THIS HOUSE WOULD LEGALIZE POLYGAMY

MOTION #79: THIS HOUSE WOULD LEGALIZE POLYGAMY               

Polygamy is the practice of having two or more spouses at the same time; this includes both polygyny (the union of one man with more than one woman) and polyandry (the union of one women with more than one man).

Polygamy is condoned in the original texts of many faiths; in the Bible, there is Lamech’s marriage to Adah and Zillah in Genesis (4:23), and Joseph’s four wives (Gen 29-30), amongst others. In Judaism, most of the prophets are polygamous and Solomon is said to have had 700 wives. In Islam, the Koran tells us that after the battle of Uhud many widows were left, who were married to already married men (4:3). However, most religions now ban the practice and it is rare in Islam. In most countries, including all western ones and some Islamic ones, polygamy is illegal, although some Muslim states (such as Saudi Arabia) do allow it. Apart from these Islamic examples, polygamy does continue in some African societies but is more generally – although incorrectly – seen as a practice of Mormons.In the 1840s, Joseph Smith, the founder of the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints (the proper name for the Mormon church), approved the practice of polygamy. However, statehood for Utah only came in 1896 when its leaders finally agreed to abolish polygamy in return for it and for more than a century the Mormon church has expelled those practising polygamy. It is undoubtedly true that a blind-eye policy is practiced in some remote places, but the widespread idea that polygamy is legal in Utah is entirely wrong. Whilst examples are certainly relevant, this debate should revolve around the principles concerned: it should not be a debate solely about Mormons.

It should be noted that many of the organisations in favour of polygyny – particularly, faith-based groups – are explicitly against polyandry. This topic will present the merits of both, but will consider the roots of that division.

Pros	Cons
Marrying the right person. The ability to marry people who are already married presents us with the chance to take partners that have already proven themselves in society as responsible parents and providers - that is, to reduce the risk in marriage. It also means that one doesn't have to settle for those "left over"; you can marry the person you want, not just the person that's left. Very few countries have exactly the same number of males and females; in the UAE, there are 2.2 males per female, but in Estonia, there are only 0.84 males per female. This means that monogamy restricts options significantly.	The idea of taking an ‘established’ partner simply because of their status is anathema in the modern age – it implies that income determines suitability as partner, and suggests that the partner concerned will forever be dominant in the relationship. That logic would see CEOs with 10 wives and unemployed people with none - hardly supportive of the ‘everyone should be able to marry’ model this proposition argument supports. Furthermore, it is difficult to decipher statistics like these. Many people don’t want to marry. Certainly, not everyone wants to marry at once, which would be needed for statistics on total population to be of any use.
Polygamy makes having a family easier. More providers can make great contributions to the home. It makes the family unit more efficient, as more people can pursue careers and bring in money, but due to economies of scale, less additional money will be needed for each additional partner. For example, it is cheaper to cook in large quantities than if each person were cooking individually. Similarly, additional people in the house won’t need another kitchen or necessarily another bathroom, so therefore it’s cheaper to live in groups – particularly groups with multiple incomes. In addition, there is more likely to be a person staying at home, which saves on childcare. While it will not always be the case there are many ways in which living in groups can be more economical.	Just because something is economically efficient, it isn't necessarily better. The idea that one of the best reasons for marrying an additional person is because it will cost less in the long run completely undermines the ideals of love that marriages are based on. Furthermore, in many societies where men can have multiple wives, it is actually expensive, as the man is expected to provide for everybody as well as pay dowries, so it is economically unsound. If there are extra adult incomes, they must be shared amongst the extra adults, and often get soaked up in the high number of children polygamous relationships tend to produce.
Creating stable, long-lasting relationships. Polygamy reduces the strains on family life and minimises the likelihood of breakdown and divorce. Polygamy reduces the desire for adultery by providing alternatives for sexual exploration within the family unit. Sibel Üresin suggests that people look for a lot of qualities in a spouse, and that it is unlikely that any one person can possess them all, which is why there is so much adultery in monogamous relationships.	Even if the marriages last longer this is likely to be based upon feeling subservient to their spouse (nearly always husband) and so feeling powerless and unable to get a divorce. Adultery is based on a desire for the 'other', for something outside the known, outside the home. Polygamy does nothing to combat this; adultery still occurs in polygamous societies. Indeed, polygamy encourages adultery as it dilutes the idea of fidelity from being loyalty to one person, substituting the legitimacy of intercourse with many. In a study in Nigeria it was found that men with three or more wives were more likely to engage in extramarital sex.
People can love more than one other person. The idea that the individual can only truly love one person is artificial and false, a product of a particular time, place and culture. In fact, in a study on human societies worldwide, of 1231 societies noted, only 186 were entirely monogamous. Polygamy is not about freedom to fornicate with anyone; it's about cementing relationships with individuals one wants to spend the rest of one's life with, just as in monogamous marriages.	Marriage is about devotion to another, the giving of oneself wholly to that person, granting love to them to the exclusion of all others. How could one have such a relationship with more than one person? It's not possible to devote yourself entirely to more than one person. Polygamy therefore necessarily involves the exploitation of at least one party - and the denigration of the relationship that exists between the others.
People should have freedom of choice. The law should recognise freedom of choice. If somebody wants to marry more than one person, and all parties involved agree, then the state should not get involved. We have a right to privacy, and a right to non-interference in our family life. These are not absolute rights, but they are important: breach of them needs to be contemplated with extreme care and is not merited here. This is particularly important because some religious sects promote polygamy, so banning it also impinges on freedom of religion.	In most cases, some of the partners involved in polygamy will not have true freedom of choice. Presumably, one of the partners will be proposing the addition of another person to the marriage; the first partner may well not truly desire this, but feel unable to refuse. This could particularly be a problem in religious groups that are happy for men to marry many women, but deny women the same freedom. Daphne Bramham studied a polygamous community in Canada and concluded: "Within that particular group, those women have absolutely no choice. They are separated from the mainstream community." Whilst a law that allowed polygamy might give a handful of people more freedom, it would actually deny it to many others.
The whole point of this debate is that marriage does not have to just be between two individuals. This simply redefines marriage rather than trivialising it. There is not currently competition to have most children so why should there be competition to have most wives? Furthermore, this opposition point comes from a very limited perspective; if polygamy is seen as acceptable, there is no reason why children should be confused, and they may well have a better family life as it is more likely that there will be a parent around for them.	Monogamy preserves the meaning of marriage. Polygamy undermines the institution of marriage, trivialising the union of two people: imagine the competition to be married to the most partners, or to live in the largest family. This sends all the wrong messages to society as we attempt reinstitute the stable family as the ideal place to live and bring up our young. It inflicts harm to children, who - even if they know their parentage - are presented with confusing signals about role models and family life.
Hierarchies also exist in monogamous families - between husband and wife, between siblings. That they similarly have the capacity to exist in polygamous marriages isn't a true argument against such unions, capable as they are of producing stable homes, just as monogamous marriages do. Some marriages are good, some bad - that's true of both monogamy and polygamy. For those involved, a good polygamous marriage is better than a bad monogamous one.	Polygamy creates hierarchy. Hierarchy within a family structure will emerge, with a 'head wife' dominating over her rivals: this is at the root of religious polygamy, being seen in Sarah's domination over Abraham's other wives in the Bible. The attempts by the man in polygamous marriages to dominate and control the wives encourages and institutionalises the very thing that leads to the break-up of the majority of family units - namely, jealousy, violence and sexual encounters with others. For example in Uganda a dispute between wives over fetching water lead to one woman stabbing and killing her fellow wife.
This is a cheap slur. Polygamy doesn't necessarily create other offences, and once legalised those other offences, if they occurred, would simply be prosecuted as the law demands. You can't say something should be illegal because there's a theoretical link to other illegal things. Forced marriage is an issue as much in other communities, such as for those of Indian origin practising monogamous marriages, as it is for those that wish to practise polygamy. We agree that society needs to decide how it wants to deal with that offence with regard to its minorities: such a dilemma is entirely separate from allowing polygamy or not, in which forced marriage remains wrong.	Other terrible practices accompany polygamy. Where polygamy is found, a wealth of other offences follows. Forced marriage, child abuse, rape, welfare fraud, incest - all staples of the polygamous communities in the USA, along with the broader exploitation of women.
Why impose numerical restrictions at all? It is obviously easy to poke fun at the lives of others who choose to live in this way. But once we agree that it is acceptable, it is difficult to logically impose restrictions that would be, by necessity, arbitrary. More sensible might be a transfer of the idea held by the Muslim faith - that partners are able to provide for one another adequately. It is true that this practical point is difficult for the proposition to answer, but the opposition also has practical stumbling blocks. How exactly should we police polygamy? Should polygamists be imprisoned? This is difficult, especially when children are involved. This is a debate about principles - throwing up absurd practicalities cuts both ways.	Polygamy is logistically complicated. There are many questions as to what legal polygamy would look like. How many extra partners can one have? Are line marriages legal? Will one village be able to marry another village? Without restrictions, that sort of thing will happen sometimes. Either way, the proposition loses: if restrictions are imposed - say, only one extra partner - then why that number only? If not, then imagine the consequences of a contested estate or bitter divorce.
Incest is a possibility in any society, particularly one in which families frequently break up. In fact, compared to modern society it's arguably less likely amongst polygamous families, which tend by virtue of their adherence to religious requirements to keep strict records of lineage - unlike most in modern life.	Polygamy has numerous harmful social effects. Women in Polygamous marriages are more likely to suffer from low self-esteem and depression and unsurprisingly have lower marital satisfaction as a result of not being the centre of affections of their spouse. There are also higher risks of being infected by sexually transmitted diseases. A study in Nigeria found that men with 3 or more wives had twice the risk of extramarital sex compared to monogamous men "indicate a link between high-risk sex, number of wives, and risk of HIV/AIDS." Among these other problems increasing the number of marriage mixes greatly enhances the chances of inadvertent incest, especially in relatively remote, inward-looking villages and small towns where generations of people live in the same area and are unlikely to move - exactly the kind of places most likely to take up polygamy if allowed to.