Why is polygamy illegal?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Enjoy!

How does an animal convey a desire to get married? Or divorced?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Enjoy!

How does an animal convey a desire to get married? Or divorced?

Puppy eyes? Works for humans anyway.

[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.

It can be like this, but it doesn't have to be. There IS a precedent on how polygamy is handled in the Muslim world, and they view each marriage as a separate matter between each couple. What mitigates against your view is that typically a second marriage is contracted primarily by the husband's decision, not the couple's decision (meaning husband and his 1st wife.) If you argue that when a husband marries a second wife, his first wife is also marrying her, then the first wife should have equal input into the marriage decision. And that would be difficult.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not necessarily. It depends entirely on how the members would organize themselves. In a fully cohesive group marriage, there would be more opportunity for support, but also more opportunity for abuse.

[Anonymous]

Legality of polygamy is irrelevant anyway because people aren't getting married anymore anyway. Marriage is in decline and unmarried cohabitation is on the rise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not necessarily. It depends entirely on how the members would organize themselves. In a fully cohesive group marriage, there would be more opportunity for support, but also more opportunity for abuse.

Aren't you one to look on the bright side. I suppose you have the same attitude about having children, the more you have the more opportunity for abuse?

[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.

Even if the first wife loses assets, and I agree that she would, if she consented in the first place, I assume that she gets the financial implications of it.

agin, I have said, there would have to be ground rules, even customary practices, but I am still not sure why we have not yet legalized it.
Would I do it? Unlikely. I would have to be truly in love and he would have to have an amazing humble personality. He could not be a lecher. He would have to be rich. The other wives would have to be decent people. No diseases or cheating by anyone, so it is likely that it would have to be a strict group.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Even if the first wife loses assets, and I agree that she would, if she consented in the first place, I assume that she gets the financial implications of it.

agin, I have said, there would have to be ground rules, even customary practices, but I am still not sure why we have not yet legalized it.
Would I do it? Unlikely. I would have to be truly in love and he would have to have an amazing humble personality. He could not be a lecher. He would have to be rich. The other wives would have to be decent people. No diseases or cheating by anyone, so it is likely that it would have to be a strict group.

How rich do I need to be for you to consider me?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Even if the first wife loses assets, and I agree that she would, if she consented in the first place, I assume that she gets the financial implications of it.

agin, I have said, there would have to be ground rules, even customary practices, but I am still not sure why we have not yet legalized it.
Would I do it? Unlikely. I would have to be truly in love and he would have to have an amazing humble personality. He could not be a lecher. He would have to be rich. The other wives would have to be decent people. No diseases or cheating by anyone, so it is likely that it would have to be a strict group.

How rich do I need to be for you to consider me?

Really? The math works like this. Could he support me...for the rest of my life...in manner that I am accustomed...minimum$300k per wife.

[Anonymous]

Why is Warren Jeffs being allowed to post from prison?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Even if the first wife loses assets, and I agree that she would, if she consented in the first place, I assume that she gets the financial implications of it.

agin, I have said, there would have to be ground rules, even customary practices, but I am still not sure why we have not yet legalized it.
Would I do it? Unlikely. I would have to be truly in love and he would have to have an amazing humble personality. He could not be a lecher. He would have to be rich. The other wives would have to be decent people. No diseases or cheating by anyone, so it is likely that it would have to be a strict group.

How rich do I need to be for you to consider me?

Really? The math works like this. Could he support me...for the rest of my life...in manner that I am accustomed...minimum$300k per wife.

Oh, I see. Your one of those girls.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not necessarily. It depends entirely on how the members would organize themselves. In a fully cohesive group marriage, there would be more opportunity for support, but also more opportunity for abuse.

Aren't you one to look on the bright side. I suppose you have the same attitude about having children, the more you have the more opportunity for abuse?

No dimwit, the more unrelated adults around your child in close quarters, the more opportunity for abuse.

[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.

Are you Muslim or something?

[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.

Are you Muslim or something?

WASPy as they come. I am a libertarian though and think people should have the freedom to live whatever life they want as long as it doesn't harm others.

I wouldn't mind a second husband!

[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.

Are you Muslim or something?

WASPy as they come. I am a libertarian though and think people should have the freedom to live whatever life they want as long as it doesn't harm others.

I wouldn't mind a second husband!

Try again.