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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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".

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.

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?

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?