Why is polygamy illegal?

[EnchantedLife]

I suggest these sites, http://supreme.justia.com/us/98/145/case.html and http://www.enotes.com/supreme-court-dra ... ted-states

They are records of the landmark case against polygamy, Reynolds v. United States of America, 1878, and to my surprise, there was little analysis of why polygamy should be illegal. Anti bigamy legislation was inherited from English law, and went back centuries, and it seems that United States legislation against polygamy has never been seriously examined.

The 1878 ruling assumed that polygamy reinforced the patriarchal authority of a small number of men, and that polygamy restricted the freedom of women. There may have been some justification for that attitude in 1878, but polygamy under modern conditions should be very different. Women have more independence today, and have greater power to earn money, than late nineteenth century.

If polygamy were made legal under modern first world conditions, then women, because of their independence, will dictate which men are to be polygamous and which not. Men can no more force women to enter polygamous marriages any more than they can force women to enter monogamous marriages. Women will accept some men as polygamous husbands and not others. I do not think this has ever happened before in history.

In 1878, the United States of America was democratic and fairly egalitarian, but polygamy is inherently non egalitarian. Monogamous or unmarried men would say of polygamous men, what is so special about them? Women might think the same way. Under monogamy every Jack has his Jill, and every Jill has her Jack. This is not so under polygamy. I suspect this inequality explains the opposition to polygamy in America.

 

[CecilW]

Under monogamy every Jack has his Jill, and every Jill has her Jack. This is not so under polygamy. I suspect this inequality explains the opposition to polygamy in America.

One of our main points, Enchanted, is that this just ain't so. There be more Jills than Jacks most places. PM makes it so that every Jill CAN have her Jack. IF they're all willing to accept the responsibilities involved, both relational and fiscal.

 

[welltan]

If polygamy were made legal under modern first world conditions, then women, because of their independence, will dictate which men are to be polygamous and which not. Men can no more force women to enter polygamous marriages any more than they can force women to enter monogamous marriages. Women will accept some men as polygamous husbands and not others. I do not think this has ever happened before in history.

I agree. There is a modern application that can be based in freedom and choice. It works well with Isaiah 4:1 also. And it can work well with what a modern woman is. Just because it can all be found somewhere in religious history or even in modern 3rd world application does not mean that we need to revert society to accept plural, but it may mean that plural needs to adjust to modern terms and personal rights.

 

[steve]

some women will make wise choices and thus drive the discussion.

but too many women will make choises parallel to the choices being made now by so many who wind up impregnated and without husbands.

guys with no ability to provide and no prospects will always attract mates. temporary, multiple or not.

 

[EnchantedLife]

Differences in the ratio of men to women are only slight, CecilW. If polygamy becomes legal and widespread, then there will be a shortage of women for men who are not polygamous. Only after the age of 45 do women outnumber men to any significant extent. Try www.nationalatlas.gov .

The US in 1878 was among the richest in the world, comparatively speaking, and while the prosperity was not universal as it was a century later, there was still a large, prosperous middle class, so the potential for polygamous households was the largest it has been in history. I suspect that the judges of Reynolds v United States may have realised this.

To keep it simple, consider that all polygamous households always have just two wives.
5% of men appropriate 10% of women, and the remaining 95% of men have the remaining 90% of women between them.

10% of men appropriate 20% of women, and 90% of men have 80% of women between them.

20% of men appropriate 40% of women, and 80% of men have 60% of women between them. I think that in 1878 only 20% of men could have afforded two wives.

The shortage of women would have led to increased prostitution, and some polygamous wives would have had affairs on the sly. The judges were presumably trying to avoid such disorderly social behaviour. The US Constitution required that the judges consider polygamy from a secular point of view.

Now consider that all polygamous households always have four wives.
5% of men appropriate 20% of women, and 95% of men have 80% of women between them.
10% of men appropriate 40% of women, and 90% of men have 60% of women between them.
20% of men appropriate 80% of women, and 80% of men have 20% of women between them. Very unlikely, but you get the picture.

Today, prosperity is almost universal, and women have better earning capacity, so one can consider the extreme situation where half the men appropriate all the women. Very unlikely of course, but it illustrates the problem.

 

[PolyPride]

Differences in the ratio of men to women are only slight, CecilW. If polygamy becomes legal and widespread, then there will be a shortage of women for men who are not polygamous. Only after the age of 45 do women outnumber men to any significant extent. Try http://www.nationalatlas.gov .

I agree with your point here about women outnumbering men. That means we already would have a shortage of women if every man wanted a wife right now. But despite that I don't see a mad rush or mass hysteria by men to take women for themselves and I see plenty of single mothers so I'd wonder if approving polygyny would be as bad as some think. Seeing that historically, polygamy has been only practiced by a small percentage of a population (maybe 15% of population), the increase in the shortage of women would only increase by that percentage or whatever percentage is practicing. This scenario only applies ONLY if polyGYNY is allowed in a society. Seeing that the U.S. is a land of equality between the genders, equal rights in terms of sexuality, and equal rights/protections under the law in general, then we're going to get all types of polygamy if poly is ever decriminalized (polyandry, polygynandry, bisexual polygamy, same-sex polygamy, and whatever other configuration of genders and sexuality you can come up with). That will reduce the impact of shortages of any genders.

In fact, to bring this point back to the topic of this thread, I honestly don't believe that polygamy will ever be legalized if all of the court challenges that's offered have to do with religion and polyGYNY only. I gather that from reading through some parts of the 357 page decision in the Canadian polygamy court case. Coincidentlly, one of the points argued against polygyny was that it would cause a shortage of women and therefore a surplus of SINGLE men who will be more likely to commit crimes.

 

[CecilW]

Differences in the ratio of men to women are only slight, CecilW. If polygamy becomes legal and widespread, then there will be a shortage of women for men who are not polygamous. Only after the age of 45 do women outnumber men to any significant extent. Try http://www.nationalatlas.gov .

I did. And then did some thinking ...

First you've got men who are gay. Every gay coupe (have you BEEN to Ft Lauderdale lately? ) doesn't reduce the men in the ratio by one, but by two.

Next you have men for whom the idea of PM is bizarre and/or distasteful. My own two full-blooded brothers' responses were both, "Why on earth would you wanna do THAT?!!!" That further reduces the number of men interested in or competing for the hands of whatever women exceed the demographic ratio.

Next you have the very real factor of those who are unavailable either due to military service or incarceration, both groups of which are disproportionately male.

Finally, look in most any church in America. What do you see? A whole lot of single women praying for God to send them a man. They wanna marry within their faith, and the men too often stay away -- reasons for that being a different but equally interesting topic.

So somehow, I have a hard time staying awake nights worrying that polygamy is going to result in a shortage of women.

And if it does, good! Then we men will have to start polishing up ourselves. Taking care of our appearance. Using better manners. Being kinder and more courteous. Making ourselves attractive in various ways, so as to get and keep the females, instead of what happens today -- "At least he's a warm body!"

 

[Froggie]

So somehow, I have a hard time staying awake nights worrying that polygamy is going to result in a shortage of women.

And if it does, good! Then we men will have to start polishing up ourselves. Taking care of our appearance. Using better manners. Being kinder and more courteous. Making ourselves attractive in various ways, so as to get and keep the females, instead of what happens today -- "At least he's a warm body!"

I was thinking the same things, Cecil! Along with the realization that so many men are simply "not worthy" as mates, but instead become the "dead beat" husbands, boyfriends, and fathers. And while many women have given up waiting, and decided to settle for the next dead beat "sperm donor" that comes along, still others are holding out for Mr. Right.... it just so happens that all the good ones are already taken, it would seem. In which case, the only hope for the single women is a charitable wife who sees what she has and decides to share, instead of keeping all those blessings for herself.

 

[EnchantedLife]

Getting back to the original post, and considering that there are markedly more women than men for those over 60, I suggest a half way house to polygamy. Make polygamy legal, but only for those over 60 years of age. Gets polygamy started. Children are no longer possible and divorce is unlikely. I am considering polygamy from a secular point of view, and it would still be necessary to change divorce legislation for polygamy, but leave divorce legislation for monogamy unchanged.

 

[PolyPride]

Getting back to the original post, and considering that there are markedly more women than men for those over 60, I suggest a half way house to polygamy. Make polygamy legal, but only for those over 60 years of age. Gets polygamy started. Children are no longer possible and divorce is unlikely. I am considering polygamy from a secular point of view, and it would still be necessary to change divorce legislation for polygamy, but leave divorce legislation for monogamy unchanged.

If you're trying to legalize polygamy based on quantity (population between the genders) then it's not going to work. There will always be a surplus of one gender just as there is now under our reinforced monogamous marriage laws. In light of all the failing and broken monogamous relationships out there, we should not worry only about quantity (or just picking based on availability of singles) but also about quality. The institution of monogamy-ONLY is failing to where marriage now is like a joke to many (Kim Kardashian). To me, it makes no good sense of trying to make sure we have a bunch of single guys and girls available to hook up with if those relationships will end up failing with kids suffering in the mix. I find kids being raised without responsible fathers more damaging than a guy who can't find a girl. Allowing polygamy would increase the options of women to find quality relationships because not only do they have single guys but also have married guys to choose from if the guy that would be good for them happens to be married. This also may not be a matter of just choosing a guy neither because choosing the type of relationship is also a factor here since there may be some women who are more attracted to polygamy, and therefore don't want a monogamous relationship or may not be good in it. So allowing polygamy would also give them the option to choose the type of relationship they want.

And I'll mention again the point about any assumed major shortage of one gender over the other caused by polygamy is only a worry if only polyGYNY is allowed. Seeing that we're in a equal opportunity and equal rights society, it's unlikely that they'll be any law passed with just polyGYNY being approved. You'll eventually get all forms of polygamy. Ironically, as it stands now, we already have a surplus of single guys since there's more guys than women (going by population on a global scale) and yet we still have more than plenty of single women out there, including single mothers.

 

[welltan]

The arguments against plural are lame.

Being a pilot is legal, even though there are not enough planes if everyone wanted to be pilot.

Swimming is legal, though not everyone wants to or can.

Being gay is legal though if all men were gay then there would not be enough men for monogamous or poly women.

Being a lesbian is legal though if all woman were of that way then there would not be enough women for men anywhere.

The arguments against plural are lame.

 

[CecilW]

Make polygamy legal, but only for those over 60 years of age.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Good one!

 

[cdonport]

Why is polygamy illegal?

There is really a very simple answer to the question, and it will not only put all of the other so-called "legal" issues in perspective, but provide insight into what is happening NOW in the news, and what to expect in the future.


Q: Why is polygamy illegal?

A: Because the Adversary (HaSatan, Lucifer, the 'prince of this world') HATES the Word of YHVH!


He comes to deceive, to destroy, to call evil "good", and good "evil". It is all about rebellion to Him, and to His Word.

One of the best places to start is with His plan for marriage, because it is a picture of His house!

But the adversary has never stopped there, of course. The pagan "traditions of man" replace the "commandments of God". Even a cursory look around today will show just how deeply and insidiously that process has been ingrained...and where it is so clearly headed.

Well said! We live in an upside down world where the perverse is more accepted and applauded. Extra marital affairs are portrayed to us daily on tv shows, magazines... It seems a family with more than one wife and many children is more perverse than two men or two women being in an intimate relationship. All I'm trying to say is If it's about Christianity and preserving Christianity in the western world as the court case stated, then why is gay marriage now in New York? How does that align itself with Christianity? I think with the legalization of gay marriage in New York, soon, more polygamous- whether biblical or polyamory style families are going to come out of the woodwork demanding rights and a change to the marriage laws.