Why is polygamy illegal?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

It doesn't have to be. Monogamous marriages are treated this way in some countries, but we all know that monogamous marriage doesn't have to be that way. I think it should be legal. Also, marriages of 3 men. Marriages of 3 women. I think

* that there should be universal health care, so no company has to deal with the insurance implications
* hospital visitation, etc for all in the "marriage" contract
* all names go onto birth certificates, and all are responsible for child care in case of divorce
* in case of death without a will, money is divided equally amoung all in the contract and all children
* of course no entering into the contract for a cash fee to parents (which is also illegal for monogamous marriages?)

I think with these rules there is no reason it shouldn't be a civilized interaction.

I don't know why you are interpreting polygamy as a contract between all participants. It totally doesn't have to be. It should be multiple contracts between couples. What do I have to do with someone else's children? If the man wants to marry more than one, that's between him and the other woman. They have their own contract, their own children, and their own custody and childcare arrangements. It's not the business of other wives/husbands.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^
Ironically, 7:54 pointed out a big fallacy in the polygamy argument: it's not polyandry. It's polygyny.

And I'm sure the "polygamy" advocates would freak out royally if the "polygamy" deal were to include a gay wedding of four men.

Yes, Mr. Mormon Baker, I'd like to order a wedding cake with four grooms on it please! Heads would explode!

Still OK with that. What would control that is there is no advantage to that relationship to the participants, so it would be rare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

PP was talking about prosecution. Polygamy may be illegal to talk (?) about, but it is certainly not prosecuted. If it was, all those TV show people would be in jail now

It has been prosecuted. Usually when they get the man on another crime, they throw in the BIGAMY laws and top off the sentence with that. If they want to bring someone in and they don't have enough evidence in another crime, they use the bigamy laws.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As the Chief Justice suggested, the constitutional and other legal arguments for gay marriage apply as much to polygamy. The notion that anti-polygamy laws are needed to protect women under the age of consent is no more valid than suggesting that legalizing sodomy and gay relationships would encourage homosexual pedophilia. There might be public policy benefits to legalizing polygamy, particularly in areas or social groups where there are fewer suitable male partners.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^
Ironically, 7:54 pointed out a big fallacy in the polygamy argument: it's not polyandry. It's polygyny.

And I'm sure the "polygamy" advocates would freak out royally if the "polygamy" deal were to include a gay wedding of four men.

Yes, Mr. Mormon Baker, I'd like to order a wedding cake with four grooms on it please! Heads would explode!

Still OK with that. What would control that is there is no advantage to that relationship to the participants, so it would be rare.

No advantage to that relationship to the participants? Are you advocating for polygamy purely for economic reasons? I thought polygamists were arguing about "love".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As the Chief Justice suggested, the constitutional and other legal arguments for gay marriage apply as much to polygamy. The notion that anti-polygamy laws are needed to protect women under the age of consent is no more valid than suggesting that legalizing sodomy and gay relationships would encourage homosexual pedophilia. There might be public policy benefits to legalizing polygamy, particularly in areas or social groups where there are fewer suitable male partners.

Bingo, ITA

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

PP was talking about prosecution. Polygamy may be illegal to talk (?) about, but it is certainly not prosecuted. If it was, all those TV show people would be in jail now

It has been prosecuted. Usually when they get the man on another crime, they throw in the BIGAMY laws and top off the sentence with that. If they want to bring someone in and they don't have enough evidence in another crime, they use the bigamy laws.

but how is it bigamy if there's only one legal marriage? Bigamists have hid their marriages normally from the wives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^
Ironically, 7:54 pointed out a big fallacy in the polygamy argument: it's not polyandry. It's polygyny.

And I'm sure the "polygamy" advocates would freak out royally if the "polygamy" deal were to include a gay wedding of four men.

Yes, Mr. Mormon Baker, I'd like to order a wedding cake with four grooms on it please! Heads would explode!

Still OK with that. What would control that is there is no advantage to that relationship to the participants, so it would be rare.

No advantage to that relationship to the participants? Are you advocating for polygamy purely for economic reasons? I thought polygamists were arguing about "love".

Actually polygamists normally argue religion. That they are saving more people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

PP was talking about prosecution. Polygamy may be illegal to talk (?) about, but it is certainly not prosecuted. If it was, all those TV show people would be in jail now

It has been prosecuted. Usually when they get the man on another crime, they throw in the BIGAMY laws and top off the sentence with that. If they want to bring someone in and they don't have enough evidence in another crime, they use the bigamy laws.

Don't you have to be legally married to be considered a bigamist? Has calling another woman your wife been actually prosecuted?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^
Ironically, 7:54 pointed out a big fallacy in the polygamy argument: it's not polyandry. It's polygyny.

And I'm sure the "polygamy" advocates would freak out royally if the "polygamy" deal were to include a gay wedding of four men.

Yes, Mr. Mormon Baker, I'd like to order a wedding cake with four grooms on it please! Heads would explode!

Still OK with that. What would control that is there is no advantage to that relationship to the participants, so it would be rare.

No advantage to that relationship to the participants? Are you advocating for polygamy purely for economic reasons? I thought polygamists were arguing about "love".

Actually polygamists normally argue religion. That they are saving more people.

Except for the lost boys that are discarded. They aren't saved.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_boys_(Mormon_fundamentalism)

[Anonymous]

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?

[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.

Please address property rights, inheritance, benefits to spouse and children, etc. How would these be legally revised?

I don't have any particular expertise to make specific suggestions, but there is little doubt in my mind that laws and regulations could be adjusted to address the particulars of polygamous/polyandrous marriages - including to protect the rights of individual spouses in such an arrangement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: )?

It doesn't have to be. Monogamous marriages are treated this way in some countries, but we all know that monogamous marriage doesn't have to be that way. I think it should be legal. Also, marriages of 3 men. Marriages of 3 women. I think

* that there should be universal health care, so no company has to deal with the insurance implications
* hospital visitation, etc for all in the "marriage" contract
* all names go onto birth certificates, and all are responsible for child care in case of divorce
* in case of death without a will, money is divided equally amoung all in the contract and all children
* of course no entering into the contract for a cash fee to parents (which is also illegal for monogamous marriages?)

I think with these rules there is no reason it shouldn't be a civilized interaction.

I am pro legalization, and researched this in an amature way extensively.
I hope everyone knows that you don't have to have your spouse as your medical POA, these people can choose anyone to be that person and put it in writing. My spouse is not my medical POA.
The names on the birth certifiacte should be the bio parents. These families do NOT see all the mothers as one. Each mother takes care of her kids. What I have read is that it is a myth that they share childcare and laundry. The goal is separate houses.
Wills or trusts should be mandatory.
If it was legalized, these people would be less elusive and hidden, so less craziness. They would be able to be out getting regular jobs, sending their kids to regular schools. Better economic situation at home, hence more happiness.
I have come to the conclusion that the only way to handle these cases is on an individual family basis where each family would have to apply and go before a judge, like adoption, to explain what they are doing. Then they would be granted permission to marry after it is clear that there is no fraud involved. I know this would not be "fair" in that other marriages aren't handled the same way, but polygamy (polyandry, polygyny) is a set up for fraud. As I mentioned earlier, predatory marriages of the elderly to gain assets, or marriages for immigration.

[Anonymous]

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.