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

Right. Polygyny is actually better for most women because most men are not very good husband material. Just a fact. Every single woman knows, "All the good ones are married" -- and most of the not-so-good ones, too. Polygyny gives the less desirable women the option of sharing a more desirable man. With monogamy, the less desirable women either end up single or with low-quality men. Problems arise with polygyny because low-quality men are shut out, and get stroppy. We are starting to see that in societies like India and China, where selective abortion has tilted the gender balance in favor of males. Where are the extra males going to find wives?

That's probably why polygamy has become less common in settled societies. In a hunter-gatherer or nomadic herding society, the fittest, most productive males have the most material resources, so they can support more wives and children. That accelerates selection of the best genes, which is why many animals are polygynous, especially primates. Once you have an agricultural society, though, the material resources all go to landowners independently of any productive contributions or genetic merits. At that point, the instability caused by the lack of wives for higher-quality males who don't own land becomes maladaptive: male landowners with inferior genes reproduce more than landless males with superior genes.

Monogamy is a function of the economy, not religion. Once a society establishes landowning, polygyny just favors landowners independently of genetic merit.

 

How do you figure that? I'm not saying you are wrong per se, although I do think you are working froma flawed premise.

 

I would argue that land ownership favors genetic merit as that requires being able to obtain and maintain the land. Weak leftist cucks can't do that in a meritocracy, unless the land is large enough and capable of providing enough resources that even they can maintain a fleet of wives. With the advent of the industrial age, even they have the ability to support more than one wife. However, that's when we get to the problem of too few women to go around. If even idiots can push a button that will develop enough resources to maintain a proper sized fleet, we'd need a way to get rid of them.

I do find it interesting that as technological advances have increased by leaps and bounds, our ability to kill each other has also increased by leaps and bounds. It's as if nature predicted this necessity to self-regulate the population. This is also why lefties require government. Without government, they would be the smaller and weaker male lions who would be forced to leave the pride and make their own pathetic way in life elsewhere (Build the wall!). With government, they can use the power of the state to maintain their ability to reproduce, despite their genetic deficiencies.

 

Since this isn't really a serious post I'm not really responding to it seriously but generally the population breaks roughly 50% man 50% woman

 

Are you accounting for the homosexuals, and asexuals?

 

Overpopulation and drain on social services

 

Polygamy exploits women ....period. For those that disagree that the needs of men and women are different, I would say this... have you ever seen a cult or sect that tried to legitimize a women having multiple husbands??? If you have, it would be new to me.

 

No. In a nation of free men, it is nobody's business who marries whom, assuming we are dealing with consenting adults.

 

How do you figure?

 

Why do you want your government to do that?

 

A great argument to dismantle Social Security.

 

The slippery slope of?

 

That's a given. All lawful marriage must be entered into with consent of the parties.

 

Well good luck getting that huge group of baby boomers to give up their SS for some sister wife action.

 

You are the rare exception as most of our fellow citizens wish to do exactly that.

 

May all be true. But, in a nation of free men do you want your government "protecting" your fellow citizens from themselves?

The rotting cores of our urban centers have far less to do with nuclear families and far more to do with the abrogation of personal responsibility. "You break it, you buy it" as they say.

I think for the purposes of this discussion we can assume the OP is talking about polygamy in a free society. Islamic nations are not that, so unfortunately your analogy is inconsequential.

 

What's to say it can't go both ways? Women can have multiple husbands if they wish.

 

All good reasons if you wish to entrust your precious and hard-won liberty to the government nanny.

 

Straw man. Lawful matrimony -- like any contract -- requires consent. Dogs and tomatoes cannot consent.

It has nothing to do with feelings. It has to do with the basic principles of contract law which require enjoining parties to consent. This is why, for example, you cannot legally marry a minor.

 

In a nation of free men, why should those men not be able to legally marry should that be their desire? And how would you make extramarital affairs illegal? What would be the punishment?

 

Well if we were to make polygamy legal we would also have to make polyandry legal and mate, no woman in the WORLD is going to be that dumb!!

 

And what if the dog eats the tomato? I've seen it happen!

 

Well, you know the old joke - why a man would marry one woman is a mystery, why he would marry two is a bigamistery!

 

I expect you'll disagree, but government should just stay out of the marriage business and let the people manage their own private lives.

 

Which is your right. But where do you feel you get the right to make that decision for other people?