It's interesting that each culture seems to find only one concept of family acceptable, yet the cultures have such incredibly different concepts of what that family is. I hope to address many of these concepts below and speculate on the pros and cons of each.
When weighing "pros and cons", my yardstick is the happiness and well-being of the individual. I do not consider the happiness and well-being of one individual at the expense of another to be a pro -- and here is where I'm probably going to run into trouble discussing some of these concepts.
THE AMERICAN DREAM: The American idea of family comes from Christian ideology (as does nearly everything else in the United States): One man, one woman. Individuals are free to choose their own mate, and usually do so between age 18 and mid-20's. Marriage can happen at younger ages with parental permission. It can also happen at much more advanced ages.
The couple is welcome to have as many or as few children as they want, but are under considerable pressure to have some. Trust me on this, my wife and I have none by choice, and you'd think we were Martians for how we get treated. It's getting better, though, since overpopulation and other concerns have rendered being childless a more acceptable choice today.
The American Dream sounds perfect for a woman. All she has to do is find a man to marry her, and all of her problems are over. He is legally bound to stick with her through thick and thin and provide for her and any children they produce.
It's not so ideal for a man. The human male is not, by nature, inclined to mate with a single female for life; if it were up to him, he'd probably have several. The Christian dogma upon which this system is based, however, also preaches the value of sacrifice -- and thereby the male is coerced into surrendering his own desires for the good of his mate, his family, and his society. For his sacrifice, he is promised happiness -- after he's dead. And some people buy this, believe it or not.
The one man/one woman family would seem to be supported by nature: the birth rate is nearly equal between males and females. That's not necessarily a good indicator, though, since there are many examples in the animal kingdom where the birth rate may be nearly equal between males and females yet the grouping involves one male with many females and a lot of males missing out altogether or some other such arrangement.
The one man/one woman setup has an effect of note: nearly everyone can find a mate. This includes people that have no business whatsoever reproducing, and even people who have no right to be happy! Scoundrels, criminals, stupid, ugly, hateful, mean, it doesn't matter, one and all can find a mate and one and all can start popping out offspring and raising them to be just like their parents! The Christian Church thinks all of this is just ducky.
GO FORTH AND MULTIPLY: The Catholic Church, popular in America and elsewhere, adds its own stipulation to the one man/one woman scheme described above: the couple must have as many children as possible. For the Church, this is wonderful: more contributors in future generations. To the individuals in the family, this is miserable; if the parents follow the Catholic dictum, they will be forever mired in childrearing regardless of their ability to provide for such children. The children will forever be handicapped by the circumstances of their upbringing. And the Earth gets more and more overpopulated, which will inevitably lead to misery for all.
There was a time in human history when this policy could be defended on a societal basis because there was a shortage of human beings, but that time is long past. The fact that the Catholic Church continues to promote such policies clearly indicates that they have no concern for either their followers or society at large, but only with filling their own coffers.
THE AMERICAN REALITY: The American Dream described above is what is supposed to be going on in American society; but that's not what's really happening. What's really happening is more than half of our marriages end in divorce. That means that what the woman thought was the ideal situation -- marry a man and you're all set -- turns into her spending her valuable reproductive years with her knight in shining armor only to be dumped like yesterday's garbage when her looks are gone and there's little or no chance she can ever attract another man. Not so ideal any more, is it?
It's closer to ideal for the man, though. Find a mate you like, love her until you get tired of her, then dump that bitch and find another. Excellent. Yes, this is a moral society, all right.
'TIL DEATH DO US PART: The Catholic Church has a stipulation intended to correct that divorce problem: don't allow any. This takes legal status in some areas such as Ireland, where the Catholics hold enough sway to establish the law of the land: divorce is illegal. Theoretically, this puts things back into the American Dream status described above, great for a woman but a sacrifice for a man. Rumor has it there are some heavy drinkers in Ireland.
There are problems, though, the most obvious being that some couples really should get a divorce. It has been estimated that of the fewer than half of the marriages in America that last, one third are miserable. Why would people stick it out for the rest of their lives in a marriage that makes them both miserable? Because they have been promised they'll be happy after they're dead. What a shame, what a waste. And some people continue to claim that the Church is a good influence.
From a legal standpoint, America seems to be trying to split the difference: Allow divorce, but make it rather difficult or punitive. In New York, a couple must wait a year after filing for a divorce before it is granted. This is rather pointless, since once filed both go about their merry way as though they are already divorced. Some states grant alimony paid from one partner to the other, normally from the man to the woman, to compensate her for being used and discarded -- but, interestingly, some states do not, apparently in a misguided attempt at "equality" or otherwise turning a blind eye to the plain fact that divorce is generally much harder on women than men.
IT'S ALL ARRANGED: Some cultures have a one man/one woman concept of family, but the idea that the happy couple makes their own choice isn't a factor. The parents, tribal elders, village matchmaker, somebody puts these people together. Sometimes couples are arranged by the time they're three years old. Sometimes couples are arranged without having met.
This all is actually a significant departure from the American Dream ideal described above. With the American Dream, the idea is that you will find the person that's perfect for you and the two of you will remain devoted to each other for life. If the marriage is arranged, it would seem that the couple being perfect for each other is not a concern.
Or is it? One could argue that the idea behind arranged marriages is that couples don't need to be perfect for each other, they only need the willingness or incentive to work together. But it could also be argued that the idea behind arranged marriages is that the couple themselves are poor judges of being right for each other, and that a disinterested third party is better able to match people together. Or, in the case of arrangements involving children, it could be argued that people are compelled to become perfect for each other as they grow and develop.
Which is it? I don't know; perhaps there are cultures that work on each idea. I will say, though, that I suspect a lot can be said for going into marriage with reduced expectations. Here in the USA, when a man and a woman choose each other for marriage, the expectations tend to be high -- sometimes too high to ever be met in reality, especially with women who envision their husbands as someone they'll never be and with men who envision their wives as someone they won't remain. When the realities of day-to-day life together come crashing down, it's no wonder the divorce rate is as high as it is. But if the marriage is arranged, one probably enters into matrimony just hoping things won't be awful. Reality is perhaps a pleasant surprise rather than a huge disappointment.
VIVA LA FRANCE: Ah, the French. They put another interesting spin on the concept of family: one man marries one woman, but has a mistress on the side. In theory, the wife gets what she wants: a man to support her for life, and possibly even a man who will leave her alone in the bedroom when she's not interested in sex. The man likewise gets what he wants: a wife to hold and cherish, and an outlet for frustration or an avenue for adventure when things aren't meeting his needs at home. It even comes with a dash of secrecy and intrigue, all goodness as far as he's concerned. For the mistress (yes, she counts too -- we mustn't forget to consider the concerns of everyone involved) this would seem to be an excellent situation; she can enjoy the attentions of a man -- perhaps several men -- without the pressure of commitment, she can probably count on some financial support, and she can call an end to the arrangement whenever she so desires. And there's nothing preventing her from getting married -- or already being married -- providing her some security and companionship in her declining years.
On its merits, this would seem to be an improvement -- especially since
the advent of birth control measures so there aren't unwanted children amongst
all these arrangements. Of course, here in America catching one's husband
with another woman is grounds for divorce followed by alimony payments.
And you will get caught; if the girl a married man approaches doesn't
rat on him herself, somebody that sees them together in a restaurant or at
a bar will. I would like to know how this differs in France; does nobody
rat out a husband trying to be unfaithful? If caught, does divorce
follow?
WEARING THE PANTS IN THE FAMILY:
The Islamic religion puts another spin on marriage: the men run things
and the women aren't even allowed to show their faces in public.
The men are happy and nobody cares whether the women are happy or not,
they don't count. They count in this tally of the various options, though; I would consider anyone supporting such a culture as morally repugnant.
SPICE OF LIFE: There are several cultures where a family consists
of one man with multiple wives. For example, the
Mormon Church, while officially eschewing polygamy to avoid conflict
with Christianity-based US policies, unofficially encourages a man to
take
several wives. There are other examples, some in which there is
some fixed limit on the number of wives permitted (such as four) and
others in which a man can accumulate a harem of hundreds.
There are parallels in the animal kingdom, of course; many male animals collect an entire group of females and attempt to keep them from contact with other males. There's little doubt that a human male would find such an arrangement to his liking. Just exactly what a human female thinks of the idea is a bit tougher to discern. First off, any female raised in a one man/one woman culture cannot even imagine sharing a man with another woman; it'd be a fight right off.
But there are more problems with getting real answers. In some (most? all?) cultures permitting multiple wives, women are considered second-class citizens whose happiness is not important. If you ask if people are happy with the arrangement, the men will answer in the affirmative and then forbid you to even ask the women. The women are typically uneducated, and happiness may be a relative thing; if they marry a man who beats them only every other day, they may consider themselves blessed.
The Mormon women are reportedly treated acceptably well, but still present difficulties in honest evaluations. The women typically get married very young, before they've had a chance to develop any plans for a life of their own choosing. And of course this is a religion we're talking about, their entire business is brainwashing the gullible, so whenever a Mormon wife opens her mouth you're not sure she's speaking her mind or merely parroting the Church doctrine.
It's not entirely clear, however, whether multiple wives and disdain for women are inherently linked. Both the culture of multiple wives and disdain for women in several parts of the world come from religions, but may not otherwise be related to each other. Those examples don't necessarily prove that it isn't possible for a culture to respect women while allowing multiple-wife marriages.
Of course, there are practical matters. It'd be a good idea if the man involved was capable of financially supporting all his wives and their children. It'd be a good idea if the wives had enough sense not to marry a man that couldn't support all of them, but again religion throws a monkey wrench in there. Reportedly the Mormon marriages are often arranged, with the arrangement being between the husband, the parents of the bride, and the church elders -- notice that the bride herself isn't consulted. Still, hopefully some sense prevails and nobody arranges for a guy who sells magazines for a living ending up with eight wives and dozens of kids to feed.
There is one feature of multiple-wife marriages to note: Since the birth rate is nearly equal for human males and human females, for every man with two wives there's another man somewhere with no wife. There are those who would argue this is a good thing. A lot of men are losers. As long as a culture is limited to one man/one woman, some women get the few good men and the rest of the women get to pick among the losers. If multiple wives are permitted, all the women can end up married to good men, and the losers can go f**k themselves. Not only would this tend to improve the gene pool over successive generations, but it would also give men incentive to not be losers.
SAFETY IN NUMBERS: Let's say you took all the lead characters in the sitcom "Friends" to a Justice of the Peace and married the whole bunch together. Would this work?
From a practical standpoint, the answer would have to be yes. Financial security is improved; if one breadwinner loses his job, everyone cuts back and lives off the rest of the incomes until he can find a job again. One wife can shop while another watches the kids. Whoever is the best cook does all the cooking. Life takes on somewhat of a "commune" character with everyone doing their part.
This idea has reportedly been tried, in a Scandinavian country if I recall correctly. I have no idea if it worked out.
As soon as you're talking about more than two people in a marriage -- whether it's multiple wives, multiple husbands, whatever -- there are some details that need to get worked out. Just how do you get there? Do all need to meet and marry at once, or can you start with two getting married and then a third marrying into that family? If a man is to choose a second wife, does the first wife get a say in the matter? How does divorce work?
Even if the first wife does get a say in the matter, you'd have to be careful. The first wife might feel pressured to consent. A good policy might be for the first marriage to include in the contract whether the possibility of additional partners in the future is acceptable to both. It would not be good for a woman to marry a man believing that it'll just be the two of them forever only to find out a couple of years later that hubby wants to bring in another wife.
OPINION: Up to now this treatise has largely been "thinking aloud", no real concrete conclusions on my part but rather a simple discussion of the ideas. But I will now state something I firmly believe: neither the government of the United States nor the governments of the individual states have any business restricting the citizens of the United States from any marriage arrangement they so choose. It is not the government's responsibility to get involved or support one concept of family over another. Since most of the arrangements popular in the world today seem to have their roots in one religion or another, one could argue that the US prohibiting polygamy is a violation of the First Amendment -- but that would establish a connection between marriage and religion I'd just as soon see disconnected.
Better idea: any and all laws and regulations involving "marriage" should
be repealed. Period. If two (or more) people decide to join together,
they should write up a contract to that effect. If any party fails
to abide by the terms of that contract or seeks to nullify that contract
or seeks to terminate that contract, all of that should be handled under
standard contract law. If a religion wants to hold marriage ceremonies
or rites, that's up to them -- but they don't carry any legal weight whatsoever,
the only thing that carries any legal weight is a signature on the dotted
line.
If you have any viewpoints to enlighten me with, I'd love to hear from
you. Please write to me at palmk@nettally.com.