Total Posts:27|Showing Posts:1-27
Jump to topic:

Why is polygamy illegal?

1Devilsadvocate
Posts: 1,518
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2013 2:30:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
It should be made clear that I'm not supporting polygamy, but rather questioning why it's illegal.
I cannot write in English, because of the treacherous spelling. When I am reading, I only hear it and am unable to remember what the written word looks like."
"Albert Einstein

http://www.twainquotes.com... , http://thewritecorner.wordpress.com... , http://www.onlinecollegecourses.com...
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2013 4:52:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Tendency for abuse aside, it is a probate nightmare, especially if there is no will.

Here is a reason via divorce why the first wife can get screwed without any fault of her own:
Man has 100
Wife A has 100
They have 200, if they get a divorce, each has 100.

Add in wife B, also with 100.
What happens in the case of divorce?
Man has 200 (100 + 100 of wife A)
Wife B is worth 100.

So, at divorce, Wife B should get 150, and man and Wife A are left with 150.
If they get a divorce, Wife A and man each have 75.

Polygamy =/= commune.
My work here is, finally, done.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2013 5:18:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Well, there are two questions

1. Why was polygamy made illegal?

2. Why should polygamy be illegal?

The answer to number two involves abuse and wills and such, but the answer to number one is that it went against what american society considered "moral" conduct.

This division between 1 and 2 is far from abnormal. For instance, try this:

1. Why, constitutionally, shouldn't the government fund religious schools?

2. Why did the government actually stop funding for religious schools?

We're all familiar with the answer to number one, but in fact the answer to number two is that "freedom of religion" lawsuits originated as a Protestant mechanism of shutting down Catholic-oriented schools.

Since protestantism was essentially the mainstream, any school which could be labeled "catholic" could then be called "religious."

Before that, the first amendment was almost never brought up in the context of government education and religion.
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2013 9:02:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Illegal or not, it doesn't stop people from doing it..

So it just is ridiculous to make it ilegal !
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2013 12:43:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/30/2013 9:02:04 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
Illegal or not, it doesn't stop people from doing it..

So it just is ridiculous to make it ilegal !

Just like with same-sex marriage, people can, and do, get married. There is no law saying they can't get married in the eyes of their god or themselves.

The issue is whether the government should recognize it.
With same-sex marriage, there aren't any real day-to-day issues that go along without legal recognization, so as long as they don't say they are married on legal documents, there is no issue with the government.

However, this is not the case with polygamy. Most noticibly in zoning laws.
Since the government does not recognize the additional marriages, the government says these people are not related. Therefore, in a particular house, there may be 5 unrelated people living, which is too many for the ordinance (it might be 3 unrelated and 6 related).

I haven't heard of any stories in which a polygamist was arrested simply for being a polygamist, it was always something else, like having an underage wife.
My work here is, finally, done.
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2013 1:56:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
For much the same reason gay marriage is - religion and a lack of benefit to society.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2013 3:17:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/28/2013 2:30:22 PM, 1Devilsadvocate wrote:
It should be made clear that I'm not supporting polygamy, but rather questioning why it's illegal.

People associate polygamy the idea with polygamy as experienced by religious cults.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2013 3:21:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
To quote the great doug stanhope, marriage shouldn't be a legal institution. It should be like joining a fraternity, if you want to be married you should go to your local chuck e cheeze and have them dance the ceremonial marriage dance around you and poof you're a married person. The government shouldn't be involved.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2013 3:46:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/30/2013 3:21:14 PM, lewis20 wrote:
To quote the great doug stanhope, marriage shouldn't be a legal institution. It should be like joining a fraternity, if you want to be married you should go to your local chuck e cheeze and have them dance the ceremonial marriage dance around you and poof you're a married person. The government shouldn't be involved.

derp what about sanctity and god?
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2013 11:30:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/28/2013 5:18:39 PM, Wnope wrote:

1. Why, constitutionally, shouldn't the government fund religious schools?

2. Why did the government actually stop funding for religious schools?

We're all familiar with the answer to number one, but in fact the answer to number two is that "freedom of religion" lawsuits originated as a Protestant mechanism of shutting down Catholic-oriented schools.

Since protestantism was essentially the mainstream, any school which could be labeled "catholic" could then be called "religious."

Before that, the first amendment was almost never brought up in the context of government education and religion.

This is very interesting. Can you source this?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2013 11:35:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
You're pretty much creating the destruction of civilization through legalizing polygamy. Polygamy creates a situation in which there would be a lot of single men out there and no female's out there to fill them. Sexual frustration of w/ normal men and in large numbers is a recipe for disaster, especially considering that evolution designed us to reproduce and the inability to reproduce from an evolutionary perspective is as bad as death before reproductive age.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2013 4:18:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/30/2013 11:30:39 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 4/28/2013 5:18:39 PM, Wnope wrote:

1. Why, constitutionally, shouldn't the government fund religious schools?

2. Why did the government actually stop funding for religious schools?

We're all familiar with the answer to number one, but in fact the answer to number two is that "freedom of religion" lawsuits originated as a Protestant mechanism of shutting down Catholic-oriented schools.

Since protestantism was essentially the mainstream, any school which could be labeled "catholic" could then be called "religious."

Before that, the first amendment was almost never brought up in the context of government education and religion.

This is very interesting. Can you source this?

Well, mainly I recall it from this book:

http://www.amazon.com...
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2013 3:53:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/30/2013 1:56:46 PM, TN05 wrote:
For much the same reason gay marriage is - religion and a lack of benefit to society.

You really think it has no benefit for society ? and what do you mean by religion ?
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2013 6:24:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/1/2013 3:53:02 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 4/30/2013 1:56:46 PM, TN05 wrote:
For much the same reason gay marriage is - religion and a lack of benefit to society.

You really think it has no benefit for society ? and what do you mean by religion ?

(1) Some people probs think God isn't cool with having multiple intimate partners just as some people think God vindicates their homophobia.

(2) Some people think marriage should only be allowed in situations where they perceive some benefit to themselves or to society, just as it is brought up in the SSM debate.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2013 5:19:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
But they can not just think, that's their opinion, they need to know for sure, and they can only know through authentic revelation !

So anybody can say anything for God ?!
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2013 5:49:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/30/2013 12:43:31 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 4/30/2013 9:02:04 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
Illegal or not, it doesn't stop people from doing it..

So it just is ridiculous to make it ilegal !

Just like with same-sex marriage, people can, and do, get married. There is no law saying they can't get married in the eyes of their god or themselves.

The issue is whether the government should recognize it.
With same-sex marriage, there aren't any real day-to-day issues that go along without legal recognization, so as long as they don't say they are married on legal documents, there is no issue with the government.

However, this is not the case with polygamy. Most noticibly in zoning laws.
Since the government does not recognize the additional marriages, the government says these people are not related. Therefore, in a particular house, there may be 5 unrelated people living, which is too many for the ordinance (it might be 3 unrelated and 6 related).

I haven't heard of any stories in which a polygamist was arrested simply for being a polygamist, it was always something else, like having an underage wife.

This is false. The Edmunds Act, also known as the Edmunds Anti-Polygamy Act of 1882,[1] is a United States federal statute, signed into law on March 23, 1882 by president Chester A. Arthur, declaring polygamy a felony. The act is named for U.S. Senator George F. Edmunds of Vermont. The Edmunds Act also prohibited "bigamous" or "unlawful cohabitation" (a misdemeanor),[2] thus removing the need to prove that actual marriages had occurred.[1]
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2013 5:51:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/28/2013 4:52:12 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Tendency for abuse aside, it is a probate nightmare, especially if there is no will.

Here is a reason via divorce why the first wife can get screwed without any fault of her own:
Man has 100
Wife A has 100
They have 200, if they get a divorce, each has 100.

Add in wife B, also with 100.
What happens in the case of divorce?
Man has 200 (100 + 100 of wife A)
Wife B is worth 100.

So, at divorce, Wife B should get 150, and man and Wife A are left with 150.
If they get a divorce, Wife A and man each have 75.

Polygamy =/= commune.

This has nothing to do with why it was made illegal. Polygyny was banned because it was the equivalent of slavery, but then again, at the time it was banned, so was marriage as a whole.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2013 2:08:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/28/2013 2:30:22 PM, 1Devilsadvocate wrote:
It should be made clear that I'm not supporting polygamy, but rather questioning why it's illegal.

At 4/28/2013 2:30:22 PM, 1Devilsadvocate wrote:
It should be made clear that I'm not supporting polygamy, but rather questioning why it's illegal.

Polygamy isn't illegal though.

Harry.
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2013 4:05:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Why is polygamy illegal? Given there is no reason for homosexuals to not marry, I can think of none for polygamy. The "potential argument" is a red herring as has been demonstrated with homosexual marrige. There are no statistics to suggest polygamy or for that matter homosexual marrige would cause any harm to society. The only reason to oppose polygamy is bigotry and intolerance.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2013 8:33:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/6/2013 4:05:18 PM, sadolite wrote:
Why is polygamy illegal? Given there is no reason for homosexuals to not marry, I can think of none for polygamy. The "potential argument" is a red herring as has been demonstrated with homosexual marrige. There are no statistics to suggest polygamy or for that matter homosexual marrige would cause any harm to society. The only reason to oppose polygamy is bigotry and intolerance.

And the reason I gave is which?
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2013 8:36:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/2/2013 5:51:16 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/28/2013 4:52:12 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Tendency for abuse aside, it is a probate nightmare, especially if there is no will.

Here is a reason via divorce why the first wife can get screwed without any fault of her own:
Man has 100
Wife A has 100
They have 200, if they get a divorce, each has 100.

Add in wife B, also with 100.
What happens in the case of divorce?
Man has 200 (100 + 100 of wife A)
Wife B is worth 100.

So, at divorce, Wife B should get 150, and man and Wife A are left with 150.
If they get a divorce, Wife A and man each have 75.

Polygamy =/= commune.

This has nothing to do with why it was made illegal. Polygyny was banned because it was the equivalent of slavery, but then again, at the time it was banned, so was marriage as a whole.

That's great, Royal.
However, the question wasn't why was it illegal in the first place, but merely why is it. This is a reason why it ought to be illegal, therefore, I say it is a reason it is illegal. If I were in power and asked about it, this is the answer I would give. I don't care about why it came about, but I beleive there is merit in its prohibition.
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2013 8:47:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/2/2013 5:49:48 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/30/2013 12:43:31 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 4/30/2013 9:02:04 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
Illegal or not, it doesn't stop people from doing it..

So it just is ridiculous to make it ilegal !

Just like with same-sex marriage, people can, and do, get married. There is no law saying they can't get married in the eyes of their god or themselves.

The issue is whether the government should recognize it.
With same-sex marriage, there aren't any real day-to-day issues that go along without legal recognization, so as long as they don't say they are married on legal documents, there is no issue with the government.

However, this is not the case with polygamy. Most noticibly in zoning laws.
Since the government does not recognize the additional marriages, the government says these people are not related. Therefore, in a particular house, there may be 5 unrelated people living, which is too many for the ordinance (it might be 3 unrelated and 6 related).

I haven't heard of any stories in which a polygamist was arrested simply for being a polygamist, it was always something else, like having an underage wife.

This is false. The Edmunds Act, also known as the Edmunds Anti-Polygamy Act of 1882,[1] is a United States federal statute, signed into law on March 23, 1882 by president Chester A. Arthur, declaring polygamy a felony. The act is named for U.S. Senator George F. Edmunds of Vermont. The Edmunds Act also prohibited "bigamous" or "unlawful cohabitation" (a misdemeanor),[2] thus removing the need to prove that actual marriages had occurred.[1]

Do I really need to be that specific to say that in recent history, no one has been arrested for being a polygamist?

1. Only 1300 people have been arrested in 130 years.
2. I doubt it is enforced, since it applies to territories, not states.
3. Even if it is enforcable, I have not heard of it being used. There are many sodomy laws on the books that are not enforced, it doesn't mean people are being arrested for gay sex en masse, or at all. Think of how many people have "unlawful cohabitation" now. I would wager that a man with three male roommates would qualify.

Using the source form your site (number 1). It appears this measure failed in its attempts to prevent polygamy, since there was a suffrage movement in Utah, but even then, it failed to overturn polygamy.
http://www.u-s-history.com...
My work here is, finally, done.
jrollins
Posts: 8
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2013 8:52:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I agree, you should be able to be married to more than one woman, there's nothing wrong with boning more than one woman.
KKK Clansman
Fanny
Posts: 31
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 12:22:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
It's stupid to put someone in jail for having multiple wives and a waste of tax money because there are people who really do need to be separated from society. Legally, a person should be able to have only one partner. Not legally, a person should be able to have all the partners s/he wants. If forced polygamy is an issue, address THAT. We don't outlaw marriage because some people were forced. Instead, we regulate marriage so it isn't forced. The same with polygamy. Besides, more then one partner is not legally valid anyway. If a person is forced to have sex with their "partner," use rape laws. I don't think we should interfere with peoples private lives.
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 6:01:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"Why is polygamy illegal?" For the same reason gay marriage "WAS"" illeagal
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
rockwater
Posts: 273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2013 9:52:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Ok so I think we need to clarify things a little -

One is that polygamy does not necessarily mean one man married to multiple women, where the women are not also equally married to each other. What is unfair about polygamy as traditionally practiced is that one person (the man) gets to enjoy a legal relationship with multiple people while each of the wives are limited to having that relationship with only one person - their husband. If people live together on a plural marriage then they all need to be equal members with equal rights and responsibilities under the law.

Second is that saying "polygamy is illegal" had two possible meanings. One is to say that a person cannot be in a civil marriage with more than one person at the same time. This means that a person only commits a crime if they defraud the government by pretending to be single when entering another marriage. The second possible meaning of polygamy's being illegal is that a married person cannot live as if s/he were married to more than one spouse, even if the person is only legally married to one of his/her "spouses." This kind of law is similar to laws that make adultery a criminal act and not just a grounds for divorce.

The argument for laws preventing a person from being civilly married to more than one person (even in the egalitarian mode I described above) is that divorce proceedings would be costly and painful in determining division of property, custody of children, alimony, child support, etc. I think that if plural civil marriage were different than 2-person marriage in terms of laws regarding property, children, and financial support in the case of divorce (ie, comprehensive prenups are required, each child has two (or one) primary guardian(s), etc), then there would be no reason for them to not be allowed. Of course, there is the possibility that a cult leader might persuade people to enter prenups where s/he (the leader) has too much control over property and other matters, so there would be to be limits to the kinds of prenups that can be contracted.

As for the second way that polygamy could be illegal, I think that the government should not be enforcing a particular type of sexual morality among consenting adults in that way.
rockwater
Posts: 273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2013 10:00:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Oops - I forgot to add that polygamy of course can also mean one woman and multiple men, multiple men with no women, multiple women with no men, and a marriage with multiple women and multiple men. Polygamy means having more than one spouse. Polygyny means one man with multiple wives. Polyandry means one woman with multiple husbands. Proponents of legalizing plural marriage (where everyone is married to each other) tend to use that term rather than polygamy because the latter has been associated with the abuse of women, although polygyny is a more exact term for one man with multiple wives.