Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In addition, the countries where polygamy is legally recognized are not the type of places I'd want to use as a model any of our laws.
As I posted in the gay marriage thread, it's interesting how polygamy vs. same-sex marriage is a completely opposite mirror of one another in world legal status.
Where same-sex marriage and homosexuality is legal and supported (the 1st World), polygamy is illegal, But where same-sex marriage and homosexuality are illegal (3rd world), polygamy is legal and well supported.
To me, that's a strong indication that polygamy dominates authoritarian, archaic cultures and societies, where women are still inferior, while same-sex marriage dominates modern Democracies focused on Freedom and Equality.
Interestingly, we automatically associate polygamy with one man having more than one wife. One woman having more than one husband is even harder for most people to accept.
Ideally, yes, but the human-animal balance is not the same for all humans
Even in societies throughout history where polygamy or polyamory have existed it has been overwhelmingly the one man-many wives model of polygamy. The one woman-many men model is extremely rare.
From this man's point of view, there is no way that I would put up with falling in love with girl only to have her taken from me to be wed to some middle aged father of 32 children. That man would wake up one morning to a slit throat.
It is not at all in society's best interest to have men who have no one to marry because some a-hole is hoarding all the chicks. Murder and mayhem would be sure to ensue.
Last edited by Mr. Joshua; 12-14-2011 at 12:46 PM..
How would this affect their benefit entitlement? For example, medicaide has an income qualification based on the total people in a family. Can you count four wives and twenty kids in those figures? What if the husband falls ill? Which wife is his medical proxy? I have no moral stand against it myself but it just seems like it would be way too complicated to be legal.
"Way to complicated to be legal" - that's actually pretty ironic.
Anyway, yes it would create hassles that would need to be worked out, but administrative inconvenience never works as an excuse for the government to deny someone equal treatment or free exercise rights.
I should know, I tried that argument once and got my ass handed to me.
Someone else asked about military benefits when a serviceman has two wives. I don't see it as being much of a problem, how would it cost more (it might actually cost LESS) to provide benefits to two wives married to two servicemen, vs. two wives married to one? You are still providing the same total benefits.
The State must be able to assert some level of control over marriage to further the proliferation of social unions our society deems beneficial while discouraging those deemed harmful.
It must have some reasonable standard for what it terms "harmful."
I don't contend that they may not in the case of polygamy--just that it is far from self-evident.
I agree that it is a logical fallacy. People often confuse "slippery slope" with the cumulative effects of legal precedent. They are not really the same thing.
I do think there is some support for the idea that gay marriage could set the stage for legalized polygamy, but it is a different issue involving a different part of the Constitution, so...I could be wrong.
Quote:
Marriage is a legal, government sanctioned contract between two people. Traditionally, this has only been between a man and a woman because of a traditional discrimination that existed in our society. Changing marriage to be blind to things like race and sex is removing a bias.
Marriage has never been a contract between many people. That's a very big difference.
That is a distinguishing factor. Maybe enough of one, but independent of that, I still don't see the compelling state interest in making polygamy per se illegal. I think it's coincidental that those who currently and illegally practice it also happen to be...well, freaks.
Quote:
Personally, I don't think Polygamy should be illegal. People should do what they want. Whether states should recognize these or companies should have to give benefits to multiple spouses is a different story.
Having watched Big Love, I can't imagine how someone would want that many family issues to deal with.
To each their own though.
One wife and 1-2 kids is already more trouble than some men can handle. If some studmuffin thinks he can handle more, who am I to dispute it?
I'm thinking there's a biological basis at the heart of it.
One woman can still only get pregnant (thus letting the species go on) by one man at a time.
One man can impregnate each of his, say, 4 wives around the same time, ensuring a more successful continuance of his genes.
Then again, a biological reason for man/woman marriage doesn't hold for many of you
(and I mean BASIC biology, not when certain individuals are infertile)
so I suppose it shouldn't matter to some.
This sounds like the lecture my sister got when she complained about being subjected to a harsher standard than me when we were teens.
The other reason, according to my father, was that I had some sense and she had none at all. Hence they were more worried about her.
Even in societies throughout history where polygamy or polyamory have existed it has been overwhelmingly the one man-many wives model of polygamy. The one woman-many men model is extremely rare.
From this man's point of view, there is no way that I would put up with falling in love with girl only to have her taken from me to be wed to some middle aged father of 32 children. That man would wake up one morning to a slit throat. It is not at all in society's best interest to have men who have no one to marry because some a-hole is hoarding all the chicks. Murder and mayhem would be sure to ensue.
It might be a good thing for men to compete for women. The most desirable men get the most women and those who are lacking have to step up their game.
Wrong, the sister-wives step in, no need for gov't intrusion.
WRONG!
In the cult town (FLDS) that I saw on TV this morning those with 22 children were SUCKING TAXPAYER MONEY through Welfare and tax fraud...they are instructed to do so, they call it "Bleeding the Beast".
These PapaPigs WANTED government intrususion because they are too weak and lazy to support their litters.
I'm just curious, because I think anyone that wants more than one spouse is clinically insane, but what is the compelling state interest in banning polygamy?
Anti-gay marriage threads often list this as a potential "slippery slope" consequence of permitting gay marriage (along with a lot of other things that are just ridiculous).
Why should the government care if people want to be in a "plural marriage?"
Please don't respond with "because it changes the traditional definition of marriage", because that's just not really an argument.
creates social unrest. polygamous societies have a surplus of males who cannot find wives.
i imagine the reason it is illegal is based in christian beliefs, though, not some compelling logical reason.
i imagine the reason it is illegal is based in christian beliefs, though, not some compelling logical reason.
I agree that Christian beliefs are why it's illegal, but the point is that there ARE also compelling, logical, non-religious reasons for it to be illegal.
So...it should be regardless of whether Christian beliefs were the original reason to prohibit it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.