_(cropped).jpg)
Homosexuality is considered immoral by some (assholes), and as acceptable as heterosexuality to others (like me). But then, if we'll allow same-sex marriage (which we should), then who are we to say that three consenting adults should not be able to marry? Or more? One woman with four husbands, or one man with 80 wives? Why not? Does it feel wrong to you? Admittedly, it does to me. But then, can we ignore that same-sex marriage feels bad to other people? It's a problem, quite frankly.
But today I have seen the light, you could say. There are, apparently, and not entirely to my surprise, scientific reasons why polygamy is a really, really bad idea.
According to Joseph Henrich, professor of anthropology, polygamy is bad for society because it leads to crime:
- Polygamy pretty much always really means polygyny (one man with more than one wife).
- Polygyny results many men not being able to find a wife.
- Unmarried males commit more crimes than married men.
In India and China, where male-biased sex selection has resulted in more men than women, researchers found "bachelor bands that compete ferociously and engage in aggressive, violent and anti-social activities."
In India, the state of Kerala's murder rate is half that of Uttar Pradesh. The reason? Kerala's male-to-female ratio is 97:100; Uttar Pradesh's is 112:100.
Another social harm that Henrich says is consistent regardless of whether researchers use data from 19th-century Mormon communities or contemporary African societies is that children from polygynous families have considerably lower survival rates. It seems polygynous men, rather than investing in their offspring, use their money to add wives.Henrich also thinks that monogamy is at the root of even democracy and equality.
He argues that as the idea of monogamy spread through Europe during the 15th century, king and peasant alike had the same rules and the idea of equality gained a foothold -- at least among men.It's a great example of science informing us about morality. Of course, science can't tell us what is good and what is bad, but couple scientific understanding with our desires, then these two together can tell us if something is morally acceptable or not. Is it okay to catch fish with a hook? If it's not overly painful to the fish, then we might say it is okay. If science at one point informs us that every fish caught that way undergoes excruciating torment, then it will likely change a lot of people's minds about fishing, I'd like to think. We want a peaceful, crimeless society, and if polygamy leads to more crime, then that supports the feeling that it's morally wrong.
Never mind that the Canadian constitution might prohibit prohibiting polygamy, I say. When we have good reasons to do something that is unconstitutional, then we'll just have to change the constitution.
Via Epiphenom.
I do see the demographic reasons for monogamy, and that argument makes a lot of sense. Personally, however, I think people should get to have whatever kinds of relationships they'd like to have. It's tough enough for two people to love and trust and respect each other enough to build a life on their relationship. If three or more people can manage the same feat, I say more power to 'em.
ReplyDeleteMy further unsolicited and rambling opinions follow!
Although from what little I know of human history, marriage seems to have evolved out of economics, gone into the realm of religion, and only afterwords come to be perceived as a matter of personal happiness. I hope the institution of marriage keeps moving forward in that direction.
Sexual relationships have two functions: the creation of children and social bonding. Marriage socially and economically legitimizes a sexual relationship to support these two functions. As we as a species gain greater control over our environment and greater understanding of our biology, the importance of the former function decreases and the latter increases.
Sex also functions to relieve stress - most notably the stress that appears when one does not get any sex.
ReplyDeleteI do also feel much like you do, that people should be able to do whatever they want, as long as they aren't perpetrating anybody. However, I also think that society needs to do what it can to look after itself, to the extent that it doesn't perpetrate individuals. Prohibiting people from doing certain things is after all done in every complex society (circularly defined ;). I do admit that the issue of polygamy is borderline, because, again, it would be between consenting adults (presume, though I am not blind to the possibility that the first wife may hate the institution, but keep quiet in order not to lose her husband). However, the state already do allow people to have multiple women - just not to marry. And since marriage comes with certain privileges, I don't see why we should necessarily allow any combination of groups of people to have those.
For some reason this reminded me of the 'should homosexuals be able to adopt' debate.
ReplyDeleteFrom a purely intuitive POV, I feel that a child with 2 fathers may not have the same level of 'normalcy' as one of heterosexual couples. Extremely young children may be hardwired to need a 'mother'.
But this is only 1 factor (e.g. homosexuals might take care of the adopted kid better because they have no possibility of having a child together.)
without reliable statistics there's no way to tell.
Re: Anonymous -- your intuitions do not seem to be backed up by research, so I'd discard them.
ReplyDeleteRe: Fiat and Bjorn -- so there are three separate issues here: The feasibility of polyamory, the feasibility of state recognition of polygamy, and the wisdom of state recognition of polygamy (and the latter of the three has two sub-issues, present and future).
If people want to have a polyamorous relationship, absolutely, more power to 'em. That should be an easy conclusion for progressively-minded people.
Assuming it were desirable for the government to recognize polygamy (which I'll get to in a second), is it feasible? That's not entirely clear. One of the reasons I think the same-sex marriage issue is so easy is because you don't have to change anything. You just remove the gender restriction, but all other legal, civil, financial, and bureaucratic aspects of marriage stay exactly the same. Polygamy -- not so much. It's not entirely clear what it would mean in terms of taxes, inheritance, etc. (Medical visitation is about the only issue on which it is clear what government recognition of polygamy would even mean) BTW, this feasibility issue is one reason why the "slippery slope" argument about same-sex marriage->polygamy is incredibly brain-dead and un-self-reflective. Government recognition of polygamy is a massive logistical project with profound effects on multiple federal bureaucracies, all fifty state legislatures, and a stunningly broad raft of private institutions. Government recognition of same-sex marriage is a simple court ruling. There's just no comparison.
Lastly, the subject of this post -- is it desirable?
Henrich's research is interesting, and suggests that maybe it's not even desirable in any circumstance. I'll have to process that for a while.
However, it's been clear to me for some time that polygamy as currently practiced is not something that we can afford to recognize or tolerate. The very small population of people in legitimate loving polyamorous relationships do not seem to be clamoring for marriage rights -- those who do practice and seek recognition of polygamy are almost universally patriarchal theocratic buttwipes. As Henrich points out, it really means polygyny, and furthermore, polygyny practiced in an extremely misogynistic form. We need look no further than FLDS for the reality of polygamy today.
It's conceivable that in some distant future, a) those assholes would have been mostly stamped out, and b) a non-trivial community of polyamorous individuals might seek government recognition of their relationships. We'll cross that bridge when we come to it, eh?
I guess the legal aspect of it is way simpler then posed by J. Sweet. Instead of 2 in every function you use n. So instead of 100% you get 50/50 assuming one out of three died... same with taxes, you simply pool and divide, nothing complicated there.
ReplyDeleteAlso economically it makes way more sense to give a loan for a big house to three or four instead of one. And also it comes with another advantage, you can pool even more resources is you have larger families ... until they become too big, but we are not talking about polygamy with like 50 people are we?
The only question is about how we think about this, and even though I can sort of bare the idea of having multiple wives, I can not tollerate to share my wife with someone else... but this is my opinion and as such I tolerate all other opinions, and mariage or happyness in life is mostly an opinon, so I am totally for: Free for all!
until they become too big, but we are not talking about polygamy with like 50 people are we?
ReplyDeleteActually, sometimes we are:
And Henrich's example is conservative. Blackmore has more than 20 wives. FLDS prophet Warren Jeffs, who is in jail in Utah, has more than 80. [Source.]
The obvious primary question is, how much of a right does society have in legislating individual behaviour? Not a very easy question, and usually we agree to some compromise -- some more authoritarian, some (like myself) fall more libertarian. A somewhat obvious point is that there needs to be legislation against behaviour harmful to other individuals and, by extension, harmful to society. How we define such behaviour, and where we draw the line, is a dramatically less obvious point. But even in light of all that, how much *should* we legislate individual behaviour?
ReplyDeleteA nice, and horribly murky,example is religion. Yes, yes, religion happens on the individual level, and is sacred and must be protected. Besides, no one's really harmed by people worshipping different things, as long as they don't harm others. On the other hand, some religions DO seem to be more prone to inciting violence than others. The world hasn't seen Shinto or Zoroastrian suicide bombers in quite a while, yet the same cannot be said of...other...religions. You know the ones.
Thus, if one belief system is more prone to persuade violence, and by extension, leads to worsening crime rates and a less comfortable social life, does that justify restricting it? This is very similar to Joe's discussion of polygamy, isn't it?
Personally, I have no idea, and prefer to argue over obscure phylogenetic clusterfuck cases rather than meddle with this crap. But it's wise to always step back and look at analogous things from a broader perspective, even if that does tend to slash your decisiveness and certainty by several orders of magnitude...
(Joe Henrich is a cool guy, btw, should check out his research if you have time. Audited a class he co-taught on applying evolutionary thinking in the humanities; I was concurrently leading a student directed seminar on the same subject that term, and the difference of how a scientist and a humanities scholar approach the subject was quite fascinating!)
The question about polygamy is whether it should be sanctioned by the state. Not allowing people to be legally married to more than one person does not take away anyone's liberty. They are free to live together and have orgies, or whatever.
ReplyDeleteBut you wouldn't say the same RE sanctioning homosexual marriages by the state, would you? What's the difference, in your view?
ReplyDeleteNo, I don't think not allowing same-sex marriage takes away the liberty of homosexuals. I think allowing same-sex marriage grants homosexuals a state right that I think they ought to have.
ReplyDeleteBefore this research by Henrich came to my attention, I thought it was pretty hard to argue that same-sex marriage is okay, but polygamy is not (though that is how I felt). Now there is a really good empirical reason why the state should not sanction polygamy (and other measures that skews male to female ratios above one).
I think Bjorn made a very valid point:
ReplyDeleteRights are for everyone, and as a fundament of society they have to apply always in for everyone, otherwise they can not be fundaments of society in the first place...
thus -> marriage is for everyone
cheers Arend
No, I don't think not allowing same-sex marriage takes away the liberty of homosexuals. I think allowing same-sex marriage grants homosexuals a state right that I think they ought to have.
ReplyDeleteExactly, not all rights are liberty. I think that refusing to recognize same-sex marriage is a gross violation of human rights, but strictly speaking it doesn't take away liberty.
It may be the case that refusing to recognize polygamy is denying equal rights to polyamorous people who deserve equal protection. I don't think this is entirely clear, however. And as I mentioned before, at the present time it seems that the small minority of people who do seem to be practicing polyamory in a non-abusive non-misogynistic way aren't exactly clamoring for legal recognition... Not that that is in and of itself an argument for denying people rights! But it's a factor, I think.
I guess the legal aspect of it is way simpler then posed by J. Sweet. Instead of 2 in every function you use n. So instead of 100% you get 50/50 assuming one out of three died... same with taxes, you simply pool and divide, nothing complicated there.
For inheritance, perhaps, but I don't see how this works in any other context. Take taxes. What does it mean in terms of brackets? Is the table for "Married filing jointly" identical for 2-partner, 3-partner, and 4-partner marriages? Do all partners have to file jointly or separately, or can they mix and match?
What about child custody and visitation after a divorce? What about divorce itself, for that matter? Can you add and subtract spouses at will, or is it a single contract that has to be re-entered if one of the parties leaves?
I am not saying all of these issues are insurmountable, but they are issues that would have to be dealt with if the government were to recognize polygamy. It's a major legislative and regulatory project, there's no getting around it. Same-sex marriage, on the other hand, is a simple matter of removing a gender restriction. It could be done today with nary a legislative finger raised.
BTW, if in some bizarre alternate reality there was strong evidence that the vast majority of long-term homosexual relationships involved one partner being coerced into it, that partner often being underage, a higher mortality rate among children raised by these families, and a disgusting practice of throwing male children out on the street when they come of age... Then one might have a reasonable case at prohibiting same-sex marriage. After all, the state can still deny rights to certain groups for legitimate and compelling reasons...
ReplyDeleteIn other words, the reason why same-sex marriage should be recognized is not only for idealistic reasons, but for pragmatic ones as well -- and because of the lack of pragmatic contra-indications.
With polygamy, on the other hand, perhaps we do have some idealistic reasons for recognition (the libertarian ideals Psi alluded to) but we definitely have some serious pragmatic contra-indications, and it's doubtful whether there are any pragmatic reasons to recognize it.
@James:
ReplyDeleteI still don't see what the rules do not includ ANY case?
If you have a couple and want to add a third, forth, nth... all partners have to agree right? Like in a 1+1 situation.
And for divorce it works the other way round, who wants to go, can leave. You simply consider the "rest" as one entity.
What about a situation where you have person A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H... and A B C form one faction, D E F also, but G wants to stay with A but not C, and H hates everyone but G and E?
Seriously? They wanted that situation in the first place at some point, should they solve it.
Or if one wants out, all is resolved and who wants, can remarry as a group...
The tax bracket is just to encourage having families and making more children, this should be removed anyway, we are already too many people, so I see no problem.
The only point I am making is that costs don't matter. If the cost argument would be a valid one, we would see so much less unneccessary tax spending. The question is if we want this form of liberty, and if yes, we pay, so what. I rather spent trillions of dollars on solving interhuman social problems, then shooting a single Iraki...
About:"After all, the state can still deny rights to certain groups for legitimate and compelling reasons"
Like with indians? Or with slaves?
Honestly there is no legitamte or compelling reason to take away rights what so ever.
The only gray zone here is with criminals, but their punishment already is a suspention of freedom. But they ae still protected by law, and IMO should get their rights back once rehabilitated.
About:"but we definitely have some serious pragmatic contra-indications, and it's doubtful whether there are any pragmatic reasons to recognize it"
If it would be about pragmatism, we would euthanize the elderly and disabled, we wouldn't have art, since it is not very pragmatic to play an orchestra or a painting if a recording or photo will do it, we would drive more bikes and waist less oil, we would all wear the same blue overall, we would use one type of plastic, we would nuke other countries way more often instead of wasting all the money to solve the situation with a conventional war...
pragmatism might be a nice idea, and it sometimes goes along with economical reasons, but very often being it is not very pragmatic to be a humanitarian.
Cheers Arend
Honestly there is no legitamte or compelling reason to take away rights what so ever.
ReplyDeleteBut in the case of marriage, no rights are ever taken away. They are only given by the state. The right to live together, have sex, raise families, etc., are not taken away. The question is if people should be granted to right to marry more than one person, with the benefits the state affords married people. And if there are reasons why doing so would be bad for society, then the state is not violating anybody by not explicitly sanctioning it.
The tax bracket is just to encourage having families and making more children, this should be removed anyway, we are already too many people, so I see no problem.
ReplyDeleteUm, if you see no problem, then you are missing my point. My point is not that these questions are unanswerable, my point is that it is a massive legislative project. And if you don't think that doing away with the tax break for married couples is a major legislative undertaking... well, perhaps you have not heard of this country "America"? Our politics are, uh, complicated.
If it would be about pragmatism, we would euthanize the elderly and disabled, , ,
Um, only for a shallow short-sighted unreflective idea of pragmatism.
As far as euthanizing the elderly, the last time I checked, homo sapiens don't like that. In fact, it tends to make humans very angry when you kill their aging relatives. Now, the last time I checked, most of our citizens are homo sapiens. In fact, I think it's something like 98%, +/- 2%. In what sense is a policy that enrages 100% of your citizenry "prgamatic"? That's not pragmatic at all! It assumes that humans are not ruled by emotions, and is therefore, IMO a rather idealistic position.
Regarding your remaining examples of "pragmatism":
we wouldn't have art, since it is not very pragmatic to play an orchestra or a painting if a recording or photo will do it
Same argument. Humans without art are not a happy bunch. So eliminating art -- at least as long as your society is majority-human -- is not a pragmatic idea at all.
we would drive more bikes and waist less oil
Yes, actually, this would be a rather good thing, wouldn't it? Not that I am any example to go by in this respect... but if there is a way the government can get more people to do that, yes that is pragmatic, and yes we better do it! And right quick, to boot!
(continued.. I went over 4k!)
we would all wear the same blue overall
ReplyDeleteSame argument -- uniformed humans != happy humans, therefore, not pragmatic.
we would use one type of plastic
Not even sure where you are getting this idea... even if we were cold calculating robots not bound by any emotional concerns (which would allow us to adopt your faux-pragmatic suggestions like recycling the old robots or eliminating the arts) we would still have a use for a variety of different plastics! They do have different properties, you know...
This idea that we could just use a single type of plastic for all applications... rather idealistic, don't you think?
we would nuke other countries way more often instead of wasting all the money to solve the situation with a conventional war...
This one double fails. First of all, as I mentioned, crimes against humanity do not make happy humans, so not pragmatic. Furthermore, even if we were a nation of emotionless robots, that would still be a stupid idea, because it would be economically disastrous to even nuke a small country like Afghanistan (if you think the world hates America now...). And trying to dominate the world by a reign of American nuclear terror would most likely result in a number of large countries calling our bluff, in which case we either a) back down and we are fucked, or b) nuke them, thus doing major environmental damage, and oh BTW losing a potential trading partner.
"Pragmatism" does not mean "pretend we are short-sighted robots"! In fact, when I say "pragmatism" I mean just the opposite -- to recognize that we are humans and need to calibrate our policies as such.
About:"After all, the state can still deny rights to certain groups for legitimate and compelling reasons"
Like with indians? Or with slaves?
Honestly there is no legitamte or compelling reason to take away rights what so ever.
Yeah um.... Perhaps you misunderstood me because I was using a very broad definition of "rights". For example, the state has chosen to take away the right to murder your spouse for the crime of adultery, from everbody. So yes the state can take away rights.
The more interesting question is whether differential rights between two groups is ever acceptable, or if it is always a violation of the 14th Amendment. I don't think there is a clear ethical answer, and the statement of mine you quoted was meant more as a factual expression of US jurisprudence rather than a personal opinion (my personal opinion is probably somewhere in between your "nobody is denied rights ever!" and Supreme Court precedence).
Some further reading on what I was referring to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_basis_review
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate_scrutiny
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspect_classification
Oh, heh, yeah, re-reading some of that reminds me of a great counter-example to "nobody is denied rights evar!11!" -- Do you think five your olds should be allowed to drive?
very often being it is not very pragmatic to be a humanitarian.
ReplyDeleteCouldn't disagree more.
When I was young and idealistic, I was much less of a humanitarian. I felt that as long as the system provided a reasonable amount of equality of opportunity, people ought to take personal responsibility and figure it out for themselves.
I now recognize that as a hopelessly idealistic position. First, you will never establish even a reasonable amount of equality of opportunity across class lines. Second, people differ in their abilities, not just from person-to-person, but over the course of their lives -- it is silly to assume that because someone squandered an early opportunity, they must have no further contribution to make. Third, letting the downtrodden twist in the wind has all sorts of secondary impacts on the quality of my life, such as crime rate, health care costs, etc. And fourth, I have noticed that organisms with genetic makeup similar to my own tend to feel much happier and more fulfilled when those around them are treated fairly and with compassion.
Those are four damn good pragmatic reasons for humanitarianism, IMO.