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

Polygyny not polygamy. Polygyny and polyandry both fall under the umbrella of polygamy, which only means multiple spouses, not multiple wives or multiple husbands as the other two do.

As to health, no real studies have been done comparing single to monogamy to polygamy. All that has been looked at so far, unless it's real recent, has been monogamy vs single. I would like to see some studies in that direction as well as ones that look at the polyamory combinations, which would be indictive of polygamy combinations.

 

I don't see any reason why polyamory units would be different in health outcomes than monogamous pairings. Only factor I see is that if the gender ratios are off in overall polyamorous units, then you will have more single people, and single people you say so worse in health outcomes.

PS - the language is confusing and I don't really care about it.

 

Lots of unsupported premises in there. First off high status and high wealth are not automatic indicators of top genetics, assume we could make an objective position of what "top genetics" meant.

Most people don't seem to want polygamy, especially given the sheer number who rail against it and try to insist that monogamy is the only natural way or is "God's way". I think this is especially true in a day and age when we do not have certain social pressures to engage in counter productive behaviors such as forced/arranged marriage and marrying within a family/clan. I'm willing to bet that even among those who would support legalizing polygamy, most would want monogamy for themselves.

This runs under the false premise that polygamy would mean only polygyny and ignores the men only polygamous marriages, the women only polygamous marriages, and the polygamous marriages that have 2+ of both husbands and wives, such as mine. I don't disagree that there would be a shortage of potential wive in a structure that only allowed opposite sex marriage AND only allowed men to take multiple wives. But when you have a structure that allows for same sex partners to enter into polygamy as well women to have multiple spouses, that issue is countered and minimized.

So would I. Poly research is in its infancy due to such lash back. Even now, more people want to equate it to what the FLDS practice and don't bother to look at what the rest of us do.

 

As long as there is nothing forcing only men to only have multiple women partners, that should not be a problem. Between the same sex partnering a as well as the ones that are 2+ of each, the overall balance should be fine for those who prefer monogamy.

 

Yes, and from you as well. Hence why I said I would like to see research on this.

True. That's why I separated them. I think many women want all of the above, which may not indicate each other. And I think many would rather share that than have their own with naught. Yes, that's an unsupported guess from me, hence my wanting to see research.

I don't agree. I think plenty and possibly most people do want polygamy, and that society has been built against it and instituted traditional marriage because past generations saw the problems caused by a natural tendency towards polygamy.

The men probably would, unless they thought they could have multiple wives rather than be left with none, which many may. People do tend to overestimate themselves.

No, it doesn't. But it does is assume that polygyny would be more frequent, which I think is the case.

Only if the numbers are approximate. I don't think they would be.

Again, research could be done on this. I expect it would find that women are more likely to be willing to share men than men are to share women. What little research I have seen (and it isn't much) trends in that direction. Homosexuals and bisexuals are such a small fraction of the population that they wont change the overall societal effect of this.

 

So, if it turns out that a few men group with most of the women, and there are no women left for a lot of men, those leftover men should just spontaneously become homosexual? I don't think it works like that.

 

No I'm saying that between those marriages that are same sex throughout and the ones like mine which have 2+ of each, there won't be an imbalance, or not one of significance.

Another factor that we have not addressed, but would probably need to be in such studies would be the open marriage concept. While I am aware of plenty of closed polygamous marriages, there are also a lot that are open as well.

 

Because it is harmful to our species and society as it limits the gene pool and makes too few women available for marriage to other men.

 

There will be if the gender ratios don't even out over all the polyamorous units, and I have no reason to think that they would.

Research could answer this question. I don't see any reason to presume it would even out as you predict.

 

Nothing about polygamy limits the gene pool. Support your argument without using a closed community as your basis. A closed community limits the gene pool whether they practice monogamy, polygamy or both.

We're not limiting to polygyny here. Drop the red herring and show how polygamy itself and not a specific subset practiced exclusively makes too few women available.

 

You are presuming the numbers on gender will equal out. When pairing off one to one that's far more likely; it will approximate the ratio of men to women in the society. When not doing so, who knows what uneven numbers you may wind up with? What reason is there to presume it will be even?

 

No it isn't.

Nonsense. It's enough to point out that the study did not control for confounding variables or ensure that cause and effect were not reversed or conflated by a post hoc fallacy.

 

Polygamy is the act of marrying multiple spouses, having more than one husband or wife at the same time.

It is illegal in the United States.

There is nothing to prevent anyone from campaigning for the legalization of polygamy, supporting politicians who support legalization, and filing bills that legalizes it.

Monogamous marriages between individuals of different races or of the same gender were once illegal.

People demanded reform, and that changed.

Where are the advocates and who is introducing legislation for the legalization of polygamy?

Wishing will not make it so.

 

Polygamy is marrying multiple people at the same time. It's illegal because marriage refers to couple.

That legal status is reserved for that type of marriage.

Polyamory as in doing threesomes and orgies is perfectly legal people do it all the time.

 

I could make that claim for every study out there, but that doesn't make it true. If you feel that a study does not meet muster, then you need to prove it, even if it is providing a peer review that shows what you claim.

 

Here's why I'm against it:

If you have one guy with five wives, you have four very pissed off guys who have none.

Or, you have guys marrying women 20 or 30 years younger than they are, maybe falsifying records to marry underage girls.

 

There is a major difference. Both interracial and same sex marriage violate the equality law categories. Number of participants is not a protected category. Nor does religion enter into the equation, at least as far as the legal form of marriage goes. Right now I am in a polygamous marriage, but legally it does not exist. My religious freedoms allow me to claim it as a religious institution, and as long as we are not attempting to receive legal benefits beyond the two legal couple (quad marriage; two husbands and two wives), we are not in violation of the law. But our religions do not mean that the government is required to recognize any given number of participants, or for that matter, marriage as a legal institution at all. Only that if it does have legal marriage, no law can restrict it on any protected basis.

Now certainly the government can decide to expand marriage to up to 3 people or to 4 people,or even to 70 people in a single marriage unit. And poly people can fight for it, but the basis they fight for it will not be the same basis by which interracial and same sex marriage were fought for.

 

Interesting how you dismiss the equal possibility of one woman with five husbands. Polyandry is as much a part of polygamy as polygyny is. There is also the marriages like mine that have multiple husbands and multiple wives. And of course there is your false premise that those extra 4 women would even want to marry the 4 left over guys if they couldn't marry the one they wanted.

This can be as much of a monogamy problem as a polygamy problem. So itta red herring as far as problems with polygamy goes.

 

You keep claiming that it's equal but I see no reason to believe it is. Do you have data?

 

I didn't even claim equal on that one. I noted how he dismissed the possibilities of other combinations as well as the chance that even without poly those 4 guys might not be able to get a woman.

You'll call it anadoctical (yeah I know I spelled it wrong and it's not coming up in my spell checker), but I am, ATM, going on my quarter of a century of being actively involved in the poly community as both a participant and an educator. My area is limited to the east coast, mid Atlantic region.

 

And in your experience the numbers even out?

I don't know if much research has been done on this. I have only read a little, but what I have read indicates that women are more likely than men to be willing to share a mate.

If so, then if this leads to many men who can't get women due to hypergamy, I think it's a fair argument that these men could then cause trouble.

 

More or less. I know when I look at web sites I do see more of the MFF pictured, but in meetings people I've met a wide range. 3 and 4 are the most common groupings, with 5 lagging a bit farther behind and 6+ being effectively rare. And the combos have been rather diverse, especially once you throw the whole non-binary/gender queer into the mix. Naturally if the grouping is an odd number one or the other is more likely to be unbalanced.

More are not willing to admit it, as opposed to practicing it. And in this we would then need to separate the motivations (more data sets for the studies!). How many want to be poly, how many are willing but not necessarily one way or the other, and how many would prefer monogamy but grudgingly put up with it because they don't want to leave their mate?

Then we also have the MFF V groupings but the one women is involved with the other woman and not the man.

This assume two things. That these men could get women to begin with. And with the way incels are whining, the polygamy would be the excuse, not the cause. This also assumes that the man most likely wants monogamy, but does not account for whether the woman wants it as well. And this becomes more important of a factor in today's age, especially since open marriages/relationships are already a thing. In my experience, not a lot of women are willing to let the man have extras, unless she too can. She may take longer to select another person, but most still want that ability.

 

No, I'm not sure it does assume that. We've already got those men in society, and they already cause problems. We are talking about a potential increase in them, which would mean more such problems.

How can you be so sure? I think it would be both a cause and an excuse. Removing women from the pool means less men who can get women. That's simple math.

Then again, I suppose it is also possible that the opposite could be true, and maybe men would pair off with just a few women, leaving many leftover women unable to find mates. I wonder what issues in society that would cause.

Either way, unless the ratios are equal, which I see no reason why they would be, you will get an increase in single folks who can't find mates.

 

We already have that removal with lesbians. And what about the non-monogamous bisexuals? They are also already out of the pool.

I think you are forgetting a basic concept with poly. More than one at the same time. So your position needs to be, as a counter, that there will be an increase in single folk, men and women, who only want monogamy, who can't find mates. Any who want monogamy only will find less to choose from. The ratios will actually be irrelevant, because of that factor.

Now here is the real kicker. If there is going to be a problem then we would already have the problem in place. Legally speaking, my situation is polyamory not polygamy. I have my legally recognized wife and my "husband" (in quotes since we are in the context of the legal marriage) has his own separate legal wife. We all live together. Pretty much every other poly unit that I am aware of, that wants to be in a polygamous marriage, is already in a similar situation, or will be when the relationship reaches that stage. Further, those who are polyamorous, but do not want polygamy, are still with multiple people, even without polygamy being legal. Which means that polyamory alone would cause this claimed shortage of women for men who only want monogamy to have as mates. And that is before considering whether a poly woman would even want to be with a man who will not accept paramours.

Something else to consider. Currently the ratio in the US is 98 men per 100 women. So we already have a surplus. And given that those who engage in poly are relatively low, along with the same sex and balanced units among them as well as those that are multiple men to a given woman, all coupled (no pun intended) with any desires on either men's or women's part for monogamy only, all point to there not being significantly more of a problem than we already have.

 

No you couldn't. Many studies do not make such careless methodological mistakes.

Because it would in many cases be false.

No, I don't "need" to do any such thing, and I will thank you to remember it. It is quite sufficient for me to identify the relevant deficiencies in methodology, which I have.