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

I don't think that there is anyone out there making the argument that polygamy is something that society as a whole has to accept. Now I have taken that statement of yours as meaning that society as a whole has to engage in it. But that is not the (eventual) goal. In that sense, there is no form of marriage that society should need to accept. However, having the form available as a legal option is not the same as having to accept it. Otherwise you could then say that society as a whole has to accept Wicca since that is a legally available choice of religion.

Since abuse of the same types exist in monogamous relationships in a not insignificant proportion of cases, it's as easy to argue that monogamous marriage should not be allowed. This is before we look at the fact that most studies have been done based upon the FLDS and/or past practices of those who treat women as chattel regardless of monogamy or polygamy. That's skewed data.

Actually no, that has not been my argument or position. While I do believe that we should, eventually at least, make this form legally available, there is no right to it as there is to interracial and same sex marriages, as a legal institution. There is however a right to it as a religious or social institution that does not require a legal recognition for legal benefits. IOW, my marriage, for example, should never be subject to legal consequences since it does not seek to obtain legal recognition and the associated legal benefits. Most of my counter arguments are based upon bad arguments and premises for why polygamy should be or should remain banned. For example, the common argument of how polygamy is abusive to women. That is a bad argument because it is not true in and of itself. It may be true that there are groups who practice polygamy(usually polygyny) who are also abusive, but to try to use that as a claim that polygamy is abusive is a correlation/causation fallacy.

With both interracial and same sex marriages, both of those forms were denied based upon already protected statuses; race and sex respectively. SSM was not denied on sexual orientation, because, as I pointed out just above, if orientation was the only factor, then a straight man could still marry a straight man in the legal form since their orientation was of the "accepted" type. Therefore it has to be about the sex of the two people. The problem is that the law does not require that love be a reason for marriage, but too many people, especially opponents of any given type, assume love and sex are going to be an automatic part of a legal marriage. But given that there is no such requirement people can get, and have gotten, married purely for the legal benefits.

The one problem with this argument is that if everyone is allowed to have multiple spouses, then they are not additional rights. They are equal rights. A right exists even if one does not choose to exercise it. For example, my right to bear arms (leaving aside the whole gun control issue for the moment). Simply because I do not choose to get a gun, does not mean that I do not have equal rights with regards to bearing arms. Likewise, choosing not to have more than one spouse does not deprive one of having equal rights with those who do choose to exercise their ability to have more than one spouse. Look at it this way. When SSM was made legal, I gained the right to marry another man legally. Homosexuals do not have an additional right to marry their same sex. That right was granted to all of us, whether we choose to exercise it or not.

I no more deny the abusive realistic examples within polygamy than I do the abusive realistic examples within monogamy. The fact remains that neither practice is the source of abuse in any way shape or form. A person who would be abusive in one form would be abusive in the other. I challenge you to find me an example of a person who was in a monogamous marriage and not being abusive, to being in a polygamous marriage and suddenly being abusive, without the corresponding event of joining a cult or religion that is already abusive to women. I really doubt that you would try to find me an example of a woman in polyandry being abusive to her many husbands. My arguments and opinions are based not just on my personal experience, but of those of thousands of other polys across the country. Polyamory and by extension polygamy, is no more or less easier to do than monogamy. We are subject to the same problems and mistakes that any monogamous couple are.

 

Seriously, you thought I was suggesting that I thought anyone was arguing, that all people should be forced into polygamous relationships?

Well, guess what? That's not what you, uniquely, proved that I was wrong to presume, all would take to be my obvious meaning; namely, that all people in a country must implicitly "accept" the rules & laws of that society, whether or not they manifestly apply to every person, in the society. Do you require examples, as well, to illustrate this principle, for your thorough grasping of it?


EDIT: FYI, whenever I read an argument that begins as utterly ridiculously as that-- or with puerile, unjustified name calling-- I tend to not waste time, reading further. This instance represents a case in point. If you believe that at some point, in the rest of your post, you made a good, or even reasonable point, the only way I will ever see it (in all likelihood) will be if you re-post, with that, unridiculous idea, coming before any ludicrous suppositions, as exemplified, at top.

Always best, for anyone who wishes to be read, by their recipient-- especially if it's me, but I'm sure this advice has wider application-- to save the worst nonsense (and any abusive language), for the end of the post.

 

With that, logically, then the odds of producing children within the monogamous opposite sex couple who marry but don't love each other are the same as the monogamous opposite sex couple where one or both is gay or the monogamous same sex couple. IOW, the state doesn't care whether you reproduce within the marriage or not. People are going to reproduce no matter what. Maybe some religious people within the state care, but in the end as a civil body, it doesn't matter. Which goes right back to children are not the basis of marriage. Children are accounted for, but that is not the same as making them the basis. Otherwise, they would be a requirement to maintain a marriage.

 

If your interracial couple had a ceremony in the same manner as your homosexual couple, then no, no one would be able to stop that ceremony because the couple were not engaged in getting legally married anymore that your example homosexual couple were. IOW (framed for the time prior to Loving), nobody is denying interracial couples the right to marriage. What interracial couples want is the state to recognize their marriage. Which is a COMPLETELY different argument.

 

Actually that is because married people are less at risk. Insurance payments are, outside of agreements with businesses for their employees, based upon risk. Typically a smoker pays more for health insurance and life insurance than a non-smoker does. Why? Because they are a larger risk. It's not that all the smokers paying more for the non smokers getting a lower rate. That is another benefit of marriage. Over 140 years of study on the issue and it continues to show that married people live longer and are healthier, as a group. Now that is not an argument against your other point. It's just showing that the insurance argument is a bad one to support your point.

 

What special privileges to same sex married couples get that opposite sex married couples do not? Or are you only talking about those married in general?

 

Fair is a subjective term.

 

The homosexual relationship is based on one sex having a relationship with another person of their own sex. Sexual orientation is based upon being sexually attracted to one of a given sex, whether or not that attraction is acted upon. One can be a homosexual or a heterosexual and never have an intimate relationship ever in their life.

That would also mean that a straight man could marry a straight man but a gay female couldn't marry another gay female.

 

Now think about this. If you are banning homosexual marriage because sexual orientation is not a protected class, then because the heterosexual orientation is allowed, then a straight man could marry a straight man. Because that isn't a homosexual marriage. It may be a same sex marriage, but as you said, it's not based on sex....

 

First, what name calling? Can you quote my name calling? Or was that just another criteria for your claimed reaction and said criteria didn't necessarily apply to me in that post?

As to the rest, typically when people make the argument of something having to be accepted, it is usually framed in the concept that people are being made to engage in it. If that was not your intent, then you have my apologies. My point was that the only thing that has to be accepted is that it, whatever the it being argued, is a valid choice out there. So if polygamy were to be made legal, then no one has to accept polygamy in and of itself, just that it is a valid option. Just as, per my previous post's example, one has to accept that Wicca is a valid religious option.

Now I would really like to read you responses to the other parts. Particularly my counter to the "additional rights" argument you gave.

 

OMG! I did not accuse you of any name calling. I had said that my practice, when a post begins with either senseless arguments-- as in your case-- or, when someone's argument begins with the throwing of insults-- which, of course, does not apply in your case (you had taken the insensible argument route)-- I stop reading. Do I really need to spell out every single detail, as if you are incapable of grasping anything, requiring the slightest bit of inference, on your part? Because I get complaints about the length of my posts, as it is, so I would unfortunately need to inform you that I would not be willing to go to that extraordinary length, just for you, knowing that this would add tedium to my posts, for most other readers.

This does, however, provide a wonderful analogy, for what I had said was my impression of the expectations of those polygamists who act as if any burdens to society, owing to the legal recognition of their lifestyle, are none of their own concern, but only that of society/the government, since they are entitled to this legal recognition, for more than a single spouse at a time. And yes, in this instance, I had been referring to you, if you recall (and understood that implication). Do you see the analogy between 1) if you expected me to bend over backwards for you, giving explanations of things that would be readily apparent, to most, and 2) the argument that any difficulties caused to society, bound up with giving legalized status to polygamy, are the responsibility of society, not of polygamists advocating this change, to figure out?

Going back to my posts, you are going to need to improve your interpretive skills. If I have expressed myself unclearly-- which is something of which all are guilty, at least occasionally-- that is one thing; but these last two misreadings, are something else, entirely. The first one, made just an absurd assumption. And, in this case, you are simply not reading what is written, but assuming connections are not in the least bit implied, seemingly seeing the word "and," where it does not exist.

That is sufficient for this post. I will continue reading your reply, glad to have this lecture out of the way, so that there will (hopefully) be no need to address it further, in that response.

 

The reason that this proposed analogy is faulty is, once again, that there are a host of legal issues that go along with legal recognition of the state of matrimony, that are no part of the "recognition" of one's religion which, since freedom of religion is a primary right, specifically built into our Constitution, receiving legal status, or recognition, applies mostly to only any Wiccan temple, or organization wanting tax advantages. So, if you are not claiming polygamy as a religion, I do not see the parallel. Once more, though, you unintentionally provide evidence for my argument. Namely: among the many pagan religions, represented (granted, in quite small percentages of the population) in our country, there are those which do ascribe to polygamous practices. But attributing those religions with "legal status," does NOT, then, legalize polygamy, for them. Too bad, huh? Otherwise, all you'd need do would be to claim to be of that religion. This brings us back, by the way to FLDS, and their ilk.

Whether or not one (an individual, not a church) is a "Wiccan," has zero to do with divorce law, or tax law, or laws governing inheritance, or visitation rights-- whether as part of divorce agreements, or regarding hospital policies (do I need, for some reason, to explain that I understand that "hospital policies" are made by hospitals, so that you don't answer back that "hospital visitation policies are not set by law?"), or policies regarding rights to act as another's proxy or surrogate, for urgent medical decisions, when a person is incapacitated, including when to end the use of extraordinary measures to sustain a person's life, to who takes possession of a deceased person's body, and do I really need to go on?

 

cause early Christians did not like the Mormon religion, and they were in power

 

could be, there is a max that all your children and wife can get

as an example, you have 20 kids, they each will not get the same as someone with 2 kids

"Formula for Family Maximum Benefit"

https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/familymax.html

 

Because you can't tell who's related how to whom. You eventually end up with sisters marrying brothers and not even knowing it.

This is why the Mormons keep the largest genealogical database in the world.

 

As per your request, I am addressing your other points. But I have a request, as well. Not infrequently, as here, you respond to my arguments, by arguing against statistics or studies, which I have never quoted, referenced, or used, in the developing of my opinion (as above). Could you please stop doing that, except if in the rare circumstance, that it may actually have any relevance, to my post?

My claims about problems that come along, in some cases, with polygamy, are based on what I might just call common knowledge, with the application of some common sense. Now your main claim above, that there is essentially no difference in the troubles arising from single or multiple unions, is patently false, and I will prove it to you. Understand, that what I am about to present, is not to be thought of as a literal situation. It is merely a simplified way to demonstrate that your math is wrong. OK?

Say your tiny country has 20 citizens. And your laws limit people to one marriage partner. Now, while any relationship can have problems, we are concerned with those in which it is the state's responsibility to be involved, in the solution. OK? So these are largely, problems involving LEGAL issues, such as all those I just listed, in my last post to you, I think. These do not apply, generally to non married couples, so they are not the State's problem. They become the State's responsibility to offer remedy, at the moment the state issues a marriage certificate. Then, one can no longer just, legally, walk away from a relationship, and consider it done. You now need to get a DIVORCE. If you neglect to do that, and your estranged spouse runs up a lot of debt, it will probably affect your own credit rating, and you may even be legally liable for that debt. Do you understand the concept I am explaining, which applies to a lot more things, than just debt? I hope so.

Now back to our country. We have just established that any legal marriage, increases the potential for legal problems, right? Hence, more marriages = more potential problems, likely requiring some involvement of the State. We still want to allow marriage, for all the reasons that I've already covered, not long ago, with ShadowX. Tell me, if you have any trouble, scrolling back a few posts, to consult it, if necessary. But we don't want more marriages than required, to allow everyone to find a mate, and for this to give us a more stable population. You still with me?

So 20 people, in a monogamist system, maxes out at 10 marriages. Now you tell me, how many potential marriages could there be, among those 20 people, were polygamy permitted. Granted, you could get as few as one single marriage, of 20 people, but let us try to have our example, even if it is only hypothetical, still be realistic. The answer, then is far more than 10 different combinations, because being in any one combination, would not preclude any of the individual members, in one marriage group, from theoretically each being a member in other married groups, as well. Please tell me that you follow this.

More marriages= more potential situations requiring the State to get involved. Does it mean a total of any more married people? No. Just more legal entanglements, for the State to have to figure out, even in the best of circumstances but, especially, whenever things go awry.

You think, why can't you marry more than one person at a time? That's just not the way it's done. You have the right to marry, but it just gets too problematic, and complicated, when everybody is allowed to marry as many people as they want. I am not claiming, in that statement, that every, or even most, polygamous marriages, lead to difficulties but, as you, yourself has compared them to any monogamous marriage, we know that these often do not end, happily ever after. So, more marriages cannot help but yield, more overall problems (divorces, divisions of family assets, alimony, custody & visitation issues, and on, and on, and on).

Even after being lucky enough to have found 3 spouses (or is yours, more of just a husband/wife sharing situation?), your not being satisfied, since you can't get official recognition of more than one of these-- again, only at any one time: you could switch which one it was, as quick as you could file no-fault divorce papers, and to get a new marriage license-- is going to have to be, at present, dealt with, like the disappointment of someone who owns a house, but really wants to own four houses, in different parts of the country. You have my sympathies-- sometimes, life can just be brutal.


Enough, for now.

 

In response to the topic question: laws are made, by and large, to institute and enforce the beliefs of society. There is no reason, a priori, for them to be logical or rational. [Drops mike.]

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

 

False.

The case involved Mildred Loving, a woman of color,[a] and her white husband Richard Loving, who in 1958 were sentenced to a year in prison for marrying each other. Their marriage violated Virginia's Racial Integrity Act of 1924, which criminalized marriage between people classified as "white" and people classified as "colored".

It was ILLEGAL for them to be married. That was not the case with homosexuals. No one was going to charge you for having a marriage ceremony and living with your husband if you were a guy.

 

Uhh no. They receive that protection because it’s dictated by federal law.

Source your claim that married people are less of a healthcare risk than unmarried.

 

Married in general

 

That would be discrimination based upon sex. If you allowed a male to marry a male and a female but a female could only marry a male. That’s sex discrimination.

 

well, that happens with marriage too

 

???

 

There isn't a reason. History is replete with examples of polygamy And I'm pretty sure there's a lot of polygamy in The Bible as well Though I'm no expert on The Bible

 

Well via regulation they could figure it out Something that's equitable.