Debate: Should Polygamy Be Legalized Or Not?

[tinybear]

And Bigamy should cease to be a crime. I'm surprised no one has brought up this issue. I mean why should the State dictate to Americans how many spouses they choose to have? Isn't that a basic freedom/right that should not have been taken away? In the United States, women outnumber men by over 70 million. So what do you say to those women who end up without husbands? That they should remain unmarried or they should steal another's husband? The whole concept of marriage should be up for review. What do you think, folks?

[The Dunedan]

Yup, decriminalize it. Heinlein had the right idea, IMO.

[marco_funk]

I agree that the government ought not to be in the business of deciding the moral practices of its citizens... this is a task that should be left for specific communities within that state, whether relgious or ethnic communities does not matter to me for this discussion. However, I do think there are some valid concerns on more general grounds with polygamy; these objections have no bearing, in my view, on whether or not it should be legalized or not.

[tinybear]

Correct me if I wrong, but I think all states have laws making bigamy a crime.

[Plegmund]

And polyandry, presumably. There's a distinction, of course, between open polygamy and covert bigamy (ie where the wives don't know of each other's existence).

[tinybear]

But the law does not make such a distinction, or does it?

[leftcider]

Quote by: tinybear In the United States, women outnumber men by over 70 million. So what do you say to those women who end up without husbands?

I don't know where you got that statistic, but there are about 6 million more women than men in the US as of 2003 according to the official census http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFPeople?_sse=on) as of 2003. The reason that bigamy and polygamy are illegal under law is that by law, marriage is a contractual agreement between two parties which afford parties certain financial benefits and legal rights. If polygamy were made legal, we would most likely see abuse of this system. What people do in private is up to them, but if the state is going to recognize marriages at all (open to debate), it makes sense for them to recognize only monogamous marriages.

[tinybear]

" If polygamy were made legal, we would most likely see abuse of this system."

Could you please elaborate on this?

[Spartacus]

Holy $hit. I can't believe you are actually considering this. You must not be married. If you are married and you think for one minute that you could handle two or three or four wives better than you can handle one, then you need to get your head examined. Crazy talk, just absolute lunacy. You must love swimming in the Estrogen Ocean, amigo, to even consider advocating polygamy. Or you're Mormon. Either way, you've flipped. Arrrrrrgggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

[tinybear]

Well if there are those in our community who think gay marriages should have legal recognition, I fail to see why polygamy should not and why bigamy remains a crime.

[Waychel]

I agree with BaronVEsslingen. Anyone who honestly does advocate polygamy should read God's Brothel by Andrea Moore-Emmett, which gives 18 reasons as to why polygamy is and should remain illegal. The biggest issue with polygamy is that it usually involves the forced or coerced marriage of underage girls; resulting in statutory rape or even the condonement of incest and molestation by father's unto their own daughters. Although there may be "exceptions", the risk of abuse (especially in regards to children and young women) is too high among the majority to justify it. Anti-polygamy laws exist not out of religious intolerance, but out of the protection of women (especially children) from rape and molestation. The condonement of polygamy is mostly non-existent among the women involved in it as well; simply tolerated.

As for bigamy, I believe it to be illegal for two reasons: first, that it was once a grounds for divorce; and two, that in 99.9% of cases, the bigamist fails to inform their spouses of the other's existence.

[tinybear]

"The biggest issue with polygamy is that it usually involves the forced or coerced marriage of underage girls".

Two different issues. Forced marriages and statutory rape of underaged girls will remain crimes, so what's the problem?

[Waychel]

Because polygamy is most actively practiced among religious sects, these young girls can be easily coerced into going along with an arranged marriage by their family, church or community. Keep in mind that at age 16, the consent of both parents is all that is needed for a girl to marry. Due to their environment and upbringing, it is unlikely that they would go to the police themselves on grounds of rape as well. This is what makes the danger of statutory rape so real.

Similarly, if we legalize polygamy on religious grounds then we must also condone the nature of polygamous marriages on religious grounds as well. The danger of this is that most religious sects which actively practice polygamy also condone incestous marriage (such as that between father and daughter). The implications of this are just as obvious.

BTW tiny, you hit the nail on the head with your reasoning behind the posting of this topic. The truth of the matter is that if we legalize the federal recognition of gay marriage on the grounds of "equal representation", then we must rescind our current laws prohibiting the practices of polygamy and bigamy so that such "unions" may have their "equal representation" within the definition and legal context of marriage as well. Marriage as recognized federally is defined for a reason and this just so happens to be one of them.

[tinybear]

Coercion of underaged girls into marriage still remains criminal even if polygamy is recognized and bigamy ceases to be a crime. And as for incest, I've started a new thread on this topic. Please visit this thread and express your views.

[Starboy]

Quote by: BaronVEsslingen Holy $hit. I can't believe you are actually considering this. You must not be married. If you are married and you think for one minute that you could handle two or three or four wives better than you can handle one, then you need to get your head examined. Crazy talk, just absolute lunacy. You must love swimming in the Estrogen Ocean, amigo, to even consider advocating polygamy. Or you're Mormon. Either way, you've flipped. Arrrrrrgggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

I'm with you bud. I tried it once with just a single woman and can't figure out why any sane man would want to marry one woman let alone several but that is not up to me. If some brave man wants to sail in those waters then more power to them. As long as I am not forced to marry anyone I don't care how couples, triplets, quadruplets or whatever wish to come together in a family.

As for abuses, I would hate to be the poor company providing health care benefits for a single worker that had ten wives. But that is a different issue. I think we should have nationalized health care. Then the health care goes with the person no matter where they work or what the composition of their family.

Starboy

[Starboy]

Quote by: tinybear Coercion of underaged girls into marriage still remains criminal even if polygamy is recognized and bigamy ceases to be a crime. And as for incest, I've started a new thread on this topic. Please visit this thread and express your views.

I agree with you tinybear. It is not as if those things do not happen in two person marriages. In fact the perverts get around it by divorcing their wife and then marrying the child after having made sure that the father is not shown on the birth records. People can be perverted in any social arrangement. If Weychel was so concerned about all that then she should be against all marriages.

Starboy

[Waychel]

You're both overlooking the point, which is not to punish the act after the fact but to PREVENT it from happening in the first place. Going by such generalized and flawed reasoning, Child Protective Services should leave the children of a convicted child molestor in the sex offendor's custody because the molestation of said children has not yet occured. That would not only be negligence, but the gross endangerment of the children involved. The same reasoning applies in regards to polygamy; when roughly 90% of such unions involve either the statutory rape of girls 18 years and older or the molestation of girls 16 years or older, reason dictates that it should not be a legally condoned institution.

Also, this isn't even touching the issues of community property and alimony involved in the circumstance of a divorce.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Waychel You're both overlooking the point, which is not to punish the act after the fact but to PREVENT it from happening in the first place. Going by such generalized and flawed reasoning, Child Protective Services should leave the children of a convicted child molestor in the sex offendor's custody because the molestation of said children has not yet occured. That would not only be negligence, but the gross endangerment of the children involved. The same reasoning applies in regards to polygamy; when roughly 90% of such unions involve either the statutory rape of girls 18 years and older or the molestation of girls 16 years or older, reason dictates that it should not be a legally condoned institution. Also, this isn't even touching the issues of community property and alimony involved in the circumstance of a divorce.

Weychel you brain doesn't work so well. Your solution appears to be, 'it happens in polygamous marriages therefore do not allow polygamy'. Yet it doesn't appear to dawn on you that the same argument works for marriages with just two people. If you were concerned about child sexual predators it shouldn't matter what kind of marriage they enter into. You wouldn't want them to marry at all. Again your argument is superfluous to the topic. Yet I am sure there will now be three pages of constant repetition of the same lame argument. And this is not an ad hominem. This is a prediction.

Starboy

[ericsp23]

I agree with the Baron. Marriage is difficult enough between just two people when both are considered equal partners. In societies where it is acceptable for men to rule over thier women, it may work, but we do not live in such a society.
That being said, I really don't care either way as far as legality is concerned. It's not an issue that I think is important enough to waste too much time worrying about. If people want to give it a try, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Everybody read "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" by Robert Heinlein.
He introduces group marriages (several different types).