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?

Seriously? Marriage is a contract with shared benefits and responsibilities. The wife's share of the family property, retirement, and assets would be jeopardized, as would her children's share of support from the father, if he can just keep adding more wives and children. In most of these cases, the women do not earn much income on their own and are dependent on their husbands. The wives are only getting married once. It is the husbands who have multiple marriages.

If you're inclined to be a polygamist and believe it to be so wonderful then have at it. I'm sure there's no shortage of Fundamentalist LDS groups that would be happy to have you. This isn't a pressing civil rights issue, much less even on anyone's radar screen. The country has serious issues that need to be addressed. This is not one of them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The concept of a bride as merchandise is old and not unique to polygamy. This has been the way of the world for centuries. It took many forms in different societies. Why do you think American brides' parents are still expected to pay for their daughters' white weddings?

Repression and illegal activities are separate from decisions made by capable adults, so this argument doesn't hold water.

It does in practice because overwhelmingly polygamy is practiced against underaged and undereducated women. It's not practiced -- as a pp said -- to allow four men or four women to marry each other. It's forced upon young impoverished women with few opportunities for economic freedom to perpetuate inequality.

Your intellectual dishonesty doesn't hold water.

Not really, most second wives (in Gulf countries) are youngish divorcees.

But if you have data to prove your claim that it's "overwhelmingly" practiced against the underaged and the under-educated, then by all means, post the link.

Most grownups on this forum can Google all by themselves, but here are a few links:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/case-against-polygamy/397823/

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MurUEJL/2005/2.html#Heading411

http://womennewsnetwork.net/2011/07/27/polygamy-poverty-women-africa/

http://jezebel.com/5596483/when-it-comes-to-polygamy-maybe-women-arent-the-only-losers

Not sure about the articles about women in Africa. My sense is that even in the monogamous marriages in some places there, women's rights are non existent. So, it seems like they are comparing two unlike societies.
The argument about men not getting their fair share in mates is exactly why I favor polygamy. The balance right now favors men being jerks because there are too many eligible women. I have countless female friends who can not find a husband. The only way to correct that is have men do the serial monogamy thing and have women take their turn, or allow polygamy. It is high time that these loser men get a fire under their butts and work hard to get a woman's attention.
The fears raised in these articles are silly. Most women prefer the attention they would get from a man in a monogamous relationship, so they will choose that. But a few men will be able to get more than one wife, which shifts the ratio perhaps in favor of women. Men will simply have to behave themselves to get a woman. Less of this unemployed, abusive nonsense that I see going on with my friends' husbands. Women are often scared that they end up with no one...because it can happen. Maybe men should take a turn with that situation?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The concept of a bride as merchandise is old and not unique to polygamy. This has been the way of the world for centuries. It took many forms in different societies. Why do you think American brides' parents are still expected to pay for their daughters' white weddings?

Repression and illegal activities are separate from decisions made by capable adults, so this argument doesn't hold water.

It does in practice because overwhelmingly polygamy is practiced against underaged and undereducated women. It's not practiced -- as a pp said -- to allow four men or four women to marry each other. It's forced upon young impoverished women with few opportunities for economic freedom to perpetuate inequality.

Your intellectual dishonesty doesn't hold water.

Not really, most second wives (in Gulf countries) are youngish divorcees.

But if you have data to prove your claim that it's "overwhelmingly" practiced against the underaged and the under-educated, then by all means, post the link.

Not a very flattering picture of polygamy that is being painted. Youngish, either divorced (their husbands divorced them, rather than having divorced their husbands) or from a position of unequal power.

This is why I don't think it will catch on big here. Men might have a fantasy of three pretty young women to come home to...not. The best , most eligible women won't go for that. It will be a move of desperation for many women. But for many women with few options, it might be the best they can do. I'm not worried, legalize it.

Polygamy is an exception, not the rule, even in countries where it's legal, because of simple economics and demographic rules. Only a few men can afford to maintain several households, and most women with options do not find polygamy appealing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The concept of a bride as merchandise is old and not unique to polygamy. This has been the way of the world for centuries. It took many forms in different societies. Why do you think American brides' parents are still expected to pay for their daughters' white weddings?

Repression and illegal activities are separate from decisions made by capable adults, so this argument doesn't hold water.

It does in practice because overwhelmingly polygamy is practiced against underaged and undereducated women. It's not practiced -- as a pp said -- to allow four men or four women to marry each other. It's forced upon young impoverished women with few opportunities for economic freedom to perpetuate inequality.

Your intellectual dishonesty doesn't hold water.

Not really, most second wives (in Gulf countries) are youngish divorcees.

But if you have data to prove your claim that it's "overwhelmingly" practiced against the underaged and the under-educated, then by all means, post the link.

Not a very flattering picture of polygamy that is being painted. Youngish, either divorced (their husbands divorced them, rather than having divorced their husbands) or from a position of unequal power.

This is why I don't think it will catch on big here. Men might have a fantasy of three pretty young women to come home to...not. The best , most eligible women won't go for that. It will be a move of desperation for many women. But for many women with few options, it might be the best they can do. I'm not worried, legalize it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The concept of a bride as merchandise is old and not unique to polygamy. This has been the way of the world for centuries. It took many forms in different societies. Why do you think American brides' parents are still expected to pay for their daughters' white weddings?

Repression and illegal activities are separate from decisions made by capable adults, so this argument doesn't hold water.

It does in practice because overwhelmingly polygamy is practiced against underaged and undereducated women. It's not practiced -- as a pp said -- to allow four men or four women to marry each other. It's forced upon young impoverished women with few opportunities for economic freedom to perpetuate inequality.

Your intellectual dishonesty doesn't hold water.

Not really, most second wives (in Gulf countries) are youngish divorcees.

But if you have data to prove your claim that it's "overwhelmingly" practiced against the underaged and the under-educated, then by all means, post the link.

Most grownups on this forum can Google all by themselves, but here are a few links:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/case-against-polygamy/397823/

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MurUEJL/2005/2.html#Heading411

http://womennewsnetwork.net/2011/07/27/polygamy-poverty-women-africa/

http://jezebel.com/5596483/when-it-comes-to-polygamy-maybe-women-arent-the-only-losers

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.

It sounds like she doesn't have a choice. HE can choose another wife and SHE can either stay or leave, jeopardizing her kids' economic standing. That's not a choice. That's a threat.

OK< but what is the difference? If the man wants to leave, he will, monogamy or not. The only way to protect first wife in either situation, is to have a consistent way of making sure that her rights are preserved. The laws would have to be written as such. From what I know, things are getting worse for women in divorces. These short alimony terms like rehabilitative alimony make no sense. They put a 55 year old woman out there to get through school in 4 years, then find a job, and accrue assets right before retirement? It is a financial slam right now. Don't fool yourself, years ago when women got half and alimony for life, then we could talk fair.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The concept of a bride as merchandise is old and not unique to polygamy. This has been the way of the world for centuries. It took many forms in different societies. Why do you think American brides' parents are still expected to pay for their daughters' white weddings?

Repression and illegal activities are separate from decisions made by capable adults, so this argument doesn't hold water.

It does in practice because overwhelmingly polygamy is practiced against underaged and undereducated women. It's not practiced -- as a pp said -- to allow four men or four women to marry each other. It's forced upon young impoverished women with few opportunities for economic freedom to perpetuate inequality.

Your intellectual dishonesty doesn't hold water.

Not really, most second wives (in Gulf countries) are youngish divorcees.

But if you have data to prove your claim that it's "overwhelmingly" practiced against the underaged and the under-educated, then by all means, post the link.

Not a very flattering picture of polygamy that is being painted. Youngish, either divorced (their husbands divorced them, rather than having divorced their husbands) or from a position of unequal power.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The concept of a bride as merchandise is old and not unique to polygamy. This has been the way of the world for centuries. It took many forms in different societies. Why do you think American brides' parents are still expected to pay for their daughters' white weddings?

Repression and illegal activities are separate from decisions made by capable adults, so this argument doesn't hold water.

It does in practice because overwhelmingly polygamy is practiced against underaged and undereducated women. It's not practiced -- as a pp said -- to allow four men or four women to marry each other. It's forced upon young impoverished women with few opportunities for economic freedom to perpetuate inequality.

Your intellectual dishonesty doesn't hold water.

Not really, most second wives (in Gulf countries) are youngish divorcees.

But if you have data to prove your claim that it's "overwhelmingly" practiced against the underaged and the under-educated, then by all means, post the link.

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.

It sounds like she doesn't have a choice. HE can choose another wife and SHE can either stay or leave, jeopardizing her kids' economic standing. That's not a choice. That's a threat.

Anonymous wrote:

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"

Would you mind having a brother husband?

Anonymous wrote:The concept of a bride as merchandise is old and not unique to polygamy. This has been the way of the world for centuries. It took many forms in different societies. Why do you think American brides' parents are still expected to pay for their daughters' white weddings?

Repression and illegal activities are separate from decisions made by capable adults, so this argument doesn't hold water.

It does in practice because overwhelmingly polygamy is practiced against underaged and undereducated women. It's not practiced -- as a pp said -- to allow four men or four women to marry each other. It's forced upon young impoverished women with few opportunities for economic freedom to perpetuate inequality.

Your intellectual dishonesty doesn't hold water.

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?

In countries where polygamy is legal, you wouldn't be getting a shiny, newer sportscar. In the hierarchy of the marriage market, monogamous marriages top the list. In my husband's country, where polygamy is legal, pretty, young, educated virgin girls do not usually become second wives because it's not good enough for them. If the second wife is young and pretty, she's usually from a poorer family. The second wife is typically younger than the first, but not the rose in her first bloom of youth - typically a younger divorcee with kids. Pretty young girls with good marriage prospects don't usually become second wives because they don't have to.

BTW, there is talk of challenging (among other things) the constitutionality of a man (or woman) not being able to SAY that they have more than one spouse.
It gets into freedom of speech issues.
I hope thatthe polygamists can present their arguments in a clear and calm way to get legislation changed.
Illegal plural marriage is truly a violation of their rights.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What you are forgetting is that the imbalance of suitable men to women makes it so that in the present sytem, some women either get no husband, or they are one wife in a series. Let the women pick which lifestyle they prefer. The nice thing about polygamy is that it opens up choices for women. More available suitable men, more options.