I don’t know the example, but I do know that polygamy does not inherently lead to intermarriage. Why are you saying this would *necessarily *result, or that it would *tend *to happen? In a tiny, isolated, socially self-contained social group, sure, it’s going to happen. But, in a broader society that prefers monogamy as the norm, legalizing polygamy alone will not lead to these problems.
I would argue that polygamous communities restrict the number of births to a smaller group of men, which results in lessened genetic diversity. (De Facto polygamy is even more dangerous, as one could have sex with a sibling or first cousin in a neighborhood or town because you don’t know for sure who each other’s father really was.)
Here’s an article on the genetic birth defects that result from an Arizona polygamous community:
phoenixnewtimes.com/2005-12-29/news/forbidden-fruit/
If you mean it would result in family ties being more important to local politics, I think you’re right. But, then again, part of the problem with modern society (perhaps *the *problem) is the separation of economics and politics from local communal social bonds, so this is the kind of “corruption” we could use more of! That it wouldn’t mesh well with our society currently is a better critique of the modern nation-state and global economics than of polygamy.
Well, actually I meant that the greater concentration of power, wealth, and political and religious influence in the men who run harems means they are able to suborn families in providing them with younger daughters for marriage, often against the girls’ wills.
Not all polygamists are wealthy, of course, which leads to another problem of corruption in a social welfare society. Many polygamists in North America are unable to support all the children they produce, so they illegally put their children on the public dole by claiming the women in their harem are single mothers. Now you and I must pay to support the polygamist’s desire for a harem of wives through our tax dollars. (This is also a problem with de facto polygamy).
Again, you’re suggesting that sexual assault is the consequence of polygamy. It’s really the consequence of the general socio-cultural system you’re referring to (which is a fringe, socially outcast group).
Sexual contact with a minor by an adult is sexual assault, period. The men who seek polygamy are driven by a desire for sexual novelty and in practice, seek newer and younger women. As a result, they seek to marry very young girls. That’s sexual assault, as a child cannot legally consent to a sexual relationship. Plural marriage of children is common in Muslim countries as well, so this argument cannot be confined to a fringe, socially outcast group.
Yeah, polygamy is a social evil in today’s society, but there is no way to really determine whether that’s a consequence of polygamy or a consequence of the practice being maligned and pressed back to the margins of society. As an analogy, drugs are an enormous social evil. That social evil is largely created, ironically, by the war on drugs, which makes the entire market for those drugs illegal and beyond regulation and normal social influence.
I have already considered and discarded your argument.
(J/K. I had a really obnoxious boss who used to say that to me.)
The libertarian argument for polygamy argues that the social pressures of being outlawed actually create the undesireable social conditions associated with the outlawed activity. The problem arises from the fact that we don’t live in a strictly laissez-faire society, one in which we would not be held to society’s standards, but also one in which society would not financially support our ill-considered choices. Rather, we live in a society where the givernment, through it’s ability to collect taxes, supports those who make screwed-up choices. Thus, libertarian solutions to issues such as drug use - and polygamy - can only be half-measures that require the active financial support of those who don’t profit from the proscribed practice. Thus, I don’t use illegal drugs, but I must still support the social welfare system that allows drugs users who are unable to hold a steady job (because their drug use makes them late for work, unable to keep appointments, and unable to keep from sassing their boss) and need community health care because of the health risks associated with marijuana, crack, heroin, steroid, and meth abuse. As the users of those drugs also make moral choices that result in fractured families and ignored, handicapped, and abused children (as most drug users ultimately love their drug of choice more than their children), I must pay for the cost of the community programs that care for such kids, deal with their learning disabilities, and ultimately pay for their incarceration when they grow up.
Our society
could free me from having to pay for the enormous societal costs of giving those drug-users a financial free-ride to support their lifestyle choices, by refusing to shelter drug users and their children from the results of their choices - most of which, as I described, have little to do with the “war on drugs” and which would result even if drugs were completely legal - but I would prefer not to live in such a society. Thus, I prefer to keep most drugs illegal, or at least tightly controlled, as long as we live in a society where the law, political sentiment, and our moral duties require us to look out for one another.
Are there 21st Century examples where polygamy is a legal option but not normative? That would be the example to look at to consider what it would be like in the US were it legalized.
Saudi Arabia comes to mind. Again, you probably wouldn’t want to live there.
