So why is Polygamy Illegal?

[QUOTE=MavsSuperFan]They would, or they would just cheat on their wives.




:biggums:
have you met women before?:lol
I wish what your were say were true though lol[/QUOTE]

Don't be silly. You're better than that.

It's happened for thousands of years and it's happening right now. Young women would rather be a groupie for a big d!ck boss playah than a devoted wife to a loser or average man. BOOK IT.

And even wives with solid husbands fantasize about being the last lover of a celebrity.

All. The. Time.

And jealousy may hurt them, but they like it. For all intents and purposes, jealousy beats out boredom and stability.

It's dark but hypergamy was a necessary component of the animal instinct to survive. Just like us men's desire to dominate, kill, rape, and rule.

[QUOTE=JEFFERSON MONEY]Lol it ain't stopping anybody.

I know five dudes from Somalia who got 2 wives a piece and even the women see themselves as sisters.

Play on playa :rockon:

Polygamy is an excellent arrangement. On one hand, you have the rightful male leadership and can divy up the division of labor according to the wives' ages.
The older wife could be the mother hen; be responsible for bossing the younger wife around, and be the smarter, strong secondary income bringing, intellectual, seasoned lady; and the younger wife could be the energetic social connector bubbly personality type with the tight ass you can bounce a quarter off who would do more of the physical stuff for the kids. Fuarking hell I be so jealous of King Solomon and Montezuma so many times. You'd be surprised at how many women would be willing to share a man if he was cool enough. I thought they'd be mad until I deliberately pondered the question out loud... it can work with the right conditions. I mean hell normal monogamous marriage fails half to 3/4 of the time how often would polygamy steer course to all aboard the failboat?
They'd form a special bond too like a mentor-apprentice type deal. Have huge families Mormon style.

Had it not been at the detriment of other hardworking productive men then I'd be all for it. But unfortunately I can't turn my back on my brothers so I'mma have to agree with mavssuperfan and say yeah bro each dude gotta have one lady to sexually release and keep society spinnin otherwise we gonna have mad young poor schlubs jihading around.

Who knows? At the rise of the Metrosexual, homosexual, eunuch, and Japanese herbivore types and increasing amount of daughters; our society may resemble a Polygamous one. Good times ahead for those who have the willpower!



PS -

A wife having multiple husbands is PolyANDRY. It is seen in nature with certain birds. I'll find a link to a situation where there was a woman with a bald headed bearded guy she fukks and an older skinnier sentimental weaker guy who does all the chores and stuff.. Really fukked up but hey so is life.[/QUOTE]
just to clarify, polygamy includes both polyandry and polygyny.

The reasons it was restricted are clearly religious, and anti-LDS, in nature. Now, we have all sorts of polygynous marriages where the second-tenth wives are counted as single mothers and actively "bleed the beast" with government benefits.

The FLDS is the worst at this. No one owns the house they live in, almost the entire family income goes into the church to get redistributed, etc. so these women appear on paper as destitute single mothers with 5+ kids. These churches make millions in govt benefits through this arrangement.


I think consensual polygamy should be legal and acknowledged. That would restrict these abuses (as well as illegal child marriages) and its really, really dumb that I can have kids with 5 different baby mama's but cannot be in a legally binding relationship with them. Most known human cultures have/had some form of plural marriage. Even the bible makes reference to multiple plural marriages. People act like our cultural ideas of marriage and jealousy are human universals, but that is definitely not the case. There is no natural form of marriage. In many polygynous societies, the wifes are their own closest friends and help out with household chores, child rearing, etc.

Also, you have a very shallow deterministic view of humanity J$. None of this is a human universal or state of nature. As for polyandry, check out fraternal polyandry, levirate marriage (not really polyandry), and the Nayar in India. [QUOTE]On reaching puberty, a woman could entertain an indefinite number of lovers, usually between three and eight, without any public concern over sexual fidelity or paternal responsibility, the two basic features of marriage in European societies. [/QUOTE]

it should be legal but you'll have rich ****** marrying every non obese chick. The non-rich man losses out.

But then again who wants multiple wives?

Interesting. And yes to that single mom "extended village" ordeal.

Will look into Antrhopology to braoden horizons.

Honestly I don't give a fukc what people want to do regarding marriage... but some of these religious polygamy setups are pretty disgusting. Just men raising and brainwashing young females to turn them into slaves.. ehem I mean wives.

Because the Judicial system is based on the Christian religion. And in Christianity you can't get married with multiple women.

[QUOTE=Bandito]Because the Judicial system is based on the Christian religion. And in Christianity you can't get married with multiple women.[/QUOTE]
A) not really. [URL="http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2003/12/02/was-american-founded-on-christ/"]http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2003/12/02/was-american-founded-on-christ/[/URL]
B) Old testament.

Polygamy should definitely be legalized. Plus, can one woman provide everything that a man wants in life and vice versa?

To answer the question: It's one of a number of laws based on older Christian morals that younger generations that aren't so puritanical are or will eventually question.

well, polygamy would fukk up all the divorce settlement laws in america. if a man had 3 wives and all of them divorced him at the same time, would he be left with half his shit when it's all said and done? no, he wouldn't be so lucky because each bitch would split the pie and take a quarter, so he'd be left with, at best, only 25%. the illegality of polygamy protects the man financially from losing all his assets and shit if he got no pre-nup. now imagine a dude with 9 wives. if they all divorced his ass simultaneously and divided all his shit evenly, he'd be flushed out and be left with only 10%. but sticking to the traditonal two person marrigae rule, the man wouldn't have as much to lose. :lol

It shouldn't be. Marriage is the business of those who are in it, not some busybody in the Capital.

[QUOTE=KevinNYC]I'm against just because the divorce cases would be nightmares.[/QUOTE]
Divorce cases are already nightmares.

Well, the general criminalization of adultery has been greatly reduced over recent generations, so honestly what does it even matter if polygamy is legal or illegal?

Back in the old school days of marriage, polygamy was a clever way to get around only being able to legally have sex with one woman. If you wanted to screw another hen, you could do it but you gotta make sure you add her to your wife roster. Nowadays we have web applications that are advertised on billboards that enable you to have extra marital affairs. It's just a markedly different world today from the one depicted in Wood's iconic 'American Gothic' painting.

Orthodoxy had its reasons and its necessities back in pre-industrial times. Women were publicly shamed with scarlet letters as a deterrent for having illegitimate children because back then there was no all-protective federal government to make sure everyone had food stamps if they wanted them. People lived in farming villages where food could be in very limited supply. The balance of mouths to feed and food production was very delicate. Children had to be raised by the families that conceived them because nobody else had the means or time to take care of someone else's kid. Life was obviously not a picnic back then. You couldn't just sit back and collect unemployment to pay for that new neck tattoo. Of course, nowadays clowns like rmwg and kevinnyc and orange&blue actually believe if you aren't a millionaire you are actually ENTITLED to collect dat welfare to get that new neck tattoo while someone else goes to work to make their money.

It's dat new evolution.

it's illegal for moral purposes. Having multiple "wives" defeats the purpose of marriage.

[QUOTE=riseagainst]it's illegal for moral purposes. [B]Having multiple "wives" defeats the purpose of marriage[/B].[/QUOTE]


No it doesn't.

The historical purpose of marriage is a contract to regulate sexual/economic needs. The man is guaranteed a sexual partner, the woman is guaranteed to be provided for.

You can still do that with multiple wives. If the man wants multiple partners, he just has to be able to provide for multiple women.




.... Or did you think marriage originated with Cupid going around shooting arrows at people who then turned puppy-dog-eyed and skipped off to feed grapes to each other on a blanket in the meadow?

[QUOTE=riseagainst]it's illegal for moral purposes. Having multiple "wives" defeats the purpose of marriage.[/QUOTE]
This is ridiculous. Polygyny is enhances the purpose of marriage (i.e. the creation of a stable household for the production of children) by allowing one man more access to an ovulating female. From a behavioral ecology standpoint, polygyny is the most successful of marriages. and, its also in the bible.

[QUOTE=boozehound]This is ridiculous. Polygyny is enhances the purpose of marriage (i.e. the creation of a stable household for the production of children) by allowing one man more access to an ovulating female. From a behavioral ecology standpoint, polygyny is the most successful of marriages. and, [B]its also in the bible.[/B][/QUOTE]

I might have agreed with you until I saw the bolded.

:lol

1. Benefits
2. Citizenship
3. Spousal testimonial privileges
4. Tax breaks
5. custody issues
6. estate issues
7. divorce/dissolution issues


just off the top of my head. Marriage in the united states is shaped by law not by religion. Sure you get right wing kooks yammering about the "sanctity of marriage" and now we have some lawmakers that are ultra right wing religious zealots but american politics weren't always like that.

[QUOTE=OldSkoolball#52]No it doesn't.

The historical purpose of marriage is a contract to regulate sexual/economic needs. The man is guaranteed a sexual partner, the woman is guaranteed to be provided for.

You can still do that with multiple wives. If the man wants multiple partners, he just has to be able to provide for multiple women.
[/QUOTE]

In this day and age, does a man who's in the position to provide for several other women + I'd imagine at least 3+ children really need to get married in order to guarantee a sexual partner?

Plus, what about when his wife gets old? Just gonna keep shelling out money for new wives and kids? That sounds like an awful lot of work compared to dating. You could order bottle service every night in vegas, or you could end up paying for 10 kids worth of college, feed 10 mouths, plus clothes, plus vacations... It would just be ridiculous.

[QUOTE=InfiniteBaskets]In this day and age, does a man who's in the position to provide for several other women + I'd imagine at least 3+ children really need to get married in order to guarantee a sexual partner?

Plus, what about when his wife gets old? Just gonna keep shelling out money for new wives and kids? That sounds like an awful lot of work compared to dating. You could order bottle service every night in vegas, or you could end up paying for 10 kids worth of college, feed 10 mouths, plus clothes, plus vacations... It would just be ridiculous.[/QUOTE]


Definitely not. In this day and age a man has greatly reduced incentive to marry even jus one woman, relative to generations passed. I wasnt suggestig anything to the contrary.


Thats why I used to argue against same sex marriage, not from a prejudice or religious perspective, simply because it seemed kind of silly relative to the actual historical purpose of marriage. Frankly it still does but to me its just not a battle worth fighting. If gay people feel that strongly about wanting it, theres really not much harm in it I suppose. So its whatever.

[QUOTE=riseagainst]I might have agreed with you until I saw the bolded.

:lol[/QUOTE]
I am not using the bible to justify it. But it is in the bible

[QUOTE=OldSkoolball#52]Definitely not. In this day and age a man has greatly reduced incentive to marry even jus one woman, relative to generations passed. I wasnt suggestig anything to the contrary.


Thats why I used to argue against same sex marriage, not from a prejudice or religious perspective, simply because it seemed kind of silly relative to the actual historical purpose of marriage. Frankly it still does but to me its just not a battle worth fighting. [B]If gay people feel that strongly about wanting it, theres really not much harm in it I suppose[/B]. So its whatever.[/QUOTE]

Women, always want what they can't have.

[QUOTE=boozehound]A) not really. [URL="http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2003/12/02/was-american-founded-on-christ/"]http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2003/12/02/was-american-founded-on-christ/[/URL]
B) Old testament.[/QUOTE]
Oh ok. I guess all of my history teachers who said were wrong. Or maybe there are some passages (not the commandments) that are actually followed by the laws. But then again I don't read the Bible so if I am wrong or right I am not going to check.

[QUOTE=Bandito]Oh ok. I guess all of my history teachers who said were wrong. Or maybe there are some passages (not the commandments) that are actually followed by the laws. But then again I don't read the Bible so if I am wrong or right I am not going to check.[/QUOTE]

Didn't read that link but I think alot of the current laws that are in placed are based off Roman law which were based off Ancient Greek law.

I know Rome at it's height wasn't a christian empire but the religion itself had incorporated alot of Roman ideals.

In short I don't think the Ancient Romans or Greeks practiced polygamy so therefore we don't


but i could be wrong

Personally, legalize it. Long as it's consenting adults and all that. Only problem I can see is the divorce cases.

[QUOTE=DetroitPiston]Personally, legalize it. Long as it's consenting adults and all that. Only problem I can see is the divorce cases.[/QUOTE]


Divorce issues would be complicated but really this would not be common enough in todays society to cause any big debacle. Very few women these days would be willing to be in a polygamist relationship. Monogamous marriage is far too ingrained in most christian cultures by now and as I said, even in non-traditional/religious quarters (ie urban/progressive ones) very few females would be interested.


There are some mormons in Utah and I believe some isolated other polygamy groups in Texas and perhaps other states who would be interested. Personally I think it would be very tough to justify a same sex marriage legalization without a polygamy legalization. There is no written, official definition of marriage that spans all world cultures. Americas historically accepted definition has been based on European and judeo-christian roots as single man and a single woman. Thats what its been in Asia as well as the middle East. If you say it shouldnt technically have to be a man and a woman, I dont see how you wouldnt say it technically shouldnt have to be two people. Otherwise you arent being consistent. Youre saying your gay friends and coworkers should be able to marry their boyfriends, but the religious mormons you dont know any of and probably think are weird shouldnt be able to marry three women. Is that equality or is that H8???

[QUOTE=OldSkoolball#52]Divorce issues would be complicated but really this would not be common enough in todays society to cause any big debacle. Very few women these days would be willing to be in a polygamist relationship. Monogamous marriage is far too ingrained in most christian cultures by now and as I said, even in non-traditional/religious quarters (ie urban/progressive ones) very few females would be interested.


There are some mormons in Utah and I believe some isolated other polygamy groups in Texas and perhaps other states who would be interested. Personally I think it would be very tough to justify a same sex marriage legalization without a polygamy legalization. There is no written, official definition of marriage that spans all world cultures. Americas historically accepted definition has been based on European and judeo-christian roots as single man and a single woman. Thats what its been in Asia as well as the middle East. If you say it shouldnt technically have to be a man and a woman, I dont see how you wouldnt say it technically shouldnt have to be two people. Otherwise you arent being consistent. Youre saying your gay friends and coworkers should be able to marry their boyfriends, but the religious mormons you dont know any of and probably think are weird shouldnt be able to marry three women. Is that equality or is that H8???[/QUOTE]

a man marrying another man
or
a woman or man having multiple wives or husbands
nit the same thing

Imagine the legal ramifications and burden.

Whos your first in call,Who do you call first in medical emergency,your will,
your IRS tax forms How would you fill out a joint form with multiple other people
your military pay if youre in that,do they up it bc you got 3-5 ways or split the wife/husband pay 3-5 ways

How would a divorce work,Why is this fissolution happening
he/she cheated on me,while the others are fine or
you cheated on us but one wife forgave you


Imagine having to keep track of all the annuversaries,birthdays,special occasions
Does any wife/husband get alone time
You know sonebody would go he/she doesnt spend enough time with me divorce
and lets say you marry one wife 5 yrs after another and 1 a yr after that
the 1 st wife wants a divorce,wants her cut
it cant be a 16/50 bc she was here longer

but then the other two wives have a problem with the first taking tgeir finances and their hard years and shes not taking 5 yrs on and the rest split bc in her mind she was there since beginning

Too much Legal trouble for proper polygamy

[QUOTE=Flash31]a man marrying another man
or
a woman or man having multiple wives or husbands
nit the same thing

Imagine the legal ramifications and burden.

Whos your first in call,Who do you call first in medical emergency,your will,
your IRS tax forms How would you fill out a joint form with multiple other people
your military pay if youre in that,do they up it bc you got 3-5 ways or split the wife/husband pay 3-5 ways

How would a divorce work,Why is this fissolution happening
he/she cheated on me,while the others are fine or
you cheated on us but one wife forgave you


Imagine having to keep track of all the annuversaries,birthdays,special occasions
Does any wife/husband get alone time
You know sonebody would go he/she doesnt spend enough time with me divorce
and lets say you marry one wife 5 yrs after another and 1 a yr after that
the 1 st wife wants a divorce,wants her cut
it cant be a 16/50 bc she was here longer

but then the other two wives have a problem with the first taking tgeir finances and their hard years and shes not taking 5 yrs on and the rest split bc in her mind she was there since beginning

Too much Legal trouble for proper polygamy[/QUOTE]



So you want deny people their marital wishes, people who LOVE each other, just because you cant be bothered to work out the kinks for an acceptable system???


STOP THE H8


California is basically rewriting all its rules in order to give illegals drivers licenses and other citizenship privileges. They are rewriting their rules to allow people of the same gender to start marrying each other and adopt children.

You probably know some immigrants. You probably know some gay folks. So you approve of these things on their behalf and also to stick it to the religious/conservative establishment.

You probably know nobody who would prefer to have a marriage with multiple partners, even though they are out there. You probably think those people are wierd and isolated so you arent inclined to care about applying civil rights equally to them.

H8er!!!

Honestly people just need to mind their own business.

If a consenting adult wants to get together in an relationship arrangement with other consenting adult/adults, that you disagree with.

Guess what, you dont have to be a part of it.

[QUOTE=OldSkoolball#52]So you want deny people their marital wishes, people who LOVE each other, just because you cant be bothered to work out the kinks for an acceptable system???


STOP THE H8


California is basically rewriting all its rules in order to give illegals drivers licenses and other citizenship privileges. They are rewriting their rules to allow people of the same gender to start marrying each other and adopt children.

You probably know some immigrants. You probably know some gay folks. So you approve of these things on their behalf and also to stick it to the religious/conservative establishment.

You probably know nobody who would prefer to have a marriage with multiple partners, even though they are out there. You probably think those people are wierd and isolated so you arent inclined to care about applying civil rights equally to them.

H8er!!![/QUOTE]

cant tell if sarcastic or what?
But I actually dont care and dont mind
let someone marry 20 wives or husbands
I was explaining probably why US doesnt allow it
those reasons and probably us's heavily religous beliefs always coming into play even though it's supposed to be separation of church,religion and government

I want everBody thats an adult to be able to marry another or 20 or however many,whatever It doesnt affect me or bother me,not my personal life

With a man/woman,man/man,woman/woman
its two people hust wondering how the logistics play out legally with multiple people in a marriage legal law situation dealing with finances and tthings

It dont bother mean,Im an equal opportunist
Freedom if religion or lack thereof,speech,right to pursue happpiness,liberty,marriage,rights,all that
but Im not thr government,Im not combined religion and law and making what laws i see fut based on my religion

I despise religion operated governments,doesnt turn out well

By all means,marry 20 people,It shouldnt affect anyone besides the ones in the marriage

Its like gay rights,how does it affect you at all,it dont
people just hate gays and wont allow it mostly due to religion again
Nobodies marriage thats not your own much less a complete strangers should bother you,It doesnt concern you

Religion and the way people have been brought up is creating these ignorant opinions

[QUOTE=ALBballer]If all adults consent to the marriage then why not?

:coleman:[/QUOTE]

It shouldn't be illegal. As people already pointed out, the main reason it isn't is because of religion and rich people not wanting to give tax breaks to non-rich people.

This issue is just 1 more reason why I believe marriage should not be a legal thing. Make marriage something that is separate from law and then churches can celebrate marriage any way they want. Then all tax benefits come simply from domestic partnerships.