Can anyone name a single legitimate reason why polygamy is illegal?

You still need to show where these poly families would produce more together then separate. For example, how would my family of 4 adults necessarily produce more kids than if we were still two separate couples?

First off if anyone tellls you that a poly marriage is just one relationship is either lying or ignorant. It is usually, but not always, a single household. A trio has 4 relationships; A and B, A and C, B and C and all three. The number of relationshipsjust increases from there.

Secondly, don't ever assume that taking care of the household, especiallly if there are children, as not being productive. The way this all reads you have a rather specific, and unrealistic, concept of what qualifies as "productive"

 

Not sure how any of this is related to what I wrote.

All objective reasoning of moral questions ultimately leads to the matter of extinction. But my point was about loss of genetic diversity.

 

No. But neither do 13 year old girls. Yet the latter are allowed to marry within a good many states (for instance, New Hampshire) with certain extenuating factors (for instance, in New Hampshire, approval of an adult guardian and a sitting judge).

 

Polygamy sets up a situation wherein the wives inevitably resent each other for what they see as stealing the man's attentions, and the man for giving attention to other women that they see as rightfully belonging to them; and since such resentment produces nothing but frustration as applied to the other adults in the arrangement, those women will inevitably seek relief by venting that resentment on the children.

QED.

 

You made assumptions about what would cause said loss of genetic diversity, without anything to support that such were the only actions to be taken. Such as the men would only try to impregnate their wife. The way you wrote the example,it implies that these are the only people who are available to repopulate. Thus, even while having 5men eachmarried to a single woman, getting the other single women pregnant would be on the table, and even necessary for repopulation.

 

You are making assumptions again based upon those groups where the women are not given a choice on the form poly takes. Those of outside of the Muslim/FLDS groupings form groups that consist not only of the single male multiple women, but also single woman multiple men and multiple men and women. When you throw in various sexual orientations, then you have even less predictability on such things. And more modern poly units (non-cultist types) tend to make sure anyone new they want to bring in are aware of potential problems. Doesn't mean problems or jealousy won't arise, just that it's not coming from it of the blue.

 

You were smoothly sailing until you fired shots at Mormons.

You chose to discuss a tiny sect of Americans, whom seem to get the only credit for being Mormons, as if this applies to the millions of us who do not agree we get to marry more than a wife at the same time.

I can't tell you about the sect. I can tell you about the LDS (Mormons that I am a part of) and we do not marry over one woman per the law.

As with most things in life, one has adjusted to the fashion they live at. Were we to erect African villages inside the USA with thatched roofs, it is doubtful that as a community they would attract many. Point being is the alleged Mormons that marry multiple women live a cloistered life where they plan not to be bothered. They are not set up for outsiders. We LDS are set up for outsiders. Visit Salt Lake city and if you wish to live there, you are welcome.

Not so for those tiny sects.

This is how I understand it when Young arrived at Salt Lake Valley. Due to the losses of the men on the trip to the area, you had women who had children and they lost their husbands. Rather than dump the women to some area and let them fend for themselves, the males who were able to would not live in sin with the females, but invited them to be married so the family had lawful standing. Then in the USA, polygamy was legal.

Around 1890 the USA passed an anti polygamy law and then the church abandoned this rite. And when they did, it made a small group upset. They took off and settled in other areas and decided they had the true belief.

But LDS was not founded to promote polygamy. It did not practice this until Brigham Young who came along after Joseph Smith got killed.

 

I am a LDS or Mormon. I too see the off-shoot groups calling themselves Mormons as members of a cult.

Not just for polygamy but because as I understand them, they operate as in allegiance to the local leadership.

We have our Bishop over each ward but do not see him as a special person. He is not paid for what he does.

What about polygamy? I see it as a freedom matter. If the parties wish such an arrangement, i say it is not my call to stop them.

To the men How would you like to have to keep track of all those birthdays and days you got married? Ugh, not me.

 

I have no idea of the true figures, but a large group of men and their wives manage to do what they call as swing. They manage marriage and have sex with many other partners. Some men seek out men to have sex with their own wives.

I see no laws saying that is illegal. I would be open to reading a law.

 

Is polygamy in and of itself harmful? If so, how?

 

The process of babymaking and care can be a serious impediment for all but the most capable and healthy women [which is one reason why the draft for women, if implemented, could lead to greater inequality]. There is no reason why our laws should be cast so only that lucky group has coverage.

 

Slippery slope = logical fallacy. What harm does polygamy in and of itself cause anyone?

 

How so?

A 50% divorce rate in a Christian majority nation is what is destroying the nuclear family.

Source citation needed for the above claim.

How so?

So polygamy would all but eliminate the traditional family? Again I think our high divorce rate is doing that already.

Polygamy in Islam does not define polygamy in general.

 

The main problem I see is more pragmatic than ideological or moral. It will just create a big confusion in the law. Brand new laws will have to be created to cope with everything from taxation to divorce to inheritance. Brand new laws for something completely alien to our cultural history.

Ethically I can't see an issue particular to polygamy.

 

I will elaborate.....admittedly this is a subjective opinion but my experience in life verifies the truth in it.
One man, one women is the absolute best combination for nurturing children and deepening affection between the two. It does take work and persistence in any case. To the relationship the tendency is for the woman to exemplify the soft side of love. That would be nurturing, consoling as well as protection. To the relationship the man tends to bring the Hard side of love. That would be responsibility, teaching to provide, discipline guidance as well as protection. I realize within every man and women, these qualities vary to different degrees, but I go out on a limb and make these assumptions. It is very delicate how these qualities inter mesh....but when they do, they usually produce a very good outcome. In today's so called "evolving culture" it has become more difficult due to the teachings that "science " does not dictate the sex of an individual but rather the persons "feelings" on any particular day. To compound that is the notion that "multiple partners" might produce happy relationships. Every man, in his deepest recesses, probably "fantasizes" the possibilities of "multiple partners". Most usually it is for selfish and carnal reasoning. A focus on multiple women who mother multiple children is more than any one individual could handle. Jealousies are prone to develop. A lack of attention given to certain wives and children who lack favor will most certainly develop.
I am not aware of the existence of women that desire multiple husbands but I am sure if she did, they would have to be a little confused about their own sexuality.
So I have shared my subjective opinion and will most likely endure all the accusations of being "homophobic, misogynist, chauvinistic, racist, Islamophobic and any other identity the light in the loafers left wants to throw my way. It's o.k. though.....

 

I tend to agree....a 50% divorce rate among those that join the Christian club is inexcusable. I will maintain, however, among true followers of Jesus, it is abundantly lower.

 

This is such a BS argument. There are lawsuits involving multiple parties all the time. To claim that because the lawsuit involved a marriage contract it makes it impossible to handle under the current system is to say the current system is completely inept.

The current tax system would work just fine Only 2 members of the marriage would be allowed to file jointly. That's how it already is. The real reason for polygamist seeking legal recognition isn't added tax benefits, it's the right to name each other as beneficiaries on insurance and for social security. I have a friend who has two wives. His first wife (his legal one) has a illness that will probably cause her death. He has cancer himself. Under the laws of our state, they aren't allowed to name his second wife as a beneficiary for their social security and life insurance so when they die, which will likely happen in the next couple years, she is left with nothing.

 

No, an important part of the marriage contract is the protection of those in the marriage from eventualities related to dissolution.

One spouse can't take the money and run. The spouses have rights to the children. Etc.

These are key areas of resolving dissolution - which is the result of a distressingly large percent of marriages.

Third parties unnamed in the relationship would not have such protection under current marriage law. And, that's one of the prime places where plural marriage fails.

 

nope, it should be legal

 

About the same really unless you're more concerned with use of the English language over the topic in question.
People shag as part of the breeding process and that the main reasons men and women have relationships.
I don't see the slightest issue in a man taking multiple wives as long as the ladies are happy with the arrangement.
My last night of multi partner fun was unexpected and 100% down the the ladies as I had no idea they were planning the evening. I had assumed the lady I was seeing at the time intended the two of us stay at the hotel so I was quite surprised when the second turned up. They were friends but I'd only met the second on the odd occasion and there had been no previous sexual activity. The actual girlfriend and I had been active on two continents over a couple of years but our relationship was open at least for me as I had other women at the time and she knew about it.
The thing between us could easily have developed into something more serious, and that could just as easily have included her friend.
Another was in the press a short while ago where two sisters were living with one man, no issue as it worked for them.

I see no reasonable restriction to such a relationship and I would have been fine with the situation had it developed into a long term thing with the two Chinese ladies and I all living together.
They were both very nice and we all got on very well.

Question is, why would anyone object to such a thing?

 

My only assumption was that we were talking about polygamy. Promiscuity is a different matter.

 

OK then. Anyone. Happy?

There can be many advantages to plural marriage. Caring for children, sharing expenses, sharing household labor, expanded support systems among others.

Slavery? The difference is that you enter marriage voluntarily and can quit being a spouse. The definition of slavery is that entry into is INVOLUNTARY and exit is most always at death.

This is not a moral question as long as the people entering into the arrangement are of age, capable, and willing.

 

It cheapens marriage, just like gay marriage did.

If marriage can be applied to any combination of human relationship (man-man, man-woman-woman, man-man-man-man, man-girl, woman-boy-boy, etc.) then it means nothing.

 

1) it confuses a child to see his father not loving his mother

Who says the father doesn't love the mother? You make assumptions with no factual basis.

Two) it's a slippery slope leading to any definition of marriage

No, it's not. It is "traditional" marriage dating back 6000 years.

Three) it leaves a lot of men without wives and families

And? Those men have no "right" to a woman.

Four) it divides the resources of the father too much

Again, you make assumptions with no factual information to back them.

Five) it diminishes women when they are not entitled to the exclusive love and attention of their spouse

Says who? The guy who believes a man is entitled to a woman?

If people of age, who are capable, and willing evaluate this option and decide it is best for them who are you to say otherwise?

 

l
Love is usually defined as one on one because sex is one on one, anyone would see the norm, and feel diminished by a one on eight situation. Many male animals roam around having random sex with no pair bond formed which deprives mother and child of emotional and physical support. Polygamy is more animalistic than human. Humans require a lot more time, attention and education. Our prisons are filled with boys looking for their fathers. In fact, our most successful minorities ( Jews and Japanese) have very few children knowing that each child requires tremendous resources if they are to be successful.