Polygamy Debate

Being a fan of freedom of choice, my position on the polygamy debate is: do whatever you want, as long as it's legal and doesn't mess with me. But, frankly, I'd never seriously considered it much. This article by Jonathan Rauch, a good writer to whom I've linked before regarding introversion, has this thoughtful piece that I'm not sure I agree with, but is worth reading nonetheless. His point is that polygamy will ultimately destroy a society because the ratio of available women to available men goes all cattywampus.

The social dynamics of zero-sum marriage are ugly. In a polygamous world, boys could no longer grow up taking marriage for granted. Many would instead see marriage as a trophy in a sometimes brutal competition for wives. Losers would understandably burn with resentment, and most young men, even those who eventually won, would fear losing. Although much has been said about polygamy's inegalitarian implications for women who share a husband, the greater victims of inequality would be men who never become husbands.

He goes on to cite sources that claim societies with more men than women are governable only by tyrannies that export these "bare branches" in search of war. This article approaches the debate from a strange angle that I had never considered. It also claims that same-sex marriage is generally a stabilizing force in society while polygamy is destabilizing.

I oppose polygamy where the women cannot act of their own free will (which Dick Logan, our correspondent in Utah, claims is the usual variety.) I don't think polygamy is going to really catch on when all parties are acting out of their own free will, and therefore I doubt we would ever reach the tipping point ratio referred to in this article.