I think the best choice is simply to mate with anyone whom we desire, then if there are any arguments just let things unfurl naturally. I don't really think woman have the right to choose what happens with their own bodies, I mean men did give them life afterall LOL Ok, ok so I'm kidding there, but ehh is this really that important, I mean if the earth gets destroyed by a comet or something similar nobody will really care, in fact all history will really not have been so important afterall. All that matters is the moments we share together an the time we have left.
I don't see polygamy as being problematic for society, per se. But there may be problems for some individuals the ones who actually would prefer a monogamous relationship.
Is anyone hurt by this? And I mean those that had nothing to do with the marriage. As long as it's a choice among a group of people and their choice does not affect my freedom or anyone else's freedom, then I have no problem with it. The same with gay marriage. I admit, I don't like gay marriage. However, it doesn't affect my freedom or life and no one elses (except those that choose to be offended by it)... so I am all for it. Victim-less "crimes" should not be crimes at all. The only victims in these are those that choose to be so. Drugs, yes.
I agree, if a man or a woman chooses to have more than one partner then that is their decision. The people involved of course have to be consenting adults and they have the right choose to be in the relationship. I don't think a society would choose polygamy but it would be harmless if other people were willing to try this type of relationship. It sounds almost like swinging only without the marriage except polygamy seems more responsible because it would mean more adults taking care of children.
Given the approximate rate of equality in a population consisting of 50% males and 50% females, isn't a 1:1 relationship the best and only option in a functional society? With polygamy, not only do you offset the ethical norms of civility and sexual equality, but you disrupt the population balance. Assuming that males would be the ones with multiple spouces - or you could reverse it - then what do the surplus of single males do to satisfy their sexual needs or desire to have a family?
Not if a man marries two women, while another women marries two other men. Please note that the standard dictionaries are remarkably careful on this point, e.g. "marriage in which a spouse of either sex may have more than one mate at the same time" --- Ron.
Polygyny would be bad for men. People make the mistake of thinking that polygyny is good for men and bad for women, but the truth is the other way around. It is a mistake to look only at the men that have 5 or more wives, because that is only 1 out of 5 men. The other 4 don't have any wives at all. The proportion of men to women is always pretty close to 50-50, changing only after major wars. Women in Mormon polygynous situations love it for the most part. Mostly because they are indocrinated to love it from youth, but some of their comments have a point. They have company, they are not hounded for sex every night, but only on Tuesdays for example. They have help with the chores. And they run the household more than the man does. Not bad for them. And I don't know who I feel more sorry for. The poor chaps that don't get any women because of simple statistics, or the god-awful miserable man that has to put up with the combined menstrual might of 5 women who get on cycle together. All men lose, all women win. Not a good system. I'm all for Polyandry, though.
I think it would be a great choice for me, as long as I got lots of public money too. For the rest of you, not so much.
