Why is polygamy illegal?

[Anonymous]

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...

[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!!!

Actually, the sharia law has covered the property/custody issues pretty well, except for the pulling the plug thing. It's one thing to disagree personally with polygamy, but it's incorrect to say that property/inheritance issues can't be sorted out in this context, because they can.

Again, I'm not bringing this up as an example of how things ought to be done, but as how they CAN be done.

Multiple wives and inheritance are covered by sharia law, and I suppose it works okay if a woman is prohibited from working. And if she is properly supported by her family.

http://www.islamicislamic.com/inheritance.htm

In this country, where women do work, we would not import sharia law unchanged (not what we would do in any case).

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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!!!

I think that if it is legalized, as it should be, there would have to be some special procedures like with adoption. Just to make sure that there is no excessive fraud like people marrying 10 old widows to get their money, or people marrying 10 men from another country to get them into the US. Those kinds of things can really cause social harm.
The other issues like life support? For me, I have it written that my sisters have to decide, not my husband. I have 3 sisters and if two want to end it, then so it is. When my daughter is 27, she will be the one to decide. You put these thing sin writing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The main prob,em with polygamy is that many women would flock to successful and desirable and then many men would be stuck alone and they would become social degenerates or just check out from society.

You've got it, PP. Without monogamy, we losers would find it hard to marry and have kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The main prob,em with polygamy is that many women would flock to successful and desirable and then many men would be stuck alone and they would become social degenerates or just check out from society.

You've got it, PP. Without monogamy, we losers would find it hard to marry and have kids.

And as a woman, that is why I am in favor of it. Too many loser men still end up with a wife.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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!!!

Actually, the sharia law has covered the property/custody issues pretty well, except for the pulling the plug thing. It's one thing to disagree personally with polygamy, but it's incorrect to say that property/inheritance issues can't be sorted out in this context, because they can.

Again, I'm not bringing this up as an example of how things ought to be done, but as how they CAN be done.

Multiple wives and inheritance are covered by sharia law, and I suppose it works okay if a woman is prohibited from working. And if she is properly supported by her family.

http://www.islamicislamic.com/inheritance.htm

In this country, where women do work, we would not import sharia law unchanged (not what we would do in any case).

I don't see a relationship at all - under sharia law, women are not obligated to share their income with the family, so whatever they earn remains with them. It doesn't figure into the inheritance.

Furthermore, no forms of sharia prohibit women from working. It may condition her employment on the husband's permission, but it doesn't ban women's employment. I mean, there's lots of bad things about sharia, but treatment of women's money isn't one of them.

[Anonymous]

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"?

[Anonymous]

I don't think it should be and I hope it eventually isn't.

There's no reason consenting adults shouldn't all be able to have the type of marriage they would most prefer, to the partner or partners they wish to marry... the issues mentioned in this thread are all things that would require careful consideration but I don't think they're insurmountable obstacles.

To admit my own bias here, I am a woman currently in a polyamorous relationship (triad). I'd be thrilled to see a time when our love also wins.

[Anonymous]

The simple reason, it's against a majority of christian values. It's a moral crime which are almost always religious based. Similar to sodomy laws which not long ago were still the law of the land in many states.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The simple reason, it's against a majority of christian values. It's a moral crime which are almost always religious based. Similar to sodomy laws which not long ago were still the law of the land in many states.

It is not against Jewish or Islamic values. Middle eastern Jews were practicing polygamy up until the 1940s and European Jews were practicing it until the year 1000AD.
It is not just Christians who have a say.

[Anonymous]

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0003_0_02960.html

[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"?

The traditional definition is gone. I have always wanted to marry my brother, or maybe my father. No arguments to be had with the difficulties of multiple claims to property there. We are consenting adults and we should have all the rights that other married couples have.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The simple reason, it's against a majority of christian values. It's a moral crime which are almost always religious based. Similar to sodomy laws which not long ago were still the law of the land in many states.

It is not against Jewish or Islamic values. Middle eastern Jews were practicing polygamy up until the 1940s and European Jews were practicing it until the year 1000AD.
It is not just Christians who have a say.

Oh I totally agree, but you have to remember who the majority was in the past. That was a big factor in what drove moral laws, the majority religious views.

[Anonymous]

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.