what exactly is illegal about polygamy?

[Anonymous]

Polygamy is in the bible. So it is biblical
It is in the old and the new testament

There are polygamist men who are able to support their wives and children. Some that don't. There are wives who are able to support their children, and ones that do not.

[Anonymous]

How is polygamy different from having one wife and numerous mistresses with whom you have numerous illegitimate children?

[Anonymous]

The polygamist compounds make it their goal to bilk the US government out of every cent they can. It's not out of need, it's out of sport and out of spite for making polygamy illegal. There's also all kinds of tax implications. Plus, once you have a compound (and I don't know what the deal is with that show, if they're part of a compound) you wind up with a lot of inbreeding. It just happens. And then you have a whole community with a host of special needs children, and now they require even more government assistance. Read Under the Banner of Heaven. It explains it all really well.

[Anonymous]

Multiple wives? Some men are serial, and bilk the government for money for multiple children with each wife. Larry King has had multiple wives. Just not one at a time.
There will always some tax expenses with people having children. I do not have a problem with it.

[Anonymous]

Just read Under the Banner of Heaven. It will answer all your questions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They usually get raided for welfare fraud. The polygamous compouds in Utah and the west apply for welfare benefits for all the kids on the grounds that they have no source of male support (no marriage).

why is that fraud?

It is fraud because the women will apply for benefits and claim that they don't know who the father is or where he is. She knows where he is, and he has an income. She is often living in the same household with him (and lots of other women) as one family, and his income (and the income of other family members), is required on welfare applications. Basically, the wives represent themselves as single mothers with dependent children.

The other issue is that, even aside from the fraud, most polygamist men simply cannot support the multitude of wives and children without government benefits. These families can only exist due to government subsidy. Not sure if this is really different from all the other families that cannot exist without government benefits, though.

That and in most cases the women do not have direct access to those funds. The "family" finances are controlled by the husband, leaving the women without any financial independence or ability to make financial decisions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Polygamy is in the bible. So it is biblical
It is in the old and the new testament

There are polygamist men who are able to support their wives and children. Some that don't. There are wives who are able to support their children, and ones that do not.

So is slavery. Doesn't make it right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: There are more women than men in society naturally. Also, more gay men means excess women out here.

Not really. Both of these factors combined would only lead to about 3% more heterosexual women than men. In a society where men have two, three, or four wives that wouldn't get you far.

But most people would not do polygamy, so we are talking about a small number. There are more womehn than men apart from the sexual orientation issue.

There is a slightly higher ratio of male to female, but also morbidity and mortality rates among males, which would tend to even it out.

I would also question whether "most people would not do polygamy". In certain areas it might be very common. More important, given the extremely large family size that characterize these arrangements they would be substantial majority in some areas within a few generations.

I can't believe how many people are defending this on DCUMs. Would you really want to see 80 year old patriachs with a harem of 16 year old girls servicing them?

[Anonymous]

I thought most of prosecuted polygamists were arrested for sex with minors, the other charges are kind of secondary, though the polygamy may be what brought them to police attention in the first place.

I don't see how assistance for children could be fraud. They're getting benefits for children they have in their custody. The father is kind of secondary. I'm not sure how many of you have ever asked for government assistance, but some states require that you start child support proceedings before they process your application. If a child is living with both parents, I don't see how they could start a child support case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They usually get raided for welfare fraud. The polygamous compouds in Utah and the west apply for welfare benefits for all the kids on the grounds that they have no source of male support (no marriage).

why is that fraud?

It is fraud because the women will apply for benefits and claim that they don't know who the father is or where he is. She knows where he is, and he has an income. She is often living in the same household with him (and lots of other women) as one family, and his income (and the income of other family members), is required on welfare applications. Basically, the wives represent themselves as single mothers with dependent children.

The other issue is that, even aside from the fraud, most polygamist men simply cannot support the multitude of wives and children without government benefits. These families can only exist due to government subsidy. Not sure if this is really different from all the other families that cannot exist without government benefits, though.

They should be eligible if they can't support the kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: There are more women than men in society naturally. Also, more gay men means excess women out here.

Not really. Both of these factors combined would only lead to about 3% more heterosexual women than men. In a society where men have two, three, or four wives that wouldn't get you far.

But most people would not do polygamy, so we are talking about a small number. There are more womehn than men apart from the sexual orientation issue.

There is a slightly higher ratio of male to female, but also morbidity and mortality rates among males, which would tend to even it out.

I would also question whether "most people would not do polygamy". In certain areas it might be very common. More important, given the extremely large family size that characterize these arrangements they would be substantial majority in some areas within a few generations.

I can't believe how many people are defending this on DCUMs. Would you really want to see 80 year old patriachs with a harem of 16 year old girls servicing them?

But why do you care if an 80 year old gets a 16 year old? As long as its not my daughter. Most women won't want that kind of relationship, so many women will leave along with their boyfriends. The clannishness has to do with the taboo nature. If it were more out in the open, there would be better choices for these women. WRT to the lonely young men, they can come out and meet tons of availabel women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The polygamist compounds make it their goal to bilk the US government out of every cent they can. It's not out of need, it's out of sport and out of spite for making polygamy illegal. There's also all kinds of tax implications. Plus, once you have a compound (and I don't know what the deal is with that show, if they're part of a compound) you wind up with a lot of inbreeding. It just happens. And then you have a whole community with a host of special needs children, and now they require even more government assistance. Read Under the Banner of Heaven. It explains it all really well.

Way exaggerated.

[Anonymous]

we as a society have determined marriage to be one man and one woman. no reason to change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From a public policy perspective it is problematic. Firstly, it is often young girls being married off to much older men. Secondly, it leads to a lot of "excess" men that can find brides and are turfed out of the community lest they pose a threat to the lecherous old men...

If you have polygamy, you will have excess men. So what is wrong with that? There are more women than men in society naturally. Also, more gay men means excess women out here.
If the "girls" are 16 or older, it is legal.

until your daughter turns 16 and hooks up with a 47 yo. right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

But why do you care if an 80 year old gets a 16 year old? As long as its not my daughter. Most women won't want that kind of relationship, so many women will leave along with their boyfriends. The clannishness has to do with the taboo nature. If it were more out in the open, there would be better choices for these women. WRT to the lonely young men, they can come out and meet tons of availabel women.

I don't think you get how this works.

The 16 year olds don't have boyfriends. they have been brought up their whole lives to think that there is not choice and that if they disobey they will burn in hell for all eternity. The clannishness is not to do with the taboo nature, it is integral to the whole deal. Do you think these 16 year olds would sign up for this system unless they had been brought up in a very rigid, controlled system? Of course not. The system survives by keeping them ignorant and in fear. Legalisation would do nothing to change that, it would just allow it to become much more prevalent.

Of course I care what happens to 16 year olds that are not my daughter. It is called civilization.