It sends the intrinsic message to other committed couples and children growing up that if their marriage doesn't work out, they can just find another spouse.
That's already the case. It's currently entirely legal to get remarried if your first marriage fails.
It adds further temptation to erode existing marriage vows like easy divorce and welfare. If you can always add another spouse, there is no presumption of commitment in other people's marriages. Society will evolve based on legal framework in place, so its reasonable to assume society to encourage straight couples to add more spouses to an existing straight couple relationship.
It's not reasonable to assume that at all. Just having it be legal wouldn't mean it would be beneficial for society to encourage it.
1: I think you're assuming that it's much easier to find someone who wants to marry you than it is. Most people have a hard time finding one spouse, let alone two.
2: I think you misjudge the human animal. Some people might think the solution to their marriage woes would be an extra spouse, but the way that humans generally couple and are generally inclined to couple, it seems unlikely to me that that would be a hasty solution often enough to be considered a real problem in society. Again, most people would have a hard time finding an extra spouse, but even if they could, I doubt many people would see it as a solution for a marriage on the rocks. In that case they'd be more likely to get a divorce and then remarry, I think.
3: Even if (and it's a pretty big if) this sort of thing became the cultural norm, I still have to ask: What's the harm? What if a group of people feel committed to one another? How is it not a commitment if there's more than two? Why is it only possible for there to be a real commitment if there are only two people involved?
If society isn't the one who gets to decide social institutions, then who does? Academic elites? I'm disturbed by the arrogant elitism that exists from the Left when it comes to their view on social engineering. They think every new type of relationship should be rewarded and celebrated in the classroom, regardless of their social impact.
1: Look at the above examples of slavery and a taboo of interracial marriage. These things aren't very similar to polygamy in a logistical sense, but there were brought up to prove the point that just because society deems something to be appropriate or inappropriate doesn't mean it's right or makes any sense. If we kept with the idea that "society says this is good/bad, so it must be so" then there would still be slavery and interracial marriage would still be illegal.
"Society says it's inappropriate" is a bad argument, plain and simple.
Obviously "society" decides what is and what isn't because society is what we live in. Even if the "academic elites" as you call them push for some kind of social change, if they succeed then it is still, in the end, society deciding something because the minds of enough people who make up society have been changed to bring about change.
The point is that if society says something is inappropriate, but there's no logical, practical, or ethical reason that it should be, then that should be changed.
If you're going to argue against polygamy, argue as to why it's harmful to our society and culture, don't just argue that "society says so," because society has said some dumb things in the past.
Of course, I know you HAVE talks about legitimate impact, which leads me to...
2: What is the social impact? All of the legal issues you've mentioned are logistical problems that would have to be overcome by individual families. And if they want to face them because they think it's worth it, then that's their choice.
Everything else you've brought up is incredibly nebulous. "It would erode commitment." How? I know you've said that it would increase temptation in monogamous couples to add other spouses, but you haven't actually offered any evidence to support that claim, just conjecture. And even IF that were the case (I'm not saying it is, because again you've offered no evidence to suggest that) you've yet to demonstrate why that would be a bad thing. So what if people start adding new spouses left and right? I wouldn't personally want to do that, and if I were married and my wife wanted a second husband I'd be uncomfortable with it, but what's the harm if that becomes a common trend? Who does that hurt, other than individuals who's marriages don't work out?
Earlier, you said that marriage protects the fabric of society. You have yet to explain what this means or how polygamy being legalized would hinder this.
Of course that would change if it were legalized. Obviously some people will consider it once it became legal and there will be support groups to further legitimize that type of relationship. Its naive to think otherwise. Changing these type of institutions is a means to advance social engineering. Children who have not been taught tradition will now start looking towards these fringe relationships as acceptable. That's the whole point.
It will become more acceptable, yes. Will it become universally acceptable? I see no reason to assume that. The human species has been largely monogamous for most of it's history. Even in countries where having multiple spouses is legal, many people still have traditional two-spouse marriages. There will be more polygamy, certainly, but I see no evidence that it will become the norm and supplant traditional marriages. Even children who look toward this "fringe relationships" as acceptable... most of them probably won't enter into them, they'll probably just not care that other people do.
And even if they do, I have to ask once again: What's the harm?
