The Jeffs Trial (and polygamy in general)

[tk102]

But I thought you said earlier that you would support gay marriage? That's not status quo.

As far two people per marriage is involved, there would be no change. Yes the status quo does not allow two people of the same sex to be married. I concede that. Allowing gay marriage would actually simplify the law. There's much more argument for anti-discrimination in case of gay marriage than any argument that could be made for polygamy.

[Achilles]

There's much more argument for anti-discrimination in case of gay marriage than any argument that could be made for polygamy.

Errr...

I suspect that this is because their are more gay couples than polygamous families. I would argue the moral questions are exactly the same.

[tk102]

I suspect that this is because their are more gay couples than polygamous families.

No, nothing to do with that at all.

I would argue the moral questions are exactly the same.

Not if you believe that people are born gay or not. That falls directly under the banner of discrimination. People do not choose to be gay whereas polygamy is quite obviously a chosen behavior.

[Achilles]

I suspect we're going to find that we're arguing different questions. I keep coming back to this:

 

"Should it be a universal law that consenting adults that wish to be married to one another should not be permitted to do so?"

 

In the context of a moral argument, it doesn't matter whether the consenting adults are gay, polygamous, black, white, pink, purple, or really into 90's boy bands. If you want to argue that gays should be permitted because they're born gay, but polygamous families should not be because you don't believe they aren't born that way, then it would seem that bi-racial couple should not be permitted to marry because a white woman wasn't born attracted to black men, etc. Or am I misunderstanding your point?

[Jae Onasi]

How do you justify polygamy as moral, then?

 

We don't allow people to drive past a certain speed because the risk of accident to both them and those on the road with them becomes greater after a certain point. We don't allow people to drive with a blood alcohol level above a certain point because they _might_ cause an accident. Why should polygamy be any different, when we know there is a higher risk of problems both to the people involved and to society around them? I'm just not getting how you think this is OK.

[Achilles]

How do you justify polygamy as moral, then?

I don't think that has been my argument. I think my argument has been that's immoral to restrict it.

 

We don't allow people to drive past a certain speed because the risk of accident to both them and those on the road with them becomes greater after a certain point. We don't allow people to drive with a blood alcohol level above a certain point because they _might_ cause an accident. Why should polygamy be any different, when we know there is a higher risk of problems both to the people involved and to society around them? I'm just not getting how you think this is OK.

Because your examples are safety issues, not moral issues. If you want to argue polygamy from a "safety" standpoint, I would probably agree that there are additional risks. However I don't think we can oppose polygamy from a "safety" vantage without also moving to oppose monogamous marriage as well. What we still don't have is a moral argument though.

 

I hope that helps to clarify.

[tk102]

Or am I misunderstanding your point?

We were talking about by my apparent inconsistencies in regards to upholding the status quo.

I suspect we're going to find that we're arguing different questions.

But yes we appear to be arguing different questions. My question is:

"Should we abolish our current laws prohibiting polygamy?"

or to rephrase in a moral framework:

"Are our currently laws prohibiting polygamy immoral and therefore should be abolished?"

 

If you want to have multiple partners and your current spouse is fine with that there's no incest, rape, or whatever, that's one thing. Asking for formal recognition with a marriage license is another. I just don't see how asking for more than one marriage license and not getting one is discriminatory.

[Jae Onasi]

Should we abolish laws prohibiting polygamy? No.

Are current laws prohibiting polygamy immoral? No. If the definition of 'moral' includes "Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior;" I consider it unjust to expose women and children in particular to the increased problems associated with polygamy.

 

If you all want to look at it from a safety standpoint I'm fine with that, too, though you could technically argue that putting children at risk, since they are unable to give consent to being in a polygamous family, is still immoral.

 

In regards to monogamous marriage, the benefits for spouses and children far outweigh those who have problems, and yes, to get you started, here's a source (you know, you only ask me for sources--why not others?). Before you comment about the fact that it's a conservative site, look at the sourcing for the charts themselves. They're nearly all from gov't sources (e.g. census bureau, dep't of labor, etc) or from peer-reviewed academic/medical journals. I could give you a ton of sources on the benefits of monogamous marriage if you're dying to have that, though googling 'benefits of marriage' and searching medscape with that phrase will get you results faster than me searching and typing them in here.

 

How do you justify laws prohibiting polygamy as immoral?

[Achilles]

We were talking about by my apparent inconsistencies in regards to upholding the status quo.

Was that a yes? Sorry.

 

But yes we appear to be arguing different questions. My question is:

"Should we abolish our current laws prohibiting polygamy?"

or to rephrase in a moral framework:

"Are our currently laws prohibiting polygamy immoral and therefore should be abolished?"

Well, this second one sound a lot like my question. Therefore, my answer is yes. Basis: because I do not believe that it should be a universal law to restrict marriage between consenting adults.

 

If you want to have multiple partners and your current spouse is fine with that there's no incest, rape, or whatever, that's one thing. Asking for formal recognition with a marriage license is another.

So adultery gets a yellow light, but polygamy has to stop on red? Come on now.

 

If the definition of 'moral' includes "Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior;"

That's one definition, but it doesn't have a bottom. Who decides what is right or just? That's what I'm trying to dig down to.

 

Moral: of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ETHICAL

 

I consider it unjust to expose women and children in particular to the increased problems associated with polygamy.

I'm fine with that. My counter-point is that thoes problems aren't the sole domain of polygamy and therefore not a moral argument against it on the basis of their being a causal relationship. If we are going to prohibit polygamy on this basis alone, then we should be prepared to place similar restrictions on any other questionable monogamous relationships that share similar risks. I think this is probably the 5th or 6th time I've raised this point in this thread and I would really appreciate it if we could either address it or acknowledge that this argument against polygamy is a strawman and abandon it. Thanks in advance.

 

If you all want to look at it from a safety standpoint I'm fine with that, too, though you could technically argue that putting children at risk, since they are unable to give consent to being in a polygamous family, is still immoral.

They're also unable to give consent to being born at all, therefore childbirth is also immoral.

 

In regards to monogamous marriage, the benefits for spouses and children far outweigh those who have problems, and yes, to get you started, here's a source

This source discusses effects of marriage vs. non-marriage (in the context of two-parent vs single parent, aka split household), not monogamy vs. polygamy. I don't think I've argued against the benefits of having two parents in the household, have I?

 

(you know, you only ask me for sources--why not others?)

Hint: it might have something to do with the nature of the arguments that you make. Stating something as fact vs. voicing an opinion, etc.

 

Before you comment about the fact that it's a conservative site, look at the sourcing for the charts themselves. They're nearly all from gov't sources (e.g. census bureau, dep't of labor, etc) or from peer-reviewed academic/medical journals. I could give you a ton of sources on the benefits of monogamous marriage if you're dying to have that, though googling 'benefits of marriage' and searching medscape with that phrase will get you results faster than me searching and typing them in here.

I have absolutely no problem with sources that are well-cited with transparent methodologies and real data...regardless of there liberal or conservative biases

 

How do you justify laws prohibiting polygamy as immoral?

Haven't I already answered this question several times?

[Darth333]

Are current laws prohibiting polygamy immoral? No. If the definition of 'moral' includes "Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior;"

 

 

That's one definition, but it doesn't have a bottom. Who decides what is right or just? That's what I'm trying to dig down to.

 

Moral: of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ETHICAL

Legal aspects set aside, whether polygamy is "right" or "wrong" varies according to a given society standards, I believe... * cough* didn't King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines (1 Kings 11:3)

 

My own opinion is that, although polygamy is not my thing, I don't have a *** to say about what consenting adults do in their bedroom as long as they take good care of the child (if any), even if it does not reflect "standard" society rules of "a given time in a given place" (from the article, I see the Jeff case as more like a "normal from a legal POV" sex abuse case, even if it involves polygamy ). We already allow marriage between heterosexuas (and in Canada and some other countries it includes homosexuals) who are also drug addicts, murderers, etc future parents... A risk "0" society will never exist...I am sure that some polygamist people can take better care of a child than several non polygamist people...

[Jae Onasi]

@D3--I think Canadian policy has continued with polygamy being illegal, if I'm reading the policy statements I linked correctly. There's so much material in those, however, and things certainly could have changed since then since I think they're a few years old.

King Solomon did have that many wives and concubines, and it was inappropriate.

 

@Achilles, well, I thought everyone here was voicing opinion unless otherwise specified. If you prefer I state specifically "I feel" or "I think" in front of everything, I can do that. Not that I won't look some stuff up for my own interest and share that, however. The only time I feel the need to speak 'ex cathedra' on a subject is if it's medical--I cannot in good conscience _not_ correct someone's mistakes on medical information, for instance. I don't want someone getting the wrong ideas on medical things and then utilize the bad information later.

 

The marriage study--I had just bifurcated a bit onto the benefits of marriage vs. not being married, since you'd mentioned that if polygamy should be banned, monogamous marriage should also be banned (in a nutshell) since it has some of the same problems, although to a far lesser degree _on average_ per studies cited above. I don't know if any good studies substantiate benefits of polygamy, but I do know there are a ton of studies showing the benefits of being married over not being married. If we banned monogamous marriage, we'd likely lose far more benefits than we'd theoretically gain from being true to some odd code of morality. The risk/benefit ratio in polygamy appears heavily tilted to the risk side, but the risk/benefit ratio in monogamy still appears heavily tilted to the benefit side. Yes, we can have good polygamists, and yes we can have bad monogamists. However, for society and individuals in general, monogamy appears to be beneficial, polygamy appears to be detrimental, and I would have no moral qualm banning the latter and maintaining the former.

They're also unable to give consent to being born at all, therefore childbirth is also immoral.

Achilles wins the 'most over-the-top comment' for the thread.

 

Haven't I already answered this question several times?

Well, you've said why you think I'm wrong, but that's not always the same as why you think you're right. The latter tends to be a little more complete than the former.

[Achilles]

Well, I thought everyone here was voicing opinion unless otherwise specified.

Like when one makes a statement as thought it were fact? I understand if you're saying that you don't realize that you do it.

 

If you prefer I state specifically "I feel" or "I think" in front of everything, I can do that.

That would certainly help to make it clear that you're not asserting something as fact.

 

For example, this:

"Monogamy in general discourages child sexual abuse from underage marriage, and discourages by definition multiple partners." ...sounds as though you're stating a fact (hence why I asked for a source), whereas this:

 

"I think that monogamy in general discourages child sexual abuse from underage marriage, and discourages by definition multiple partners."...is clearly an opinion. Doesn't mean that I'm not going to disagree with it, but at least I know you're offering your view and not necessarily something that is true.

 

The only time I feel the need to speak 'ex cathedra' on a subject is if it's medical--I cannot in good conscience _not_ correct someone's mistakes on medical information, for instance. I don't want someone getting the wrong ideas on medical things and then utilize the bad information later.

No comment.

 

but I do know there are a ton of studies showing the benefits of being married over not being married.

I'd be very interested in reading some of them.

 

If we banned monogamous marriage, we'd likely lose far more benefits than we'd theoretically gain from being true to some odd code of morality.

How humorous that you presume to call it "some odd code of morality" when you are still unable to muster a moral argument in defense of your point and this thread is 36 posts long. You've got spunk, Jae. I like that about you.

 

The risk/benefit ratio in polygamy appears heavily tilted to the risk side, but the risk/benefit ratio in monogamy still appears heavily tilted to the benefit side.

I acknowledge that this is your opinion.

 

Yes, we can have good polygamists, and yes we can have bad monogamists. However, for society and individuals in general, monogamy appears to be beneficial, polygamy appears to be detrimental, and I would have no moral qualm banning the latter and maintaining the former.

Still not a moral argument.

 

Achilles wins the 'most over-the-top comment' for the thread.

I was simply taking your reasoning to the next logical step. I wouldn't dream of stealing your limelight.

 

Well, you've said why you think I'm wrong, but that's not always the same as why you think you're right. The latter tends to be a little more complete than the former.

I do not believe it is moral to restrict marriage between consenting adults. Is that sufficiently clear? Please let me know.

 

Thanks.

[Jae Onasi]

That would certainly help to make it clear that you're not asserting something as fact.

Works for me, then.

 

No comment.

Good.

I'd be very interested in reading some of them.

The sourcing for the link I had listed a number of studies--those would be a good place to start while I dig around for awhile.

How humorous that you presume to call it "some odd code of morality" when you are still unable to muster a moral argument in defense of your point and this thread is 36 posts long. You've got spunk, Jae. I like that about you.

Never a dull moment in Kavar's. Hey, they're not all mine or yours, you know.

Actually, sometimes I feel like you're not connecting with what I'm saying, so I feel the need to clarify so I know myself that I haven't screwed up in the communication part. At work, I have to be 100% sure in my own mind that my patients understand instructions for meds and such. Most get it the first time. A few don't and require me rewording the same thing slightly three, four, or five times until I'm 'speaking their language' enough that they can connect and understand. I don't know if I can turn that on and off at will.

 

I was simply taking your reasoning to the next logical step. I wouldn't dream of stealing your limelight.

It's all yours--you're the one who made the funny even if it was at my expense. I appreciate the humor just the same, however.

 

Is that sufficiently clear? Please let me know.

Thanks.

Clear as the sound of a tinkling brass bell floating in the spring air.

Clear as the dawn rays painting azure and scarlet on the floors as they stream through the exquisite stained glass windows of St. Denis in Paris.

Clear as the cerulean October sky in the middle of a Canadian high.

Clear as....OK, yes, it's clear.

 

I do not believe it is moral to restrict marriage between consenting adults.

I got the 'what' part. I'd like to hear the 'why', please.

[Achilles]

The sourcing for the link I had listed a number of studies--those would be a good place to start while I dig around for awhile.

Sounds great. Let me know when you find one that you would like for me to look at and I'll be more than happy to do so.

 

Since I would not presume to waste your time, I would appreciate it if you could return the favor. Thanks in advance.

 

Never a dull moment in Kavar's. Hey, they're not all mine or yours, you know.

I know

 

Actually, sometimes I feel like you're not connecting with what I'm saying, so I feel the need to clarify so I know myself that I haven't screwed up in the communication part.

Fair enough.

 

At work, I have to be 100% sure in my own mind that my patients understand instructions for meds and such. Most get it the first time. A few don't and require me rewording the same thing slightly three, four, or five times until I'm 'speaking their language' enough that they can connect and understand. I don't know if I can turn that on and off at will.

So that means....what exactly...regarding the moral argument against polygamy that I'm waiting for?

 

I used to work at a pizza shop in high school. Sometimes I would answer the phone in my sleep using the restaurant's greeting. My dad thought it was hilarious.

 

It's all yours--you're the one who made the funny even if it was at my expense. I appreciate the humor just the same, however.

How sad that I wasn't trying to be funny

 

Clear as the sound of a tinkling brass bell floating in the spring air.

Clear as the dawn rays painting azure and scarlet on the floors as they stream through the exquisite stained glass windows of St. Denis in Paris.

Clear as the cerulean October sky in the middle of a Canadian high.

Clear as....OK, yes, it's clear.

Just so long as it wasn't clear as mud

 

I got the 'what' part. I'd like to hear the 'why', please.

Because...it's...immoral...?

I thought I was giving the "why" last time. Because consenting adults are capable of making their own decisions and should have the freedom to do so? I don't know, Jae. Why should people be permitted to choose their own religion?

[Rogue Warrior]

Why is forced marriage harmful? Suppose the woman does not love the man she is forced to marry. How do you think she would feel?

[tk102]

Why is forced marriage harmful? Suppose the woman does not love the man she is forced to marry. How do you think she would feel?

I think everyone would agree with your implication that forced marriage is harmful. The issue being discussed is marriage between consenting adults.

[Jae Onasi]

Sounds great. Let me know when you find one that you would like for me to look at and I'll be more than happy to do so.

 

Since I would not presume to waste your time, I would appreciate it if you could return the favor. Thanks in advance.

I have pretty full workdays today and tomorrow, and I don't have internet access at work. It may be a little while.

 

So that means....what exactly...regarding the moral argument against polygamy that I'm waiting for?

It had nothing to do with the moral argument. It was supposed to be connected with the 'why I repeat myself' sentence.

 

How sad that I wasn't trying to be funny

Well, I'm sorry about that, then.

 

Because...it's...immoral...?

I thought I was giving the "why" last time. Because consenting adults are capable of making their own decisions and should have the freedom to do so?

No, no, I wasn't quite looking for the simple answer. I'm trying to say I want to learn how you developed that philosophy over time just to understand how you got to that point in the first place.

 

Well, if two consenting adults want to do something harmful to themselves (say, shoot each other for an extreme example), is it immoral to stop them? If two consenting adults are willing to do something harmful to themselves and you think that's OK not to stop, what happens when that activity causes collateral damage to the rest of society (say, stray bullet hits a kid as they try to shoot each other)? Where do we draw the line on 'consenting adults' practicing an activity if it ends up being harmful to themselves and others?

[Achilles]

I have pretty full workdays today and tomorrow, and I don't have internet access at work. It may be a little while.

Whenever you get to it is fine. Thanks.

 

It had nothing to do with the moral argument. It was supposed to be connected with the 'why I repeat myself' sentence.

Gotcha. Sorry I didn't pick up on that. I was pretty tired when I posted.

 

No, no, I wasn't quite looking for the simple answer. I'm trying to say I want to learn how you developed that philosophy over time just to understand how you got to that point in the first place.

The short answer is years of ethics and moral philosophy classes. The slightly longer answer is the one I've already posted (in the form of a question). Once you develop the moral argument you can apply it to lots of different situations, for instance gay marriage, bi-racial marriage, polygamy, etc.

 

Well, if two consenting adults want to do something harmful to themselves (say, shoot each other for an extreme example), is it immoral to stop them?

Well, there's "The" answer and then there's "my" answer (disclaimer: "my" answer is unpolished and has some flaws in the rationale).

 

"The" answer is yes. Shooting one another would violate the basic precept that all human life has value and that no one should seek to intentionally harm another (outside of self-defense or the defense of someone incapable of defending themselves).

 

"My" answer is no. Consenting adults should be permitted to do whatever they would like so long as their actions do not impinge upon others.

 

If two consenting adults are willing to do something harmful to themselves and you think that's OK not to stop, what happens when that activity causes collateral damage to the rest of society (say, stray bullet hits a kid as they try to shoot each other)?

Then such action is no longer moral. If the couple took adequate precaution so that something like that couldn't happen, then it would be moral again.

 

Where do we draw the line on 'consenting adults' practicing an activity if it ends up being harmful to themselves and others?

There would appear to be a very tidy demarcation at the "themselves" vs. "others" point. I'm ok with using that.

[tk102]

Wouldn't you say that emotional distress of others should also be factored in when trying to determine the morality of an action? If the people shooting each other consensually had families and friends that would be devastated by such an action, isn't it reasonable that their emotional injury should be taken into account just as the physical one suggested by Jae? It seems reasonable to me. Moreso than discounting someone's emotional state as saying "you just don't understand, we're consenting to this!"

 

I would posit that such rationale could be used at least in part to defend the current laws against polygamy -- that they are there to prevent emotional injury to others, especially the children involved. Granted it is more of a leap to assume this.

[Achilles]

Wouldn't you say that emotional distress of others should also be factored in when trying to determine the morality of an action?

Indeed, however if we are going to do so in the name of moral arguments, we have to apply it uniformly, not just against those practices which don't jive with our values. I hate to sound rude and I truly hope that this doesn't come across as such, but I really do feel that we're talking in circles. It seems that I'm raising this same point in every other post.

 

If the people shooting each other consensually had families and friends that would be devastated by such an action, isn't it reasonable that their emotional injury should be taken into account just as the physical one suggested by Jae?

Where's the bottom to that argument? How many other things could we apply that reasoning to and suddenly them "immoral"? If a person makes a choice to sign a DNR (Do Not Resuscitate), is their action immoral because their death might devastate some family members?

 

It seems reasonable to me. Moreso than discounting someone's emotional state as saying "you just don't understand, we're consenting to this!"

I have to ask where the bottom to this argument is as well. If we're talking about emotionally disturbed twenty-somethings acting out Romeo and Juliet, then that might be one thing. However what if we were talking about a Jewish couple who were making the choice to take their own lives rather than be imprisoned by Nazis?

 

I would posit that such rationale could be used at least in part to defend the current laws against polygamy -- that they are there to prevent emotional injury to others, especially the children involved. Granted it is more of a leap to assume this.

Again, I'm fine with this so long as we are prepared to begin applying this standard to potentially harmful monogamous relationships as well.

[tk102]

I hate to sound rude and I truly hope that this doesn't come across as such, but I really do feel that we're talking in circles. It seems that I'm raising this same point in every other post.

I appreciate your patience in reiterating the point about uniformly applying the law. I just wanted to look at it again in a slightly different way if you could indulge me for this post.

Where's the bottom to that argument? How many other things could we apply that reasoning to and suddenly them "immoral"?

I completely agree with the trouble of this argument. There is no bottom as you say. It's all shades of gray, slippery slope and all that. And it would be hypocritical then to not apply this rule everywhere. But as you suggest this leads to an absurd situation where all secondary and tertiary effects have to be weighed ad nauseum before we can give a green light to something being moral.

 

On the other hand if we nip the argument in the bud and say those indirect effects should not be considered, we are saying other people's potential emotional injuries are of no consequence. But why stop with emotional injuries? Why not ignore potential physical ones as well? That leads us to a selfish view where only the primary effects of an action are considered for determining the basis of its morality. The morality that grants such self-centered freedoms is not morality as I understand it.

 

In other words, I'm not sure we can carry a moral argument to its logical conclusion without paralyzing ourselves on one hand or contradicting ourselves on the other.

 

Btw, I like the DNR example.

[Achilles]

I appreciate your patience in reiterating the point about uniformly applying the law. I just wanted to look at it again in a slightly different way if you could indulge me for this post.

My apologies for coming across as inflexible. I mistook the reiteration for not being heard.

 

I completely agree with the trouble of this argument. There is no bottom as you say. It's all shades of gray, slippery slope and all that. And it would be hypocritical then to not apply this rule everywhere. But as you suggest this leads to an absurd situation where all secondary and tertiary effects have to be weighed ad nauseum before we can give a green light to something being moral.

I agree that it could be easy to swing it too far the other way. So what demarcation point do we mutually declare reasonable?

 

On the other hand if we nip the argument in the bud and say those indirect effects should not be considered, we are saying other people's potential emotional injuries are of no consequence.

I, personally, would say that emotional injuries should be considered. If we were to examine such a decision from a strictly utilitarian perspective, how much would the emotional benefit of marriage offset the potential emotional detriment of divorce? At what point would it be reasonable to accept that no matter what choice you make, some degree of emotional benefit will occur and some amount of emotional detriment will occur, thereby making it impossible to make any emotionally-related decision without inflicting some injury somewhere? Would it be reasonable to accept that some amount of injury in unavoidable, therefore we can only do the best that we can? It would seem to allow us to simplify the argument a great deal.

 

But why stop with emotional injuries? Why not ignore potential physical ones as well? That leads us to a selfish view where only the primary effects of an action are considered for determining the basis of its morality. The morality that grants such self-centered freedoms is not morality as I understand it.

I would tend to agree with this thinking. I'm hoping that we both recognize that it is extreme though.

 

In other words, I'm not sure we can carry a moral argument to its logical conclusion without paralyzing ourselves on one hand or contradicting ourselves on the other.

The moral argument is simply that consenting adults should have the right to marry if they choose to do so. It can be applied uniformly across many scenarios.

 

If it helps, take children completely out of the equation, then try it again. And by all means, if you find something that I'm missing, please don't hesitate to point it out.

 

Btw, I like the DNR example.

Thank you. FWIW though, it's a flawed example because there is a moral argument against allowing DNR. It's not one that I agree with, but oh well.

 

Off for a meeting. See you all later tonight.

[Rogue Warrior]

Why would marriage, consensual marriage, be harmful? I guess when it is done when they are not prepared for it.

[PoiuyWired]

Why would marriage, consensual marriage, be harmful? I guess when it is done when they are not prepared for it.

 

Well, if ALL PARTIES in the "marriage" are consensual and have reasonable understanding on what they are getting into, then I don't see it as being harmful.

 

The "ritual" merely grants some legal status on paper to formalize the relationship. Remember all parties involved can still live that way without any "marriage" and carry on with the whatever lifestyle of union they prefer. Giving them a more formal acceptance is a good thing.

[Jae Onasi]

The moral argument is simply that consenting adults should have the right to marry if they choose to do so. It can be applied uniformly across many scenarios.

At what point does the liberty of the individual supersede the needs to protect society? The problem with polygamy here in the US (and in a number of other cultures) is that it does not always involve consenting adults--it involves an adult male and one or more female minors. There have been a number of these cases, and appears to happen with some frequency as noted in some of the studies cited above.

I am searching on morality of polygamy from a non-religious point of view, and I'm either a. not looking in the right spot or b. there's not a whole lot out there that's satisfactory (though I've found a few books). I certainly can find all sorts of things in the religious fields.