Why is polygamy illegal?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Yes, yes it has been prosecuted. If you are legally married to only one or not legally married to none, you can go to jail for saying that you have more than one wife.

[Anonymous]

I wouldn't mind having another sister wife or two in our marriage. Monogamy or divorce is an outmoded concept. Why should you have to get ride of the tried and true minivan just because you'd like a shiny, newer sportscar to take for a spin on the weekend?

[Anonymous]

OP here. This is all really interesting. I always joke that I want a 2nd husband. It would make more economic sense to have 2 spouses working and one staying home anyways (not that that couldn't happen with two wives).

[Anonymous]

Polygamy might be a good thing in segments of the black community where there aren't many male providers out there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn't mind having another sister wife or two in our marriage. Monogamy or divorce is an outmoded concept. Why should you have to get ride of the tried and true minivan just because you'd like a shiny, newer sportscar to take for a spin on the weekend?

"get rid of" not "get ride of"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sounds like she would probably get screwed in polygamy as well.

[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".

No economic advantage. Plus, it will only take a couple of messy divorces for people to sober up and run from that situation. Polygamy is for people who REALLY believe in that stuff, not to be taken lightly. Polygamists want legitimacy and they want to come out and be accepted. They want to stop the hiding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sounds like she would probably get screwed in polygamy as well.

Except she does not need to leave, she can stay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sounds like she would probably get screwed in polygamy as well.

Except she does not need to leave, she can stay.

If she doesn't consent, then she needs to leave. So she either stays on unhappily, and screwed economically, or she leaves, and gets screwed economically.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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)

Um, they can move on and live their lives. No one is killing them off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You can have an affair and a love nest. That is legal. But when you run around saying that other woman is your wife (like you love her and the religion says you are married), that is illegal if you have another wife.
BTW, you can be charged with bigamy for just saying "I HAVE TWO WIVES" even if you are not legally married to either one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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)

Um, they can move on and live their lives. No one is killing them off.

OP here. FWIW I've read many memoirs and books on polygamy. The boys are ran off at about 14-16 years old, way too young to be cast out. Many do not continue their schooling and live on the streets or sometimes in foster homes. DCUM normally thinks it's cruel when a jobless 22 year old with a college degree isn't supported at home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Polygamy might be a good thing in segments of the black community where there aren't many male providers out there.

You mean white polygamous men marrying balck women?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sounds like she would probably get screwed in polygamy as well.

Except she does not need to leave, she can stay.

If she doesn't consent, then she needs to leave. So she either stays on unhappily, and screwed economically, or she leaves, and gets screwed economically.

But that is what happens all the time in serial monogamy. I know at least two women who are impoverished after their husbands left them for the younger side squeeze.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sounds like she would probably get screwed in polygamy as well.

Except she does not need to leave, she can stay.

If she doesn't consent, then she needs to leave. So she either stays on unhappily, and screwed economically, or she leaves, and gets screwed economically.

But that is what happens all the time in serial monogamy. I know at least two women who are impoverished after their husbands left them for the younger side squeeze.

Exactly my point! Polygamy would not help women or be any better for them than monogamy. In all marriages, the first wife gets screwed.