Polygamy. Acceptable? Immoral? State your views here.

[GMichael]

Well, my views on polygamy are kinda helter skelter. I think we should look at it from a level even DEEPER than religion... genetics. To me the fundamental question has always been IS MAN A MONOGAMOUS ANIMAL? I personally don't think so. I believe certain religions and cultures have claimed that this is man's natural state but I'm not convinced. There were always "exceptions" to the one wife rule for the rich and powerfull.

Solomon in the old testament didn't have all them wives and concubines fer nothin. However there are so many factors as to why a culture or tribe is polygamous or not. In Africa you can find both schools of thought, even among ancient tribal cultures (pre Judeo/Christian/Muslim influence). The idea of monogamy got a big shot in the arm when the idea of "property" and inheritence became formost in some cultures. The ability to prove one's progeny became paramount.

As for the Mormons, Brigham Young was a devout believer in polygamy until the threat of invasion by Federal Troops let to another "vision" wherein the Mormon's changed course. Mark Twain visited early Utah and wrote that he thought he was travelling to heaven on earth until he met the women of Utah.

Puddin' was fascinated by the HBO series "Big Love". I never got into it. I had enough headaches with one woman in my life why in god's good name would I want to double or triple my headaches? Silly.
Worf

Not THAT'S what I'm talkin' 'bout.

[noddin0ff]

If a man can manage to have multiple stable, mutually pleasurable sexual relations with women I'm not gonna rain on that parade. But, that's not what polygamy is. Polygamy is an issue of family structure and includes the children of all those women and the parental love/power/control/responsibility issues that go with children. I think polygamy is horribly unfair to children. Especially in modern society.

Multiple wives and extended family probably made some sense in societies (largely past societies) where loss of a wife or child (or several) was common due to the hardships of obtaining food, disease, death from child birth, or where a 'strong man' was needed for protection. Today it's a regressive way to live and readily lends itself to justifying abuse or neglect of children and mothers. I would simply argue that it's no accident that, as society progressed to modern standards of living, monogamous relationships come to dominate. It's healthier for the society we now inhabit, thus it is the one we adopt for family structures.

Yeah, there might be a family in the world that can fuction as a polygamous one. But for the most of humanity I'm loath to confuse a male 'fantasy' with reality and responsibility.

I don't look at herd or pack animals and say to myself, "Gee, mankind should really adopt that social structure."

[RGA]

Have you been visiting that kinky bed and breakfast place RGA has been talking about?

I went to university on Vancouver Island (VIU) and Nanaimo is kind of the "pot" capital of Canada. I've met a lot of very different people going to that school - I suppose that's one of the points of going to University - not just what happens in the classroom. The instructors can be quite varied - we had one guy who taught at Harvard for 10 years but likes living in the quieter scenic area here.

I remember getting an A- on a paper and I said to him - "I guess this would be a C+ at Harvard. He said "No - it would be an A+ at Harvard." Interesting - the reasons are likely obvious but it was a lesson learned on how universities operate and how strong administration influence interferes.

[Ajani]

I LOVE GAY MEN.


No I am not gay but the eliminate my competition for women so the more gay men the better if you ask me.

That's the exact thing I've said for years to my friends: More gay men means less competition...

As for polygamy:

I can't say it bothers me... Consenting adults and all... However, when I think about the amount of drama I've gone through just finding ONE woman who matches my personality and lifestyle, the thought of trying to find/put up with multiple women is a nightmare...

Having a wild sexual romp with several women at once is one thing, but living with them is a whole different issue...

[Feanor]

If a man can manage to have multiple stable, mutually pleasurable sexual relations with women I'm not gonna rain on that parade. But, that's not what polygamy is. Polygamy is an issue of family structure and includes the children of all those women and the parental love/power/control/responsibility issues that go with children. I think polygamy is horribly unfair to children. Especially in modern society.

Multiple wives and extended family probably made some sense in societies (largely past societies) where loss of a wife or child (or several) was common due to the hardships of obtaining food, disease, death from child birth, or where a 'strong man' was needed for protection. Today it's a regressive way to live and readily lends itself to justifying abuse or neglect of children and mothers. I would simply argue that it's no accident that, as society progressed to modern standards of living, monogamous relationships come to dominate. It's healthier for the society we now inhabit, thus it is the one we adopt for family structures.

Yeah, there might be a family in the world that can fuction as a polygamous one. But for the most of humanity I'm loath to confuse a male 'fantasy' with reality and responsibility.

I don't look at herd or pack animals and say to myself, "Gee, mankind should really adopt that social structure."

I think you and I are taking a more socio-economic perspective on polygamy while others here have put more emphasis on the moral / religious aspects.

I guess it can be argued that there are circumstances where polygamy -- and polyandry for that matter -- have benefit. However I generally see this as a rich man / poor man issue. Rich men hoarding "wealth" of whatever type is conducive to neither economic nor social fairness or progress.

[Woochifer]

Quite a variety of views here! I'm coming at this from a slightly different angle.

I think the issue with polygamist communities has been the prevalence of underaged girls getting matched up with much older men. But, so long as we're talking about consenting adults, I don't have an issue with polygamy when we're just focused on the interpersonal aspect of it.

However, from a societal standpoint, there are some huge imbalances that need to be considered. Let's face it, if we legalize polygamy, the vast majority of plural marriages will involve one male with multiple females. There are many reasons behind this, but there simply won't be a lot of households that have one female with multiple husbands.

If polygamy takes hold and becomes commonplace, this potentially leaves a lot of single males without a match. So, what are the societal consequences when you have larger numbers of men competing for a shrinking pool of women?

In polygamist communities, there's an insidious underside where boys are cast out when they reach their teen years because they are viewed as competition by the men. These are known as "lost boys". It just stands to reason that if you have equal numbers of men and women, and some men marry upwards of 10 or 20 women, that leaves a lot of guys out. So, rather than keeping them around to cause trouble or compete for brides, these "lost boys" get excommunicated or otherwise thrown out of the community.

And for society at large, polygamy would indeed raise the number of perpetually single men. A while ago, I read that societies with disproportionately high numbers of unmarried men are not very stable, and that social unrest and revolutions accompanied situations where the men began to significantly outnumber the women. The presumption here is that if they're not pairing up and raising families, they're raising hell. Of course, that's a generality, but the roots for this might already be taking shape in places like China and Korea, where selective abortion, infanticide, and overseas adoptions have created communities with ~120 males for every 100 females and rising. Around 2020 to 2030 is when a lot of academics have predicted major upheaval occurring in China -- an unintended consequence of their one-child policy.

So, while I have no issue with consenting adults marrying whoever they want, and however many they want, there remain a lot of unanswered questions about the societal consequences of allowing plural marriage. I think polygamy might be a bridge too far to cross. But then again, I used to think the same of same-sex marriage and now it looks almost certain that full legalization will occur in most states (if not nationally) within my lifetime -- the trends among people under age 35 are way too strong in favor of same-sex marriage for it to be held back.

[GMichael]

Quite a variety of views here! I'm coming at this from a slightly different angle.

I think the issue with polygamist communities has been the prevalence of underaged girls getting matched up with much older men. But, so long as we're talking about consenting adults, I don't have an issue with polygamy when we're just focused on the interpersonal aspect of it.

However, from a societal standpoint, there are some huge imbalances that need to be considered. Let's face it, if we legalize polygamy, the vast majority of plural marriages will involve one male with multiple females. There are many reasons behind this, but there simply won't be a lot of households that have one female with multiple husbands.

If polygamy takes hold and becomes commonplace, this potentially leaves a lot of single males without a match. So, what are the societal consequences when you have larger numbers of men competing for a shrinking pool of women?

In polygamist communities, there's an insidious underside where boys are cast out when they reach their teen years because they are viewed as competition by the men. These are known as "lost boys". It just stands to reason that if you have equal numbers of men and women, and some men marry upwards of 10 or 20 women, that leaves a lot of guys out. So, rather than keeping them around to cause trouble or compete for brides, these "lost boys" get excommunicated or otherwise thrown out of the community.

And for society at large, polygamy would indeed raise the number of perpetually single men. A while ago, I read that societies with disproportionately high numbers of unmarried men are not very stable, and that social unrest and revolutions accompanied situations where the men began to significantly outnumber the women. The presumption here is that if they're not pairing up and raising families, they're raising hell. Of course, that's a generality, but the roots for this might already be taking shape in places like China and Korea, where selective abortion, infanticide, and overseas adoptions have created communities with ~120 males for every 100 females and rising. Around 2020 to 2030 is when a lot of academics have predicted major upheaval occurring in China -- an unintended consequence of their one-child policy.

So, while I have no issue with consenting adults marrying whoever they want, and however many they want, there remain a lot of unanswered questions about the societal consequences of allowing plural marriage. I think polygamy might be a bridge too far to cross. But then again, I used to think the same of same-sex marriage and now it looks almost certain that full legalization will occur in most states (if not nationally) within my lifetime -- the trends among people under age 35 are way too strong in favor of same-sex marriage for it to be held back.

This just makes way too much sense to me.

[Feanor]

...

So, while I have no issue with consenting adults marrying whoever they want, and however many they want, there remain a lot of unanswered questions about the societal consequences of allowing plural marriage. I think polygamy might be a bridge too far to cross. But then again, I used to think the same of same-sex marriage and now it looks almost certain that full legalization will occur in most states (if not nationally) within my lifetime -- the trends among people under age 35 are way too strong in favor of same-sex marriage for it to be held back.

You make similar points to the ones I made, Wooch. Except I think most of the answers are forthcoming: plural marriage is bad because it deprives young people (mostly men in practice) of mates with social and political problems sure to ensue.

I don't think there are any such issues in case same-sex marriage. I've supported civil union for years but was willing to reserve the word "marriage" to the case of man+woman if that compromise would make the religious people happy. Here in Canada our Supreme Court ruled that anything less than same-marriage, so-named, was discriminatory. Afterall, I think they were right.

[noddin0ff]

I just find it wrong to talk about the 'pool' of females like they were some commodity that gets hoarded. This is why polygamy is wrong: if it were a truly respectful and equal to both genders this wouldn't be a concern. Are there women 'hoarding' men?

Truth is polygamy is not a lifestyle decision made between equals on fair footing. The wrongness of polygamy can be buried, rationalized or justified through religion or societal practice or brainwashing or indoctrination...but it's still an imbalance that is, at it's root in modern, society coercive and predatory. In some circumstances being coerced and preyed upon might be in your best interest; it may be better than starving to death. But, that doesn't make it right.

The fantasy of happy free love with multiple partners is a good gig if it exists. Again, that's not what polygamy is.

[JohnMichael]

I just find it wrong to talk about the 'pool' of females like they were some commodity that gets hoarded. This is why polygamy is wrong: if it were a truly respectful and equal to both genders this wouldn't be a concern. Are there women 'hoarding' men?

Truth is polygamy is not a lifestyle decision made between equals on fair footing. The wrongness of polygamy can be buried, rationalized or justified through religion or societal practice or brainwashing or indoctrination...but it's still an imbalance that is, at it's root in modern, society coercive and predatory. In some circumstances being coerced and preyed upon might be in your best interest; it may be better than starving to death. But, that doesn't make it right.

The fantasy of happy free love with multiple partners is a good gig if it exists. Again, that's not what polygamy is.

Very few relationships are truly equal. What is important is that if it works for all involved. I think normal is what you are used to in your daily life. My normal is I am sure different from your normal.

[GMichael]

Very few relationships are truly equal. What is important is that if it works for all involved. I think normal is what you are used to in your daily life. My normal is I am sure different from your normal.

Could be, Wabbit. Could be.

[Feanor]

Very few relationships are truly equal. What is important is that if it works for all involved. I think normal is what you are used to in your daily life. My normal is I am sure different from your normal.

JM, just so I'm clear: is this you feeble justification for polygamy? Or a back-handed plea for tolerance of something else?

I agree with Noddinoff, polygamy as typically practiced in this country and others such as in Africa is exploitive. And I have made the point that it is exploitive not only of the women who are involved but also men who aren't, i.e. who are excluded from finding mates. I dont' care what consenting adults do in terms of personal morality, but polygamy is matter of social injustice which I certainly do care about.

Personally I've said that I support same-sex marriage which I fundamentally view as not different from "normal" marriage.

[JohnMichael]

JM, just so I'm clear: is this you feeble justification for polygamy? Or a back-handed plea for tolerance of something else?

I agree with Noddinoff, polygamy as typically practiced in this country and others such as in Africa is exploitive. And I have made the point that it is exploitive not only of the women who are involved but also men who aren't, i.e. who are excluded from finding mates. I dont' care what consenting adults do in terms of personal morality, but polygamy is matter of social injustice which I certainly do care about.

Personally I've said that I support same-sex marriage which I fundamentally view as not different from "normal" marriage.

I do not have to justify anything to you. It is my opinion and as vailid as yours.


Keep in mind that my comments are based on FA's original post and not on a world study of polygamy. Much in life is not fair.

[GMichael]

Pretty much everyone here has added a disclaimer about, if everyone is consenting, and no one is being hurt or forced. Some have pointed out that in many cases, someone (or their feelings) are being hurt. A valid point, but no one here has supported hurting anyone.

Should the law assume that. Should it assume that anyone practicing multiple spouses is hurting someone?
If that's the case, then maybe marrage itself should be banned.

[Feanor]

I do not have to justify anything to you. It is my opinion and as vailid as yours.


Keep in mind that my comments are based on FA's original post and not on a world study of polygamy. Much in life is not fair.

I asked you to explain. You don't have to justify to me but if you can't explain how can you jusitfy even to yourself?

[JohnMichael]

I asked you to explain. You don't have to justify to me but if you can't explain how can you jusitfy even to yourself?

No you made an insulting remark. Which is your way.

[noddin0ff]

You're all good people (that's my operating assumption anyway). But I enjoy the sport of arguing more than I enjoy the sport of appeasing. We can all have opinions, but there's no fun in holding them if you can't defend or shoot 'em down.

Opinions, however, are not all equally valid; some opinions are well founded and some are asinine. I abhor the notion that conflicting opinions can be held equivalent with no attempt to challenge either. Holding an unsupported or unchallenged opinion is an act of 'faith' and 'faith' has no place in an argument. So, respectfully re-loading...

Very few relationships are truly equal. What is important is that if it works for all involved. I think normal is what you are used to in your daily life. My normal is I am sure different from your normal.

John, I should probably have used 'mutual' rather than 'equal'. Still I see your argument as rhetorical and a side step of the issue. I have a fairly broad view of normal, and prefer to describe a relationship as 'happy' or 'healthy' rather than 'normal' since I think 'normal' is so broad as to be non-descriptive. If a relationship involves mutually capable and consenting adults, I don't much care what gender or number or kinks are involved.

I hope one would argue that a 16 year old woman and 5th wife and mother to be of a 50 year old man likely represents an unequal relationship. Similarly, a couple of 40 year olds where one handles all the finances and owns the house could also be considered unequal. But to claim some sort of blanket equivalency by saying, "Well, relationships are inherently unequal so who am I to judge." doesn't cut it. And it shouldn't matter what one's view of 'normal' is to see the how wrong it is to equate them.

Polygamy is not the equivalent of plural relationships. polygamy is binding marriage, whereas relationships are non-binding and, for the sake of argument, consensual. That's a huge difference. You can walk away from a non-mutual relationship. Not so from a non-mutual polygamous marriage.

I'm sure you could have 14 year olds happily married to 30 year olds, but just because they're not hurting anyone doesn't make it right. In polygamous communities. Young women are brought up believing that their religion or culture requires submission to a man's desires. I'm not going to call this slavery, but it heads down that road. First you've enslaved the mind to accept the condition then you bind them to you in marriage. The harm may not always be apparent but the potential is. The purpose of the force of law is to protect those unable to protect themselves. That is why polygamy is wrong and why it should be illegal.

[ForeverAutumn]

I hope one would argue that a 16 year old woman and 5th wife and mother to be of a 50 year old man likely represents an unequal relationship. Similarly, a couple of 40 year olds where one handles all the finances and owns the house could also be considered unequal. But to claim some sort of blanket equivalency by saying, "Well, relationships are inherently unequal so who am I to judge." doesn't cut it. And it shouldn't matter what one's view of 'normal' is to see the how wrong it is to equate them.

Polygamy is not the equivalent of plural relationships. polygamy is binding marriage, whereas relationships are non-binding and, for the sake of argument, consensual. That's a huge difference. You can walk away from a non-mutual relationship. Not so from a non-mutual polygamous marriage.

It's not always easy to walk away from a non-mutual relationship either. I have known people in abusive relationships who were afraid to walk away. If someone does not have the freedom to walk away from a relationship or marriage that makes them unhappy, whether monogomous or polygamous, it is wrong.

I'm sure you could have 14 year olds happily married to 30 year olds, but just because they're not hurting anyone doesn't make it right. In polygamous communities. Young women are brought up believing that their religion or culture requires submission to a man's desires. I'm not going to call this slavery, but it heads down that road. First you've enslaved the mind to accept the condition then you bind them to you in marriage. The harm may not always be apparent but the potential is. The purpose of the force of law is to protect those unable to protect themselves. That is why polygamy is wrong and why it should be illegal.

I think that everyone here would agree that the marriage of a 14-yr-old girl is abhorent. And I would argue that that relationship IS hurting someone...whether the 14-yr-old is aware that she is being hurt or not. Ignorance may be bliss but it is no excuse for abuse.

My question was not in respect to polygamy where it involves child brides. Adult relationships with children are wrong regardless of the situation...polygamous monogomous, even consentual. My question was what you thought of polygamy when it is between consenting adults who have the freedom to choose to be in the relationship or not.

Marrying children and holding people against their will is wrong. Let's not confuse the discussion by equating polygamy with abuse. Although many polygamous relationships may be abusive (I believe this is why Utah is investigating the family in question in the first place...to ensure that it is not abusive), if you go back to my original posts, I believe that I make it clear that I'm wondering what people's opinions are when this abuse does not exist and everyone appears to be happy with their situation.

[GMichael]

You're all good people (that's my operating assumption anyway). But I enjoy the sport of arguing more than I enjoy the sport of appeasing. We can all have opinions, but there's no fun in holding them if you can't defend or shoot 'em down.

Opinions, however, are not all equally valid; some opinions are well founded and some are asinine. I abhor the notion that conflicting opinions can be held equivalent with no attempt to challenge either. Holding an unsupported or unchallenged opinion is an act of 'faith' and 'faith' has no place in an argument. So, respectfully re-loading....

I resemble that remark.

John, I should probably have used 'mutual' rather than 'equal'. Still I see your argument as rhetorical and a side step of the issue. I have a fairly broad view of normal, and prefer to describe a relationship as 'happy' or 'healthy' rather than 'normal' since I think 'normal' is so broad as to be non-descriptive. If a relationship involves mutually capable and consenting adults, I don't much care what gender or number or kinks are involved.

I hope one would argue that a 16 year old woman and 5th wife and mother to be of a 50 year old man likely represents an unequal relationship. Similarly, a couple of 40 year olds where one handles all the finances and owns the house could also be considered unequal. But to claim some sort of blanket equivalency by saying, "Well, relationships are inherently unequal so who am I to judge." doesn't cut it. And it shouldn't matter what one's view of 'normal' is to see the how wrong it is to equate them.

Polygamy is not the equivalent of plural relationships. polygamy is binding marriage, whereas relationships are non-binding and, for the sake of argument, consensual. That's a huge difference. You can walk away from a non-mutual relationship. Not so from a non-mutual polygamous marriage.

I'm sure you could have 14 year olds happily married to 30 year olds, but just because they're not hurting anyone doesn't make it right. In polygamous communities. Young women are brought up believing that their religion or culture requires submission to a man's desires. I'm not going to call this slavery, but it heads down that road. First you've enslaved the mind to accept the condition then you bind them to you in marriage. The harm may not always be apparent but the potential is. The purpose of the force of law is to protect those unable to protect themselves. That is why polygamy is wrong and why it should be illegal.

Couldn't an age minimum be used? What if there are people would would like to enter into multiple marriages who do have the best of intentions? Shouldn't that be their choice?

[Hyfi]

I resemble that remark.




Couldn't an age minimum be used? What if there are people would would like to enter into multiple marriages who do have the best of intentions? Shouldn't that be their choice?

Do you really think these young girls have or feel they have a choice?

First of all they are completely brainwashed with Religion which in the older members eyes justifies their actions which is another misuse of religion. Then because they were brought up brainwashed, they are trained to believe it is what is expected of them and they are made to feel guilty if they think otherwise.

Like I said in my original answer, none of the choices or decisions to do this should be based on or justified with religion. If people want to do it, it should be because they want to and have no religious backing or justification in any way.

I doubt that outside of these F'ed up religions that try to justify this cr@p you will find many 14 year old girls that want to marry 30 year old men who already have 5 wives.

It is only because they are brainwashed and made to feel that they have to, that they do it.

[JohnMichael]

You're all good people (that's my operating assumption anyway). But I enjoy the sport of arguing more than I enjoy the sport of appeasing. We can all have opinions, but there's no fun in holding them if you can't defend or shoot 'em down.

Opinions, however, are not all equally valid; some opinions are well founded and some are asinine. I abhor the notion that conflicting opinions can be held equivalent with no attempt to challenge either. Holding an unsupported or unchallenged opinion is an act of 'faith' and 'faith' has no place in an argument. So, respectfully re-loading...


John, I should probably have used 'mutual' rather than 'equal'. Still I see your argument as rhetorical and a side step of the issue. I have a fairly broad view of normal, and prefer to describe a relationship as 'happy' or 'healthy' rather than 'normal' since I think 'normal' is so broad as to be non-descriptive. If a relationship involves mutually capable and consenting adults, I don't much care what gender or number or kinks are involved.

I hope one would argue that a 16 year old woman and 5th wife and mother to be of a 50 year old man likely represents an unequal relationship. Similarly, a couple of 40 year olds where one handles all the finances and owns the house could also be considered unequal. But to claim some sort of blanket equivalency by saying, "Well, relationships are inherently unequal so who am I to judge." doesn't cut it. And it shouldn't matter what one's view of 'normal' is to see the how wrong it is to equate them.

Polygamy is not the equivalent of plural relationships. polygamy is binding marriage, whereas relationships are non-binding and, for the sake of argument, consensual. That's a huge difference. You can walk away from a non-mutual relationship. Not so from a non-mutual polygamous marriage.

I'm sure you could have 14 year olds happily married to 30 year olds, but just because they're not hurting anyone doesn't make it right. In polygamous communities. Young women are brought up believing that their religion or culture requires submission to a man's desires. I'm not going to call this slavery, but it heads down that road. First you've enslaved the mind to accept the condition then you bind them to you in marriage. The harm may not always be apparent but the potential is. The purpose of the force of law is to protect those unable to protect themselves. That is why polygamy is wrong and why it should be illegal.

Once again I am referencing the show FA posted about where everyone is a consenting adult. I am always against the exploitation of children. We could pick on monogamus marriages where one might be under the age of majority. We can find bad examoles of every type of relationship. As we all know there are bad and manipulative people in the world.

The relationship on the show is far different than what people thought was going on at the polygamist compound in Texas.

[JohnMichael]

Oh and by the way the sister wives and husband were on Oprah. The women, children and husband all seemed very happy.

When you grow up in a hetero household where there is not much love and the father is sexually, physically and verbally abusive and you see another type of family that is different but contains much love you tend not to judge.

[Feanor]

You're all good people (that's my operating assumption anyway). But I enjoy the sport of arguing more than I enjoy the sport of appeasing. We can all have opinions, but there's no fun in holding them if you can't defend or shoot 'em down.

...

Yes, this forum is for exchange of ideas and people are unlikely to agree about everything all the time. Yet some people get all hurt and offended when you disagree and ask them to explain themselves.

FA asked if we thought that polygamy was "Acceptable". Most people here have taken facile attitude that "if it's between consenting adults, it's OK". For them if that condition is met, then it's Acceptable.

You & I, (pretty much alone I think), have take the position that polygamy is so often a social abuse that it is therefore Unacceptable. (By which I suspect we both mean that it should continued to be unlawful.) Between us, we have explained this more than once, yet we still get the easy, "what ever floats your boat" line of non-reasoning.

[Feanor]

No you made an insulting remark. Which is your way.

That's really the easy way out, eh? Wha! Boohoo! You hurt my feallings

[GMichael]

Yes, this forum is for exchange of ideas and people are unlikely to agree about everything all the time. Yet some people get all hurt and offended when you disagree and ask them to explain themselves.

FA asked if we thought that polygamy was "Acceptable". Most people here have taken facile attitude that "if it's between consenting adults, it's OK". For them if that condition is met, then it's Acceptable.

You & I, (pretty much alone I think), have take the position that polygamy is so often a social abuse that it is therefore Unacceptable. (By which I suspect we both mean that it should continued to be unlawful.) Between us, we have explained this more than once, yet we still get the easy, "what ever floats your boat" line of non-reasoning.

JM, just so I'm clear: is this you feeble justification for polygamy? Or a back-handed plea for tolerance of something else?

I agree with Noddinoff, polygamy as typically practiced in this country and others such as in Africa is exploitive. And I have made the point that it is exploitive not only of the women who are involved but also men who aren't, i.e. who are excluded from finding mates. I dont' care what consenting adults do in terms of personal morality, but polygamy is matter of social injustice which I certainly do care about.

Personally I've said that I support same-sex marriage which I fundamentally view as not different from "normal" marriage.

Are you sure it was just because you disagree and asked them to explain themselves?