Why is polygamy illegal?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm watching Big Love and I keep wondering how polygamy is illegal. How is it prosecuted? Many men have mistresses (that their wives know about), how is that not polygamy? Only the first wife is officially married and the others are more like mistresses.

I understand it can be prosecuted if there are underage women or coercion involved.

Can I take my pet goat as a second wife? Many people live their pets. How is this prosecuted?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even beyond any religious objections, polygamy is not a victimless crime. The laws against bigamy protect the first wife, who could lose most of the benefits and security of marriage without her consent.

If someone is victimized there are already laws in place to protect them. What benefits would be stolen from the first wife? How would her security be jeopardized?

Seriously? Marriage is a contract with shared benefits and responsibilities. The wife's share of the family property, retirement, and assets would be jeopardized, as would her children's share of support from the father, if he can just keep adding more wives and children. In most of these cases, the women do not earn much income on their own and are dependent on their husbands. The wives are only getting married once. It is the husbands who have multiple marriages.

OK, but you do understand that in no way do our current laws protect women from this problem in divorce and remarriage, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The concept of a bride as merchandise is old and not unique to polygamy. This has been the way of the world for centuries. It took many forms in different societies. Why do you think American brides' parents are still expected to pay for their daughters' white weddings?

Repression and illegal activities are separate from decisions made by capable adults, so this argument doesn't hold water.

It does in practice because overwhelmingly polygamy is practiced against underaged and undereducated women. It's not practiced -- as a pp said -- to allow four men or four women to marry each other. It's forced upon young impoverished women with few opportunities for economic freedom to perpetuate inequality.

Your intellectual dishonesty doesn't hold water.

ya, but if we implemented it in this country, we wouldn't allow that. The US is not a third world country with uneducated women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It doesn't have to be. Monogamous marriages are treated this way in some countries, but we all know that monogamous marriage doesn't have to be that way. I think it should be legal. Also, marriages of 3 men. Marriages of 3 women. I think

* that there should be universal health care, so no company has to deal with the insurance implications
* hospital visitation, etc for all in the "marriage" contract
* all names go onto birth certificates, and all are responsible for child care in case of divorce
* in case of death without a will, money is divided equally amoung all in the contract and all children
* of course no entering into the contract for a cash fee to parents (which is also illegal for monogamous marriages?)

I think with these rules there is no reason it shouldn't be a civilized interaction.

I don't know why you are interpreting polygamy as a contract between all participants. It totally doesn't have to be. It should be multiple contracts between couples. What do I have to do with someone else's children? If the man wants to marry more than one, that's between him and the other woman. They have their own contract, their own children, and their own custody and childcare arrangements. It's not the business of other wives/husbands.

ya, that's another way it could be done. If we wanted to make it legal in the US, there are many ways we could do it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Polygamy can't be respected by society. If widespread, it would sow chaos as large numbers of young men could not find anyone to be with because the woman are doubled and tripled up with other men.

Which proves that women would rather be willing to share an alpha with many other women rather than have her own beta to herself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Polygamy might be a good thing in segments of the black community where there aren't many male providers out there.

You mean white polygamous men marrying balck women?

not pp, but i'm assuming it would mean like lil wayne or john wall taking on 20 wives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even beyond any religious objections, polygamy is not a victimless crime. The laws against bigamy protect the first wife, who could lose most of the benefits and security of marriage without her consent.

If someone is victimized there are already laws in place to protect them. What benefits would be stolen from the first wife? How would her security be jeopardized?

Seriously? Marriage is a contract with shared benefits and responsibilities. The wife's share of the family property, retirement, and assets would be jeopardized, as would her children's share of support from the father, if he can just keep adding more wives and children. In most of these cases, the women do not earn much income on their own and are dependent on their husbands. The wives are only getting married once. It is the husbands who have multiple marriages.

OK, but you do understand that in no way do our current laws protect women from this problem in divorce and remarriage, right?

There is also no protection from either spouse going out and having affairs. Either spouse having children with someone else, or either spouse spending money frivolously on others. And as you said, it's a contract, so the fist wife could always add language to the contract to add whatever protections she deems appropriate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Polygamy can't be respected by society. If widespread, it would sow chaos as large numbers of young men could not find anyone to be with because the woman are doubled and tripled up with other men.

Which proves that women would rather be willing to share an alpha with many other women rather than have her own beta to herself.

+10000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Polygamy can't be respected by society. If widespread, it would sow chaos as large numbers of young men could not find anyone to be with because the woman are doubled and tripled up with other men.

Which proves that women would rather be willing to share an alpha with many other women rather than have her own beta to herself.

+10000

This is a hilarious DCUMism

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm watching Big Love and I keep wondering how polygamy is illegal. How is it prosecuted? Many men have mistresses (that their wives know about), how is that not polygamy? Only the first wife is officially married and the others are more like mistresses.

I understand it can be prosecuted if there are underage women or coercion involved.

Can I take my pet goat as a second wife? Many people live their pets. How is this prosecuted?

Justice Scalia has explicitly noted the slippery slope from condoning gay marriage to condoning bestiality.

[Anonymous]

I remember the show Big Love. If you legalize polygamy, you will put it out into the sunshine, which means the practice will become less the province of marginal groups in isolated settlements like the compound, and more settled in happy suburbia.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even beyond any religious objections, polygamy is not a victimless crime. The laws against bigamy protect the first wife, who could lose most of the benefits and security of marriage without her consent.

If someone is victimized there are already laws in place to protect them. What benefits would be stolen from the first wife? How would her security be jeopardized?

Seriously? Marriage is a contract with shared benefits and responsibilities. The wife's share of the family property, retirement, and assets would be jeopardized, as would her children's share of support from the father, if he can just keep adding more wives and children. In most of these cases, the women do not earn much income on their own and are dependent on their husbands. The wives are only getting married once. It is the husbands who have multiple marriages.

OK, but you do understand that in no way do our current laws protect women from this problem in divorce and remarriage, right?

There is also no protection from either spouse going out and having affairs. Either spouse having children with someone else, or either spouse spending money frivolously on others. And as you said, it's a contract, so the fist wife could always add language to the contract to add whatever protections she deems appropriate.

Some benefits for surviving spouses are written into law for retirement benefits, Social Security benefits, tax benefits. I can't withdraw money from my retirement accounts or change my retirement benefits without my wife signing her consent.

There are state law provisions for dividing joint marital property in a divorce - some states more than others.

All of those benefits and protections would be watered down if the husband could add another wife without settling up with the first wife first.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even beyond any religious objections, polygamy is not a victimless crime. The laws against bigamy protect the first wife, who could lose most of the benefits and security of marriage without her consent.

If someone is victimized there are already laws in place to protect them. What benefits would be stolen from the first wife? How would her security be jeopardized?

Seriously? Marriage is a contract with shared benefits and responsibilities. The wife's share of the family property, retirement, and assets would be jeopardized, as would her children's share of support from the father, if he can just keep adding more wives and children. In most of these cases, the women do not earn much income on their own and are dependent on their husbands. The wives are only getting married once. It is the husbands who have multiple marriages.

OK, but you do understand that in no way do our current laws protect women from this problem in divorce and remarriage, right?

There is also no protection from either spouse going out and having affairs. Either spouse having children with someone else, or either spouse spending money frivolously on others. And as you said, it's a contract, so the fist wife could always add language to the contract to add whatever protections she deems appropriate.

Some benefits for surviving spouses are written into law for retirement benefits, Social Security benefits, tax benefits. I can't withdraw money from my retirement accounts or change my retirement benefits without my wife signing her consent.

There are state law provisions for dividing joint marital property in a divorce - some states more than others.

All of those benefits and protections would be watered down if the husband could add another wife without settling up with the first wife first.

Your falsely assuming the family unit would dissolve once a spouse dies. The benefits would only be "watered down" if the the surviving spouses discontinued living together.

Those same laws you speak of would protect all spouses. So for example if you change your retirement account beneficiaries it would require the signature of all spouses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even beyond any religious objections, polygamy is not a victimless crime. The laws against bigamy protect the first wife, who could lose most of the benefits and security of marriage without her consent.

If someone is victimized there are already laws in place to protect them. What benefits would be stolen from the first wife? How would her security be jeopardized?

Seriously? Marriage is a contract with shared benefits and responsibilities. The wife's share of the family property, retirement, and assets would be jeopardized, as would her children's share of support from the father, if he can just keep adding more wives and children. In most of these cases, the women do not earn much income on their own and are dependent on their husbands. The wives are only getting married once. It is the husbands who have multiple marriages.

OK, but you do understand that in no way do our current laws protect women from this problem in divorce and remarriage, right?

There is also no protection from either spouse going out and having affairs. Either spouse having children with someone else, or either spouse spending money frivolously on others. And as you said, it's a contract, so the fist wife could always add language to the contract to add whatever protections she deems appropriate.

Some benefits for surviving spouses are written into law for retirement benefits, Social Security benefits, tax benefits. I can't withdraw money from my retirement accounts or change my retirement benefits without my wife signing her consent.

There are state law provisions for dividing joint marital property in a divorce - some states more than others.

All of those benefits and protections would be watered down if the husband could add another wife without settling up with the first wife first.

Also, no liberated woman in her right mind would marry into a polygamous situation unless that man is set financially. He would have to be able to handle all wives in a certain lifestyle.
Your falsely assuming the family unit would dissolve once a spouse dies. The benefits would only be "watered down" if the the surviving spouses discontinued living together.

Those same laws you speak of would protect all spouses. So for example if you change your retirement account beneficiaries it would require the signature of all spouses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even beyond any religious objections, polygamy is not a victimless crime. The laws against bigamy protect the first wife, who could lose most of the benefits and security of marriage without her consent.

If someone is victimized there are already laws in place to protect them. What benefits would be stolen from the first wife? How would her security be jeopardized?

Seriously? Marriage is a contract with shared benefits and responsibilities. The wife's share of the family property, retirement, and assets would be jeopardized, as would her children's share of support from the father, if he can just keep adding more wives and children. In most of these cases, the women do not earn much income on their own and are dependent on their husbands. The wives are only getting married once. It is the husbands who have multiple marriages.

OK, but you do understand that in no way do our current laws protect women from this problem in divorce and remarriage, right?

There is also no protection from either spouse going out and having affairs. Either spouse having children with someone else, or either spouse spending money frivolously on others. And as you said, it's a contract, so the fist wife could always add language to the contract to add whatever protections she deems appropriate.

Some benefits for surviving spouses are written into law for retirement benefits, Social Security benefits, tax benefits. I can't withdraw money from my retirement accounts or change my retirement benefits without my wife signing her consent.

There are state law provisions for dividing joint marital property in a divorce - some states more than others.

All of those benefits and protections would be watered down if the husband could add another wife without settling up with the first wife first.

Your falsely assuming the family unit would dissolve once a spouse dies. The benefits would only be "watered down" if the the surviving spouses discontinued living together.

Those same laws you speak of would protect all spouses. So for example if you change your retirement account beneficiaries it would require the signature of all spouses.

There is no marriage after the bigamist dies. The wives are not married to each other, only to the husband. So you would have the widows dividing the property and assets, not sharing them in a continuing marriage. What I am saying that for some reason you refuse to acknowledge is that the first wife's share of the marriage property, assets, and benefits from her husband will be watered down if the husband marries a second wife. The first wife loses some of her claim on the husband's estate but does not have any legal claim to any income or assets that the second wife brought to her marriage with the husband. The husband shares the assets and responsibilities of all of his marriages, but each wife only has a claim to the assets of her own marriage.