Why is polygamy illegal?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So a spouse is considered unrelated? Good to know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So a spouse is considered unrelated? Good to know.

Another spouse of your spouse is not related to you, no.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So a spouse is considered unrelated? Good to know.

Another spouse of your spouse is not related to you, no.

The abuse risk is real. That is why many families who live like this try to have SEPARATE households for each wife.

[Anonymous]

Sick, sick, sick.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sick, sick, sick.

why, why, why?

[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!

Have you asked your DH yet?

How does he feel about the idea?

[Anonymous]

There's probably a lot less abuse in southeast Utah hamlets than in Southeast DC.

[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 about some of the documented gay recruitment of minors?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I could just start a cult that says that by my religion I am more than one person and therefore be entitled to benefits for more than one person...

Yes. Look how some blokes made up Kwanza as a supposedly religious, cultural holiday.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It won't be for long. there is no legal basis for saying the old right to "one man one woman" marriage also includes "two men" but not "one man, two women," etc. Anti polygamy laws will be struck down on constitutional grounds soon enough.

Disagree. Who decides whether to pull the plug if you are on life support?

If there's multiple husbands, who is assumed to be the father?

If one party exits the polygamous marriage after a few years, how do you allocate his/her portion of the marital property?

Nope, marriage is a legal construct between two individuals. We don't care about what's in their pants. But we do have to limit it to two parties.

Want more than that, start a corporation. Then you'll all be one person!!!

If marriage is just a legal construct, then why should it be limited to two parties? We've already dispensed with the traditional definition, so limiting marriage to two people is just as arbitrary as limiting marriage to a man and woman.

Face it, the gay marriage crowd rendered the word marriage essentially meaningless and opened the door to legalized polygamy. It's funny to watch them run away from it. Shouldn't "love win"?

Only if someone share's their liberal cultural and political values. They associate polygamy with a conservative, breakaway sect of Mormonism and therefore oppose it.

[Anonymous]

When you think about it, isn't a polygamous heteosexual relationship more "natural" than male on male buggery?

[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 about some of the documented gay recruitment of minors?

Not to mention the gay pedophiles roaming our schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here, but how is it prosecuted? Only one woman is legally married.

OP, I have said this before: In the USA it is ILLEGAL to SAY that you have more than one wife. If you ever say that, you can be prosecuted.

You can have affairs and so on, even a concubine, but you can't call that other woman your wife. So, in a way, they prosecute the ones who are in love and want to legitimize their relationship in some way. So especially for the religious ones, it is illegal.

I'm not sure what will happen if someone wants a husband and a wife though.

Isn't the bigger problem the guys who say they have no wife when they do?!

[Anonymous]

How does the Utah joke go?: Marriage is between a man and a woman... and a woman and a woman....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So a spouse is considered unrelated? Good to know.

Another spouse of your spouse is not related to you, no.

The abuse risk is real. That is why many families who live like this try to have SEPARATE households for each wife.

Sure there's always a risk factor. Question is, is the risk that much more significantly higher one needs to worry about it? I'm betting it isn't. For if it were, you would never have "unrelated" people over to your house. And you certainly wouldn't have any "unrelated" persons stay over. No friends can come over, no "unrelated" family members like sister/brother, in-laws, certainly no renters or strangers. How about cousins, 2nd cousins, half brothers, .....

How deep does your paranoia run????