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

So since my marriage takes me out of the gene pool...should my marriage be banned? I mean I'm married to my wife (a woman) but since she's infertile and I'm not getting any from other sources...I'm certainly not adding anything to the gene pool.

 

In my experience the left is more opposed to polygamy than the right, and it's because it instantly brings to mind a bunch of white Mormon people living in Utah. That sets off a lot of red alarms inside the mind of a leftist. 1) white people, 2) religious Christians, and 3) red state. Opposing this is based on mostly spite, as they don't want those people to get what they want, with anything in life. I suspect the left will come around on the issue of polygamy though, when Muslims become a bigger group in the US. They will progress so quickly on the issue that it will appear almost instantaneous. Giving brown people what they want (in exchange for votes) is the left-wing modus operandi.

 

You are only thinking in your narrow context. There is a whole world out there that does not share your "values" and this usually boils down to men taking several different women at young age.

There are others that have issue with this: https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-problems-with-polygamy

 

The problem with that article is that it's only looking at a narrow subset of polygamy. And admittedly it's the unhealthy forms of polygamy they're looking at, but they're not looking at the groups that do live together. They're not looking at the groups who remain faithful within their groups.

This article seems to be pointing out the negative stereotypes of polygamy. They seem to be describing more of the cultish forms of poly.

 

As in my reply in #53 https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-problems-with-polygamy ---there are many problems. What you thinks works for you and yours, isn't always going to work in the real world where so many have jacked-up morals.

As America becomes more multicultural, the poly groups that exist around the world should be studied.

As a conservative, I think the backbone of America should be the traditional nuclear family, not the socialist state.

 

Your experience has been pretty skewed then. I know not a single leftist opposed to polygamy that I have ever talked to. And the only people I've ever talked to that are against it are Rightists.

 

I don't think could have read the article that fast.

Anyway, the long term studies must be done. Otherwise, it's just empty opinion.

 

I fail to see how Poly equals socialism first of all and secondly...

Before people complain about the non-traditional forms of marriage (same-sex, poly, etc) and how they destroy the "Traditional Nuclear Family"...let's see the other things that destroy the "TNF". Things like people on their fifth and sixth spouses, the marriages that don't last as long as my SmartPhone's battery, marriages of convenience (insurance benefits, immigration, etc), and so on and so forth.

 

Dude, wait...what? It's not that long of an article.

 

I'm strongly opposed to all of those.

 

Fair enough. So what's your opinion on my marriage to my wife that I mentioned in response to your previous statement?

 

I can't speak for them. I've only been married once and it's lasted over 26 years.

And what is maximum number of people that a "poly unit" can handle? If as in Hollywood, there are 20 couples with loose rules sleeping with other---how loyal are they going to be?

 

Ah, so you do recognize that there are certain implied legal requirements involved in a marriage. (I was beginning to wonder). However here too we run into problems. Why should the law restrict marriage to be between a man and a woman? Why should the law restrict marriage to be between just two people? Why should the law restrict marriage to involve only those who can provide informed consent? Why should the law look on marriage as a binding contract? You get the idea.

Hey, it's the OP's thread, they can set the rules however they like. Just understand that by dictating where you draw the legal line, you make any question about where to draw the legal line a bit pointless. Or so it would seem to me...

 

At least you've glanced at it. Very well.

 

Polygamy isn't biased against women it's biased against men. It provents average men from getting a wife.

You dudes who think you'd thrive in polygamy would quickly learn that charm and charisma mean nothing compared to money, as the richest men would horde the quality females.

This reason is why Christianity caught on so fast, it guaranteed that men get wives.

 

There's no maximum number, but what you describe is more of an open relationship or swinging where it is agreed in a relationship that sleeping around is permitted. And really you have to define what loyalty is and what it means to the people involved. Loyalty in a monogamous pairing could mean that sleeping with another is permitted under mutually agreed upon conditions...say indulging the other's desire for a threesome or allowing a spouse to seek sexual pleasure when the other is indisposed and/or unavailable, provided it's all done above board. It could also be the other way where once the agreement is made...there is no seeking such from anyone else under any conditions as long as the relationship remains intact.

It really depends on the people involved.

And in a poly group...the same applies. For some it's the one extreme of "once in the group you keep it in the group". For others it's "no limits". Generally any poly group finds it's place somewhere on that spectrum.

 

Well ... throughout human history, marriage was defined as a relationship between a man and a woman. After all, that is how our anatomy works and it is how we guarantee the continuation of our species.

Then, in the last 50 years, we've moved toward marriage being simply between any two consenting (gay) adults. Tradition was discarded. The seal was broken.

Now the debate will shift (has shifted) to polygamy. If we allow marriage to be between any two adults, what stops us from expanding that to three adults? Or six adults?

And if we're talking about "consenting adults", isn't it discriminatory to prohibit brother-sister marriages? And mother-son marriages?

What about the age of consent? 17 or 18 is arbitrary. Some people mature earlier than that. Some people are mature enough to handle sexual situations at 13 or 14.

We're wrong to think the marriage issue is resolved. It's really just beginning. Remember: supporters of gay marriage said we can't make something illegal just because it's "icky".

 

No...I read it. It's not that long of an article. You're making it sound like it's my sister's doctoral thesis or something. CNN posts longer articles than that on asinine subjects like cat memes on a regular basis.

 

Now those are good points. How far do we allow it to go? Where are the lines going to be drawn? This is one of the many reasons that a lot of folks in the polyamory community don't bother with pushing for legalization of multiple party marriages.

It would however be nice if the laws would allow for civil unions so you can have transferral of assets to surviving members, visitation of a non-married partner in a hospital, etc. This is why this can't be shoved through without careful consideration.

 

Marriage has a 50% failure rate, with many who remain married, miserable. As one soon-to-retire peer once said, "Why give up half your stuff at this age?"

So the evidence shows that the majority of marriages fail.

I saw one young lady and asked how she feels about marriage. "My parents are divorced. My grandparents are all divorced. And they all hate each other. Why would I want to get married?", she replied.

Historically, life was far more difficult. Marriages were based on need more than love. In fact the notion of romantic love is a fairly recent concept.

Having barely survived a horrible marriage, and I mean that literally, I am completely open to alternative lifestyles. We each have a right to the pursuit of happiness in our own way.

I saw my first sugar baby for three years. I fell madly in love and they were the three best years of my life. When the time came for me to let her go, I moved on and after two years seem to have found another wonderful young lady. It took a lot of work and over 110 coffee dates, but after the first, I firmly believed I could find someone special again.

Moral of the story: I only found happiness when I threw out everything I believed, and broke all the rules. I see no evidence that conventional lifestyles are the only ones that work.

 

He probably would have been better off to say, "these are what I consider illegitimate reasons". Although for purposes of the law, the first one was spot on.

 

The first two questions are valid, and the answers are "we shouldn't". The second two questions are idiotic.

 

Huh? Where did that come from?

 

Meh, Ill answer the same i do to folks who wanna restrict same sex and cross-special marriages: its mostly just an obsession with tradition, resistance to change and a need to feel moral by forcing others to be 'moral' with laws(a decidedly Immoral act imo, far worse than orgies, butt-sex or sheep-sex could ever be considered). But, fundamentally, its just a resistance to the idea that sex may not be as sacred as some of us require it to be, and a resistance to the idea that someone being 'disgusting' in the privacy if their home doesnt actually hurt anyone who isnt there.

The 'Meh' is because marriage is just a legal contract between you, your 'spouse' and the state. Its entirely unnecessary. Just profess your love for and desire to commit to whomever or whatever will reciprocate, contract everything else (like property sharing, insurance, emergency contacts) through extramarital legal means, and get the state out of your family. Just cuz the state doesnt say ur married doesnt mean ur not wed, betrothed, or a family. F**k the state and do it anyway.

 

I can barley satisfy the one woman I have, I couldn't possibly handle many of them.