Should Polygamy be illegal?

[cthulu2016]

Last edited Mon Dec 23, 2013, 05:11 PM - Edit history (1)

We are not talking about whether any state should recognize plural marriages as legal marriages—none do, and none are going to—but whether personally defined polygamy can properly be criminalized.

(Utah's criminal law against polygamy was recently struck down, hence the question. I have little taste for Mormon fundamentalism but I've always been amazed no federal court had struck it down previously.)

If polygamy should be illegal, how would you define the crime as a matter of law? (Laws must have rigorous, precise definitions of crimes.)

I do not think people forming odd family arrangements should be illegal. (I also do not think anybody should legally recognize self-styled polygamous households as marriages.)

That does not mean it is a good thing or has a good history... one hopes that everyone gets that illegal and "what I don't like" are not supposed to be synonyms.

And if for no other reason, than because it is impossible to define such an offense in a way that doesn't include all sorts of elements that folks would be outraged to see made criminal offenses. (Like the cohabitation of persons whose marriages are not recognized by the state, for starters... something not being a CRIME is not the same as being state sanctioned. We are not talking about whether a state is obliged to recognize such arrangements as a form of marriage, which no state does or is contemplating doing, but whether polygamy should be illegal.)

But since Utah's anti-polygamy laws were only struck down this month, what seemed obvious to me must not have seemed obvious to everyone. I am curious whether anyone is still of a pro-criminalization view, and (much more to the point) how they would describe the offense.

Background: The recent court ruling was essentially that people can live with who they want to live with.

"The court finds the cohabitation prong of the Statute unconstitutional on numerous grounds and strikes it," Waddoups later writes.

Utah's bigamy statute technically survived the ruling. However, Waddoups took a narrow interpretation of the words "marry" and "purports to marry," meaning that bigamy remains illegal only in the literal sense — when someone fraudulently acquires multiple marriage licences.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/56894145-78/utah-polygamy-waddoups-ruling.html.csp

[DanTex]

1. It's already sort of illegal now.

It's illegal to marry more than one person. I'm fine with that. I don't think it should be illegal to have sex or co-habitate or anything else in whatever combination people want. Is that your question?

[cthulu2016]

7. It is more impossible than it is illegal.

If a state does not recognize someone's self-identified marriage then that is the state's prerogative.

Laws against bigamy are laws against fraudulently getting married... filling out the forms to trick the state into recognizing a marriage that is not valid because a person is already married to someone else.

But if three people somewhere simply decide to consider themselves to be married in the eyes of each other, or God, or whatever, then that is not bigamy... at least not in the modern world where adultery and cohabitation and such are no longer criminal offenses.

Since Utah does not recognize plural marriage then nobody can be legally married to more than one person... by definition.

So the question is the criminal legality of self-made arrangements, not legal marriage.

[penultimate]

2. I can't think of any legal reasoning about why it shouldn't be legal

for consenting adults to marry however/whomever they want. Although, I'm also one of those guys who can't find any legal reasoning as to why siblings shouldn't be allowed to marry either.

[loli phabay]

3. i go with anything being legal as long as its consenting adults, everyone should be able to suffer

marraige equally.

[stevenleser]

4. I think you and I are at the same place with that. nt

[Egalitarian Thug]

5. No and yes and why the government should not be involved in religious rites at all.

Polyamory is a perfectly valid choice, but the legalities of marriage, born out of religious doctrine, turn the consensual agreement into a vehicle of enforceable servitude and form of commerce.

Thus, we end up with obscenities like the FLA being defended in the name of freedom.

[LanternWaste]

6. If the inherent issue of imbalance of power is addressed, I'd be happy to look at the issue.

If the inherent issue of imbalance of power is addressed, I'd be happy to see the issue looked at objectively.

(Sam Chapman, 'Polygamy, Bigamy and Human Rights Law', and Irene Spencer's 'Shattered Dreams').

[Squinch]

45. Amazing looks into this culture. Did you read "Under the Banner of Heaven?"

[LanternWaste]

48. I'm almost afraid to read Banner. For me, Shattered Dreams was difficult enough to get through

I'm almost afraid to read Banner. For me, Shattered Dreams was difficult enough to get through without losing all hope for humanity, and from what my friends have told me, Banner makes Shattered Dreams look like a utopia.

I will read it though... I have a copy of it on my bookshelf, and as soon as I can muster up the courage, I'll take it down and give it a read.

[Squinch]

53. It is horrible. But it is also fascinating how people allow this handful of men

to control every aspect of their lives, abuse their children, take all their money, make them into robots who "keep sweet," and no one thinks to question it.

I have to say, I read everything I can about the FLDS, because it's such an object lesson - about many of the things we discuss here, when they are taken to their logical extremes.

[riderinthestorm]

68. Another rec for Under The Banner of Heaven.

If anyone can read that book and still support polygamy, I'd be pretty surprised.

[Squinch]

8. I couldn't care if they married a brick named Eloise. There are other things besides their marriage

arrangements that piss me off about the FLDS and other fundamentalist polygamous sects.

First, they abuse MOST members of their society, including women, children and men, but most egregiously the women and children. Incest is rampant in these communities, and a forcibly enforced part of the religion in one of them. Women have no rights - and I mean NO rights. They are traded among the men like baseball cards, and they have no say who "gets" them. The children are often neglected and abused.

Second, they wildly abuse the state and the welfare system in the practice known as "bleeding the beast." The FLDS took all their kids out of public school, declared themselves a school system and took state funds for it, which they then used to pay for things like an airplane and runway. The kids get no education.

Most wives who are not first wives receive welfare which enriches their husbands, most of whom have already grown wealthy off the free labor of children and young men. Often the husbands will take the money and leave these wives without a means to feed their children.

If the human rights abuses and the RICO activities were prosecuted and ended, I wouldn't give a fig if they ALL married each other. But as it is now, I think a lot of these monsters should be thrown in jail.

[Thinkingabout]

49. K & R

Having one than one spouse if you can afford this is one thing but to have "spouses" you can not afford is not right. Also having many children in which you can not support fully is very wrong. Put the supporting parent in jail and stop the production of more children they can not support. Would it be something I would be interested in participating in, hell no.

[Squinch]

54. There is also an aspect of absolute worship of the few powerful men that inevitably leads to

extreme abuse of everyone else. My not caring about the marital structure does depend on that aspect somehow being eliminated, and I am not sure that is possible.

[pscot]

9. Should reverse polygamy be legal?

What's good for the gander might also be of interest to the goose. I wonder what Orren hatch would say.

[Egalitarian Thug]

93. That would be polyandry. Together they are polyamory. n/t

[riqster]

10. A limerick shows the way:

There once was a man from South Lyme
Who had three wives at a time
When asked "Why the third?'
He replied "One's absurd"
"And bigamy, sir, is a crime."

[Sheldon Cooper]

11. Polygamy as it's mostly practiced today should indeed remain illegal.

I don't really care what consenting adults do, but the problem is that these fundy religious cults decide that a girl is marriageable once she starts menstruating, and then they marry her off to some old man. Warren Jeffs is a perfect example.

Girls who are raised from birth to be seen as fuck material for the elderly church leader are in no way consenting. They have no choice in the matter and for that reason alone polygamy can never be made legal. These cults also kick out many of their boys and young men, so there is no competition for the old fucks. These boys are given no choice in the matter, either. In order to succeed, the girls must be given to the old men, and the boys must be sent away. Who in their right mind would want to make that legal?

Things are fine just the way they are.

[cthulu2016]

14. None of that has anything to do with the question

Like... not even remotely.

[Sheldon Cooper]

17. Sorry about your inability to read and comprehend.

My condolences.

[ohheckyeah]

12. Yes, it should be illegal.

When women are brainwashed their whole lives about polygamy there is no such thing as consent. The polygamy groups are still marrying underage girls and are abusive to women. The police have been complicit and have turned a blind eye because many of them have polygamy in their background.

In addition, all of the children born of any wife that isn't the first and/or legal wife are on government assistance. It's costing the taxpayers a small fortune. It's a friggin' welfare scam.

[cthulu2016]

16. Okay. Can you tackle the second question?

How do you define what it is that should be illegal?

[ohheckyeah]

27. The lawful marriage

or pretense of marriage of more than two people to each other.

The polygamist sects know that there "marriages" to more than one woman or illegal. They use religion to enslave women and children. We, the taxpayers, pay for all of the children outside of the one legal marriage in welfare, food stamps, and medicaid. It's a scam not only against the women and children involved, it's a scam on the taxpayers.

[get the red out]

40. You are absolutely correct

And we will both get the heck slammed out of us for acknowledging this disgusting truth.

[ohheckyeah]

42. Wouldn't be the first

time I got slammed.

[kelly1mm]

13. No, consenting adults should be able to make whatever agreements between themselves as they

wish.

[jberryhill]

15. You would need an overhaul of a number of other laws

First, people can voluntarily live under whatever living arrangements suit them.

However, insofar as state recognition of marriage goes, you have a number of tax, child support, inheritance and divorce structures which are premised on marriage being a state-recognized relation of two parties.

Explain to me how you want to work out division of marital assets in a divorce first, and then I'll let you know what I think.

[cthulu2016]

21. There is no question of state recognition in sight.

No state recognizes such arrangements as marriages, as far as I know, or is even remotely contemplating such.

The only questions in the OP are about Utah's criminalization of certain cohabitation arrangements. (Goddammit! Living in sin is about one male sinner and one female sinner!)

[jberryhill]

26. Oh, then I don't understand the question

It is not illegal for any number of consenting adults to live under what roof and call it whatever they want.

[Squinch]

43. But jberryhill's point is an interesting one. There is a question with the majority of the

fundamentalist sects in the US of whether they would support or work against legalization. The current system does give them a certain cover. And does allow for a hugely wealthy spouse (in this case, always the husband) to take no responsibility for an indigent wife (or twelve). So the responsibility falls to the state. If polygamy were legalized and the necessary laws were change, these guys would take an enormous financial hit. (Imagine suddenly having to share your millions with 32 wives.)

Also, it puts the state in a difficult position. Right now, "surplus" boys are discarded when they hit adolescence - often being taken to a highway in the middle of the desert and dropped, by their mothers. The state has begun to make arrangements for these boys. If legalization were to occur, they would still need to discard these boys, because they can only accommodate a fraction of the number of boys as girls in their society. So does the state still take these boys in? And if so, why?

All that said, I couldn't care less if they all married each other. There is a lot of pure evil in most of those societies, and most of it comes way before polygamous marriages in my book of what needs to be addressed. Most of it DOES seem to stem from the plural marriages, but if they could be eliminated while the plural marriages continue (and it is a question whether they can) then there's no reason not to let the marriages be legalized.

ETA: also the wife-trading that goes on now would be more difficult for them under a legalized system. Right now a woman can be awakened in the middle of the night and told she now "belongs to" some guy down the street, along with all her children. If she were legally married, they couldn't "reassign" as they do now. I bet the loudest voices against legalization of polygamy would be these polygamists.

[LittleBlue]

18. No. It should be legal

The only argument against it is "ewww"

Marriage/property/child custody laws could easily be modified to account for polygamy.

[cthulu2016]

22. I am against such accommodation.

I do not think Marriage/property/child custody laws should be changed to accommodate polygamy, at all.

But I don't see how one can arrest a person for living with the wrong combination of folks, as a matter of criminal law.

[LittleBlue]

28. Long-term, I think this will be viewed no differently than gay marriage

People are just more sympathetic towards gay marriage.

Give it time and people will come around. We already have several TV shows about polygamous families, no different than Queer Eye before the gay marriage equality movement.

[get the red out]

37. The value of one sex comparable to the other

Gay marriage doesn't devalue either women or men. Polygamy GREATLY devalues women and girls to the point of being property. Of course if a society that has little value for females beyond property is the liberal thing to do, I guess we should legalize it with all haste!!!

[LittleBlue]

66. When I read that, it feels like the rationalizations

for depriving gay couples.

What it boils down to is "ewwwww". If we're going to use the argument that consenting adults should marry, it should not exclude polygamists. We had to listen to "it harms X therefore it shouldn't be allowed" rationalizations from the homophobes.

[Squinch]

67. Read "Under the Banner of Heaven" by John Krakauer. It's a lot more than "ewwww."

These societies are wildly abusive to everyone, and many of the abuses do seem inextricably tied to the institution of polygamy. It's a situation where absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Though as I have said elsewhere in this thread, if they COULD be extricated, I wouldn't have a problem with multiple partners in a marriage.

[LittleBlue]

69. Actually, I have

It's sat on my shelf for years. Interesting book, especially the parts dealing with cults and welfare fraud, but not a persuasive argument that polygamists shouldn't be allowed to marry

[Squinch]

70. So you are aware there is a lot more than "ew" here.

As I said, if you can separate that behavior from the marital structure, I'd have no problem. But I wonder if the separation is possible, and I would predict that these cults would be some of the loudest voices against legalization of polygamy.

[LittleBlue]

71. No. Because I could write a book 100 times as lengthy

dealing with examples of abuse in traditional marriages

[Squinch]

73. Not abuses that encompass women, children and men,

become breeding grounds for rampant incest,pedophilia, spousal abuse, cause most of their population to be financially destitute and live in abject terror of their leaders and their hereafter.

Not abuses abuses that cause an incredibly rare genetic defect to become epidemic in a population, resulting in deformities, handicaps and an agonized short existence for many children.

Not abuses that cause the regular uprooting of families, and the regular "reassignment" of women who have no choice to strangers that they have no feeling for, and who might not accept their children.

Not abuses where parents are forced to drive their 12 and 13 year old sons out to the highway and dump them, instructing them never to come back, on pain of hell. Which causes many of the children to end up on the streets and/or in prostitution.

Not abuses that cause everyone in a culture to shoot their dogs, throw out everything red, stop eating all dairy products, stop sending their children to school.

Not abuses where squads of enforcers travel around at night making people disappear.

Not abuses which cause an incredibly outsized proportion of their population to commit suicide.

I don't actually see too much funny in the comparison.

[LittleBlue]

74. lol what nonsense

Everything you list can be found in traditional marriages. It's like you're making the argument that incest and child abuse in polygamist families isn't just incest and child abuse, it's "omg incest but with more than 2 parents!" This of course makes it some special case that invalidates the marriages of otherwise law abiding polygamists. The right tried to do this with gay adoption. The concern isn't the children, it's the disapproved-of family arrangement.

[Squinch]

83. Oh, dear lord. You really are invested in believing that.

That society is an entire culture of rampant abuse. It isn't the same as traditional marriage.

PS. You didn't really read the book, did you?

[get the red out]

88. Those aren't institutionalized into the entity of marriage

In fact, those can actually be corrected by law. In enclosed communities that is not the case. But all are free to consider women, girls, and boys/men without power in a community totally expendable and call it "freedom", most certainly.

[get the red out]

87. No, it doesn't read like that

And denial of human rights to females is a pretty big deal to me, maybe not others, but it is to me and will remain so.

[Blue_Adept]

19. No to polygamy. Yes to polyamory.

Different things but similar in some ways. But mostly you want to get away from polygamy because of the religious aspect and the heavy weight associated with the term after so many decades.

[Lizzie Poppet]

20. If there is informed consent on the part of everyone involved...

If there is informed consent on the part of everyone involved, it's no one else's damned business.

[ohheckyeah]

29. How is it informed consent

when in many cases the women and children are brainwashed and abused? They have no way to escape....hell, many don't know there is anywhere to escape to.

[Lizzie Poppet]

31. Well that wouldn't be informed consent, would it? (nt)

...

[get the red out]

39. We would jump all over ourselves to claim it was

And go as deeply into denial as possible and proclaim a great and wonderful freedom for all.

[Squinch]

55. The question, though, is an interesting one. In, say, the FLDS, is informed consent possible?

[Warren DeMontague]

23. Only thing I can think of is, people might take advantage of group marriage for tax reasons.

LGBT marriage doesn't carry this implication because you're still only talking about two people. However, marriage as is exists as a civil and legal institution carries with it a host of tax implications, like the ability to transfer property freely between parties.

It is conceivable, I suppose, that people might take advantage of "group marriage" to escape tax implications for things like property transfer. You sure wouldn't want 20 Billionaires getting "married" so they could escape tax laws.

From a "moral" or "ethical" perspective; I have to say if everyone is a consenting adult I don't see why they shouldn't be able to structure their lives as they see fit.

[cthulu2016]

25. No tax implications, since no government recognizes the unions.

Polygamous marriages are not legal marriages, and I do not think they should be.

The question is whether such private arrangements (not sanctioned by the state) can be criminal.

[Warren DeMontague]

32. I guess I misunderstood the question, then-

in that case, no, I don't believe they should be, provided everyone of course is a consenting adult.

[get the red out]

41. I do not see how people living together can be illegal

I do, however, wish there was some protection for young girls raised in these cults that never permit them to even know they have rights as American citizens. That burns me up that by misfortune of birth a young girl can simply be given to some old man to be his 15th brood mare and sex slave and never even imagine she can say no, and have zero opportunity of escape because RELIGIOUS FREEDOM (for filthy old monsters, that is).

[ohheckyeah]

47. Strange this came up when it did...

I'm reading a fiction book written by a woman who is deeply involved in saving young girls from polygamist sects. While it is fiction, she gives a lot of factual information.

One thing most discussions about polygamy don't include is the birth defects in so many of the babies due to incestuous relationships. In many of the sects, incest is the standard, not the exception.

Arizona is as guilty as Utah for not doing something about these sects. They claim there are no complainants - how about the taxpayers as complainants?

[get the red out]

89. No complaints

No, once you have been brain-washed from birth, spiritually abused, physically abused, held captive, raped...you aren't going to complain too much. At that point it's like not arresting someone for beating the hell out of their dog because the poor captive animal is still willing to lick their hands despite the scars and blood.

When this comes up, Stockholm syndrome is never mentioned either, and people abused from birth never knowing their rights become "willing participants in a viable, alternative way of life", instead of people born and raised without benefit of their rights as a citizen.

You know what the only hope is to wake some liberals up? For it to come into everyone's consciousness how horrific it would be to be born gay into one of these communities, well for a male anyway. Women's human rights have little hope of inspiring some people to give a damn, we are completely expendable. I doubt many people have thought much about what it would be like for a young lesbian to be forced to be a sex slave to a man for her whole life either, nor do many care to. I give a damn about all of their rights, that's why I'm not a "good liberal" and have no intentions of being. We can't use "religious rights" to wash our hands of human rights.

Do I care if consenting adults on equal footing form a group partnership and live together? Not in the least. But it is too easy to open doors to devaluing women in general through polygamy. I notice that it's "polygamy" that is always promoted, not polyandry. Always polygamy first.

[ohheckyeah]

91. Something else not talked about is

the leaders of polygamous sects often "reassign" the women. If he gets pissed at a man he takes his wives and children and gives them to another man. If he's pissed at a wife, he gives her to another man, sometimes without the children. The women and children are nothing but property to be given away at whim.

[MineralMan]

24. Hmm...it's currently only illegal if the parties attempt

to have legal marriages beyond one. There aren't any valid laws about who co-habits with whom, so polygamous households are breaking no laws, as such. Even if there are religion-based marriages, unless the parties attempt to register those marriages, the state simply doesn't recognize the marriages.

Frankly, it is impossible to prosecute a polygamous household, unless there is underaged sexual activity or some other lawbreaking, like welfare fraud. So, such households exist openly and without consequence. That is the fact of the thing.

[cthulu2016]

90. "currently"

It's not like the OP is about some wild hypothetical. Polygamous cohabitation has been a criminal offense in Utah every during moment of my life, and yours, minus a week. (Since the law was finally struck down in federal court only a few days ago.)

[riderinthestorm]

30. Illegal. I can't even begin to imagine how you'd work out the legal contractual problems.

Wife #1 wants wife #3s children in a divorce. Who gets custody, marital assets, etc.

Very difficult already when its a contract between two people. Add in multiple spouses and the situation is going to be rife with abuse, fraud and disaster.

That's not even touching on the inherent inequality and child abuse that seems to accompany these situations.

[CFLDem]

34. +1000000

[get the red out]

33. So only a man with many wives?

How about a woman with many husbands?

Of course, I don't know of any cults that bring boys up in closed communities to be nothing but slaves for a woman who will marry many of them, younger and younger with the community casting out various young women to eliminate competition for the young men. No, guys might not agree that was simply good, clean, constitutionally protected religious freedom and not hostage-taking and abuse; so it probably wouldn't get off the ground as a popular whacked out fundie community. Bummer. We need some equal balance in our abusive cults in this country.

[cherokeeprogressive]

35. What's the difference between polygamy and polyamory? n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

36. No. Nor should polyandry. Or, any other combination among consenting adults.

Freedom can be tricky and messy at times. But, it is valuable.

[geek tragedy]

38. short of claiming any kind of legal rights and responsibilities arising from the

multiple marriages, have at it.

[Demo_Chris]

44. Sure, adults can marry any other adults they like...

The child molestation aspect is a function of religious indoctrination and power.

[ohheckyeah]

51. And the polygamy is a

function of religious indoctrination and power. The women are given no choice in most of these sects.

[Demo_Chris]

57. Absolutely correct. Assuming we can eliminate that as an issue...

...and deal with true consent, would you not then agree that adults should be free to do whatever the hell they like with other consenting adults?

[ohheckyeah]

58. Of course, but I

don't think you can eliminate that as an issue. I think that the women agreeable to polygamy, outside of the religious indoctrination, would be few and far between.

[Demo_Chris]

62. You could be correct. Hopefully we will one day find out. nt

[dem in texas]

46. I don't care what they do, but......

Polygamy is all about men getting lots of sex, especially old men with young girls. They use religion to justify it, so they don't have to sneak around. The men have it made, lots of women and plenty of sex. Then the little kiddies come along and we, the US taxpayers, end up supporting the unmarried "wives" and their children. Not to mention, how awful this is for the kids, from a family standpoint and from a legal standpoint.

[ohheckyeah]

50. I don't think it's so much about the sex

as it is about having children. They believe men can only get into the highest of heaven by having many children. Plus, they take the welfare money and let the wives and children live in poverty.

[Vashta Nerada]

52. I support the rights of consenting adults.

[ohheckyeah]

59. If you can find a woman who

is a consenting adult outside of being brainwashed.....I daresay there would be very few.

[liberal_at_heart]

56. as long as all the participants are consenting adults, no it shouldn't be illegal.

[ohheckyeah]

60. I would love to know,

outside of the realm of religion, how many women are in polygamist situations. All of the polygamist situations I have heard of are due to religion....patriarchal religion.

[jberryhill]

61. Are you talking about ones who know they are in one?

[ohheckyeah]

65. If they don't know they are in one,

the spouse is most likely guilty of bigamy.

[ohheckyeah]

63. If you want more information

on polygamy, you can find it here:

http://www.polygamy.org/

[On the Road]

64. Cohabitation is not Illegal

but faking a marriage certificate is.

Unless you are willing to have no definition of marriage at all, you have to rule that some marriages do not conform to your definition. In those cases, you have to either assign penalties for those that do not or simply allow anything to qualify as a marriage.

Marriage is intended to define a family, but is prone to abuse because of the financial and legal advantages offered, such as benefits, lower taxes, and easier citizenship. Polygamy supercharges the abuses.

Would you allow a man to marry two hundred women and give them all citizenship? Would you allow a brother to marry a sister, a mother, or a daughter so she can get benefits? Would you allow fifty men and fifty women to get married in a group arrangement, so that all hundred are married to each other? How would marital rights be prioritized if there are competing claims?

I knew an African man who argued passionately for polygamy, and was upset that he had to choose one of his four wives as his 'real' wife for legal purposes in the US. I sympathize with him in some ways, but would not want to take his recommendation.

I am not a purist or anything on marriage or sexual mores, but passing legislation that basically says 'anything goes' is asking for trouble.

[Harmony Blue]

75. Cohabitation in many countries

has all the legal rights of marriage now. So if a partner(or partners) live with another person for a long time they have legal grounds to seek financial retribution if there is a split.

[bigwillq]

72. No, it should not be illegal (nt)

[PeteSelman]

76. No. As long it's between consenting adults.

Adults being the key word.

[lanlady]

77. Hell no. Polygamous communities are unhealthy and abusive

They're little more than organized child prostitution rings, IMHO. The women and girls have no rights. Plus, polygamy abets welfare cheating and other abuses of the system. How else would you be able to a) feed all those mouths and b) claim multiple spouses on your tax forms, health insurance, and other benefits?

[Blanket Statements]

78. Consenting adults should be able to marry

Whomever and in any combination they decide.
It should be recognized by the government as a legitimate union with all appropriate benefits afforded.

[Harmony Blue]

79. Polygamy doesn't work due to findnacial reasons alone

because alimony allocation would be difficult if there is a mutual split with a partner or more.

[hobbit709]

80. What about polyandry?

[treestar]

81. Yes

For the reason that family court is tough enough. Domestic relations law would be a nightmare. Two of his wives divorcing him while he married two more. Child support claims on the co-spouses. Custody nightmares where co-spouses get attached to the children. Marital property, say it's all property after each marriage, but if one wife divorces him, how much of the marital property can she take out of the marriage, and what if some of the co-wives claim some of it is their separate property.

Lawyers, however, would love it.

[MadrasT]

82. No. People should be able to marry whoever they want.

Including more than one person at the same time.

I find arbitrary limitations on love to be illogical.

[Riftaxe]

84. It should absolutely be legal

What living and other arrangements consenting adults decide is none of my business, nor is it the fucking business of anyone else, much less the government's.

[ohheckyeah]

92. I would agree with you IF

I could find any examples of polygamy that didn't involve a patriarchal religion. Women in polygamy as generally (if not always) practiced in the US are nothing but slaves. Should we bring back slavery because it's none of our business who owns whom?

[Riftaxe]

94. Right....because forcing men and women

to conform to your ideals is so much different then patriarchal religious dictates.....However; it's the religious who are control freaks and not you?

[ohheckyeah]

97. It's not about my ideals...

it's about what women who have escaped from polygamist groups have reported.

[KinMd]

85. Ask the married men you know...

(and I'm married) how many would want ANOTHER WIFE. So we can get nagged in stereo?

[ManiacJoe]

86. I was going to go with multiple mothers in law, but that works, too.

[davidpdx]

95. Good point

Although I would qualify with saying that my MIL is actually pretty good. She only gives me a bad time every once in awhile. My wife on the other hand, all the time.

Putting all the legal stuff aside, I think any male who wants more than one wife (or any woman who wants more than one husband) is just nuts.

[quaker bill]

96. Between consenting adults,

I tend to think that how consenting adults choose to arrange their lives is not government business, again for emphasis, consenting adults (no child brides). Very few people of my acquaintance would choose or be capable of a sustained multiple relationship, but I just don't see it as the State's business, either way. (given of course, consenting adults)

[RebelOne]

98. No, but only if I could have more than one husband. n/t