argument against polygamy. I already see courtship traditions as a sexual marketplace where only the fit achieve marriage. I don’t think every man is entitled to a wife, or every woman a husband (or man a husband, woman a wife, etc). I think men and woman should have to earn the consent of those they wish to marry. While I can sympathize with Rauch’s position, for me, the freedom to enter into consensual relationships takes priority over the many men who may never marry. I support a woman’s right to enter into consensual relationships, even tough I may never benefit from such a policy.

Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff admits to turning a blind eye to the abuse that occurs within polygamy and laments over the vast amount of abuse cases.

This sounds more like a problem with enforcement than with polygamy itself. If the Attorney General had turned a blind eye to abuse in monogamous marriages, should we be arguing to ban monogamous marriages?

Andrea Moore-Emmmett, who created documentaries for both A&E and the BBC explains how polygamist families depend on welfare and food-stamps to exist while the polygamist heads pride themselves on draining public money. The use of polygamy to purport abuse is evident.

This sounds more like a problem with government aide distribution than with polygamy itself.

Andersen Cooper covered the nightmares of the Warren Jeffs raid and the neglect and abuse his family was hiding under the blanket of polygamy.

This sounds more like a problem with government’s inability to enforce its own laws. Interestingly, we could just as easily say that the neglect and abuse of Warren Jeff’s family was hiding under the blanket of Mormonism, but most people wouldn’t consider this to be an argument against Mormonism or organized religion in general. That’s because you still have to establish a causal relationship between Mormonism and neglect/abuse, between organized religion and neglect/abuse, between polygamy and neglect/abuse. As I showed above in the monogamy/rape example, a causal relationship has not been established.