Why is polygamy illegal?

[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.

Well truthfully they get watered down in divorce too.

[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.

Well truthfully they get watered down in divorce too.

But the first wife gets to negotiate and agree to the divorce settlement before the second wife gets a claim on the husband's assets. Not so if the husband is allowed to have add a new wife without settling with the first one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well truthfully they get watered down in divorce too.

But the first wife gets to negotiate and agree to the divorce settlement before the second wife gets a claim on the husband's assets. Not so if the husband is allowed to have add a new wife without settling with the first one.

Look, if he has #2 waiting in the wings, it will be a nasty fight. Don't fool yourself. All of my divorced friends are POOR!

[Anonymous]

DH has already started to call me "First Wife."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

But the first wife gets to negotiate and agree to the divorce settlement before the second wife gets a claim on the husband's assets. Not so if the husband is allowed to have add a new wife without settling with the first one.

OK, what if the first wife had to give her consent? And each subsequent wife required the consent of all previous wives? It's consensual all around.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But the first wife gets to negotiate and agree to the divorce settlement before the second wife gets a claim on the husband's assets. Not so if the husband is allowed to have add a new wife without settling with the first one.

OK, what if the first wife had to give her consent? And each subsequent wife required the consent of all previous wives? It's consensual all around.

This is one of the rules that would likely have to be made. It would only be fair that first wife gives consent BEFORE she even marries him. Everything has to be out in the open.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Actually that's just your interpretation of how assets would be divided in a multi-spousal relationship. There is no US legal precedence to support your belief. What I'm saying is yes, when the man takes on another wife, the first wife is also marrying the second wife. They are legally all married together and all three would have to sign the new marriage license. It would be a group marriage. The group could be made up of any combination of men and women. A divorce could be a complete dissolving of the entire group, one member leaving the group, a couple breaking off onto their own, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Actually that's just your interpretation of how assets would be divided in a multi-spousal relationship. There is no US legal precedence to support your belief. What I'm saying is yes, when the man takes on another wife, the first wife is also marrying the second wife. They are legally all married together and all three would have to sign the new marriage license. It would be a group marriage. The group could be made up of any combination of men and women. A divorce could be a complete dissolving of the entire group, one member leaving the group, a couple breaking off onto their own, etc.

Also a group marriage would offer more support, security, and benefits than a monogamous marriage.

[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?

A goat can not consent to marriage. Therein lies the difference.

[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.

There is not dishonesty. There are plenty of examples of coercion in other forms of marital contracts. Address the actual issues rather than blindly banning the practice as a matter of principle. You have no leg to stand on, if you deny however many adults to enter into a contract. Address the issues of coercion, age, and inequality appropriately, if you must.

[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?

If you can persuade me that your pet goat is capable of giving informed consent, then by all means, have at it.

[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

Strongly disagree. Women would rather not share. It's the men that drive this, like many other things. Property rights and all.

[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?

Pro leaglization pp here.
I would make it mandatory that the pattern be established BEFORE the first marriage. IOW, the couple would have to check the box, that they plan a polygamous relationship, and both parties would have to consent.
BTW, in serial monogamy, the first wife nearly ALWAYS gets screwed.

Sounds like she would probably get screwed in polygamy as well.

Except she does not need to leave, she can stay.

If she doesn't consent, then she needs to leave. So she either stays on unhappily, and screwed economically, or she leaves, and gets screwed economically.

It sounds like she doesn't have a choice. HE can choose another wife and SHE can either stay or leave, jeopardizing her kids' economic standing. That's not a choice. That's a threat.

Unpleasant choices are still choices, people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It's pretty frightening that we have a Supreme Court justice who does not recognize that there is a fundamental difference between consenting adult humans getting married & a human having sex with (or, more to the point, raping) an animal who lacks the ability to give consent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It's pretty frightening that we have a Supreme Court justice who does not recognize that there is a fundamental difference between consenting adult humans getting married & a human having sex with (or, more to the point, raping) an animal who lacks the ability to give consent.

What if the animal is the initiator and your consenting to their carnal desire?