Why is Polygamy Illegal?

[newtogolf]

Not really agreeing with that when the term was mostly used at describing the religious culture in the USA in the 1920's during a rise of anti-Semitism in America. A more accurate description would be to say the country was founded by Protestants.

 

Judeo-Christian (of which Protestants are Christian) usually refers to those religions based on the Old Testament Bible which includes the Jewish Scriptures. 

America's Founding Fathers were nurtured in a Judeo-Christian environment. Though not all were active in a local church, many had Protestant or Deist sentiments. The First Great Awakening, the nation's first major religious revival in the middle of the 18th century injected new vigor into Christian faith.

[Silent]

If it's solely because of regilious reasons (don't know if that's the case) that this law excists, it's a fair question if the law should be changed. I don't think it should because of different reasons, but religion is not one of them. In my opinion there always should be a seperation between church and laws. But that might be a discussion for an other topic :)

[Jeremie Boop]

If it's solely because of regilious reasons (don't know if that's the case) that this law excists, it's a fair question if the law should be changed. I don't think it should because of different reasons, but religion is not one of them. In my opinion there always should be a seperation between church and laws. But that might be a discussion for an other topic :)

I think someone else mention the effect it would have on divorce. When it comes to splitting marital assets it would become more difficult if there were 2, 3, 4 or whatever wives. Would you do a straight percentage? Do you do an amount based on time in the marriage? Do you do an amount based on contribution *working vs stay at home* etc... Divorce is messy enough as it is, adding in more complications due to multiple spouses would just add to the nightmare.

[iacas]

Do you believe it should work both ways? I ask because I only see you give the example of having multiple wives. But should a woman also be allowed to have multiple husbands? And if you have 4 wives, should those wives be allowed to each have three other husbands beside you? (and those husbands can have multiple wives then also, etc. etc.) You see where I'm going with this?

Equity is the simple reason why you should not allow polygyny without also allowing polyandry.

This thread is about polygamy.. And I am discussing it from a law perspective.  You are talking about polyandry  and something called group marriage.  

Your definitions seem to be off. Polygamy is both polyandry and polygyny. If you're discussing "polygamy" you're discussing both polygyny (multiple wives) and polyandry (multiple husbands).

Now, from a law perspective tell me what's wrong with all the other forms of marriage as well?  The Supreme Court just passed a law marrying the same sex, why are there still laws against polygymy, polyandry and group marriage?

For lots of reasons. Here's one: https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100925001249AA2yy7s

I can only speculate about why. And I think it's about protecting women. You can have in theory polygamy being legal, and for some people that would work perfectly fine. But I fear that in reality it means that men can marry a bunch of women, and at the same time deny their wives to execute that very same right. I think allowing a law like that it opens the door further for some kind of cults as well. Also by law a man or woman has the right not to testify against their spouse; what about a group marriage then? Everybody is protected simply because you have a lot of spouses? 

Basically I think it's not allowed by law because it opens the door more to supression and misuse. That's sad for the people with good intentions and honestly feel happy in a marriage like that.

Another good reason.

If people are being denied their right they always have the options to end their relationship.. The same way a woman who is mistreated or beaten in a single marriage has the choice to leave that marriage or call law enforcement or what ever.  Simply, I have to disagree that a law would pass to protect from something happening (i.e. man denying wives from executing same right) while majority who practice it and are happy doing it.

@Abu3baid, you know as well as I do that's a load of bull. There are laws that protect people from being forced into slave labor. If you're destitute, want to immigrate to the U.S., and a guy offers you a chance but makes you work in a sweatshop, you can't just tell that person "sorry, but you could just quit." There are situations where people feel they have no choice, and women are especially prone to that, despite how "powerful" the modern woman is in the U.S., many are still dominated or controlled by men, and allowing polygamy would increase that.

There are other reasons not to allow polygamy. Tax reasons, medical care reasons, public health and welfare reasons, education reasons, etc.

At the end of the day, if the few people who want to be polygamist or want to live in this type of arrangement, they're clearly pretty free to do so even if it's against the letter of the law. After all, we have a freaking TV show about it.

[jamo]

If people are being denied their right they always have the options to end their relationship.. The same way a woman who is mistreated or beaten in a single marriage has the choice to leave that marriage or call law enforcement or what ever.  

You can say that in theory, but that's just not how it works in real life.

[arturo28mx]

Colombia has gorgeous women. Some years ago I was meting with a high government official and he asked me what I thought of Colombia. I said Colombia was "almost perfect". He obviously went on to ask why "almost". I responded that Colombia would be a "perfect" country when they legalized polygamy.

He laughed, but then asked me "have you realized that more wives mean more mothers in law?

I laughed too and said "Never thought of that. You are right. I better stay monogamous"

[rehmwa]

Trick question. Marriage never made sense from a legal standpoint. Why treat people differently under the law just because they're in a committed relationship? 

WINNER -

It's a nation of individuals (US perspective here).  Why should people that choose to pair up get rights that singles are denied.  Unequal treatment under the law.

 

We are WAY past the time when gov needed to 'encourage' families and population growth.

[mcanadiens]

Marriage may not make sense now, but it made plenty of sense before women's lib.

[mmoan2]

WINNER -

It's a nation of individuals (US perspective here).  Why should people that choose to pair up get rights that singles are denied.  Unequal treatment under the law.

 

We are WAY past the time when gov needed to 'encourage' families and population growth.

Disagree. If anything, government should encourage families now. I have no problem with tax advantages for a married couple, through a religious institution or JOP. The evidence is overwhelming that single-family homes are much harder on children, and require far more government resources to support children and their single parents.

[rehmwa]

Disagree. If anything, government should encourage families now. I have no problem with tax advantages for a married couple, through a religious institution or JOP. The evidence is overwhelming that single-family homes are much harder on children, and require far more government resources to support children and their single parents.

I get it and agree to disagree. 

I'd rather individuals took on the responsibility of encouraging healthy family structure.  I have a big problem, in general, with government selecting demographics to transfer money to.  I'm more of a free market type.  I really loathe 'social' experimenting - it always seems to result in the exact opposite of any original good intentions.

[SavvySwede]

Disagree. If anything, government should encourage families now. I have no problem with tax advantages for a married couple, through a religious institution or JOP. The evidence is overwhelming that single-family homes are much harder on children, and require far more government resources to support children and their single parents.

Marriage doesn't prevent single-parent families. The kind of people who abandon their family aren't changing their minds because of a tax break.

[Valleygolfer]

Disagree. If anything, government should encourage families now. I have no problem with tax advantages for a married couple, through a religious institution or JOP. The evidence is overwhelming that single-family homes are much harder on children, and require far more government resources to support children and their single parents.

I disagree with you. It creates more single family homes if anything. Divorce rate is over 50%. If people are marrying for "benefits" and not feelings, things obviously do not work out well. Single family homes are the norm now and if you parent correctly, your children can do just fine.

[iacas]

Divorce rate is over 50%.

It's a bit OT, but that's not a terribly accurate statistic because many of the people getting divorced are doing it for the second, third, fourth, etc. time.

[mmoan2]

Marriage doesn't prevent single-parent families. The kind of people who abandon their family aren't changing their minds because of a tax break.

Don't be so sure about that.

I disagree with you. It creates more single family homes if anything. Divorce rate is over 50%. If people are marrying for "benefits" and not feelings, things obviously do not work out well. Single family homes are the norm now and if you parent correctly, your children can do just fine.

You can do fine, but there is overwhelming evidence that shows two-parent homes are far more economically secure than single-family homes by and large, and that it is easier on children.

I also don't buy that marriage is only about feelings. That's quite another topic, but part of the marriage compact to me is all about security, "settling down," and the like.

Edited October 8, 2015 by mmoan2

[rehmwa]

Don't be so sure about that.

You can do fine, but there is overwhelming evidence that shows two-parent homes are far more economically secure than single-family homes by and large, and that it is easier on children.

Are you guys meaning to write "Single Parent" homes instead of single family homes?  Because these last few posts are kind of funny if read literally

[rkim291968]

Polygamy is probably embedded in human nature.  Almost every culture I know of allowed man to have multiple wives, or mistresses.  That makes sense to me as men throughout history fought wars.   Wars left many women as widows and they needed to be taken care of.   Men are also sexually more active than women and having multiple wives took care of their need.  Monogamy is relatively a new (vs human history) concept brought on by certain religion/culture.  I believe polygamy is more natural form of married life. 

[Silent]

Polygamy is probably embedded in human nature.  Almost every culture I know of allowed man to have multiple wives, or mistresses.  That makes sense to me as men throughout history fought wars.   Wars left many women as widows and they needed to be taken care of.   Men are also sexually more active than women and having multiple wives took care of their need.  Monogamy is relatively a new (vs human history) concept brought on by certain religion/culture.  I believe polygamy is more natural form of married life. 

I seriously doubt that. In fact, when there are about as many men and women, that's by average not even possible. (except for gay, but let's not make it more complicated)

[saevel25]

Polygamy is probably embedded in human nature.  Almost every culture I know of allowed man to have multiple wives, or mistresses.  That makes sense to me as men throughout history fought wars.   Men are also sexually more active than women and having multiple wives took care of their need.  Monogamy is relatively a new (vs human history) concept brought on by certain religion/culture.  I believe polygamy is more natural form of married life. 

A lot of historians have evidence that commoners through out history practiced Monogamy, while the elites practiced Polygamy. So it wasn't really a cultural thing more than a wealth issue.

In your terms, it isn't a more natural form of married life. It's might have been just a trend with the affluent people through out history. 

Also, more and more women are able to take care of themselves over in the past. This decreases the need for them to find a wealthy male partner to latch onto as a mistress. 

I don't see Polygamy as a natural form of married life. I see it as a choice driven by economical and social standing which has been driven out by western civilization. 
 

I seriously doubt that. In fact, when there are about as many men and women, that's by average not even possible.

I would say that males are more sexual active, or might seek to have sex more often than females.