Why is Polygamy almost universally considered wrong?

[LesStrat]

"Doctor, my woman is comin' back home late today
Could ya' maybe give me something?
'cause the feelin' is gone and I must get it back right away
Before she sees that I've been

Up, down, tryin' to get the feeling again
All around.... tryin' to get the feeling again
The one that made me shiver, made my knees start to quiver
Every time she walked in
And I've looked high, low, everywhere I possibly can
But there's no tryin' to get the feeling again
It seemed to disappear as fast as it came"

Maybe a coupla extry womens would cure this ailment!

[Kosh Naranek]

Couldn't you live with multiple partners and have all of the sex and kids you want without being married? As I understand it, the only legal prohibition is against having more than one marriage.

Absolutely!! I was going to post this myself, but saw you'd already made the point. It's worth noting that most in the West consider living with multiple partners somewhat of a social taboo just as they do polygamy, but there are people who do live that way, and the law does not consider it their business to interfere.

Personally I prefer to just have my one lady in my life. That's not even due to practical considerations like not having enough income to support a family with multiple wives and a dozen kids. That's just how I feel. Our relationship is something special between us two and not anyone else.

But it seems a double standard to me when the law stays out of unmarried peoples' personal business, as it should, but it steps in and sets limits for married peoples' personal lives.

Why is it considered wrong? Because it's not for most of us, and we tend to consider others who are different as wrong. People look sidways at and make wisecracks about single people who live with multiple partners almost as much as they would if those people were married.

Why is it illegal? I think it's partly a carryover from the days when we thought the function of the laws of our country included enforcing morality. I also suspect it has to do with wanting to avoid the complications in tax laws, etc that would be created if households with more than two spouses were legal.

[Skarekrough]

Forget it. I just wasted my night arguing about stuff like marriage with a guy who is still in high school.

Good night.

Yes...and at the ripe age of 20 you've certainly earned the right to tell anyone out there that you know your ass from your elbow THAT more than he does.

[Rainmaker]

Yes...and at the ripe age of 20 you've certainly earned the right to tell anyone out there that you know your ass from your elbow THAT more than he does.

That would have to be in the top ten list of Skarekrough cracks EVER. LOL.

[JacobTM]

I started typing a post to say exactly this. But in a much less coherent manner. Which is why I didn't post it. However since you bring it up, why is it legal to be allowed to live in such a way but illegal to make it official?

Adultery is actually illegal in many states, though the laws are rarely enforced.

[big_black]

That's depending on how you see it.

You see them as a group of habitual child abuser. Do you think they see themselves in the same way you see? Probably not.

They believe that there are kids who want to have sex and hence the society should recognize kids' right to excerse thier freedom. I know it may be lame but I bet they are as serious as those who believe polygamy has no substantial harm and should be legalized.

Same maximum liberty issue. You are simple more comportable with accepting one than the other. Other people may feel more comportable with accepting the one you feel more uncomportable.

That's why I see double standard here.

No, not even close to the same maximum liberty issue. Again, we are talking about consenting adults. According to the Law, a minor cannot consent to sexual activity. Pedophilia has nothing to do with liberty, it has everything to do with the inability to legally consent to the activity.

[sosomething]

You disagree?

[big_black]

The answers to all the questions here are already in this thread.

Question: If polygamy is wrong, why is it wrong?

Answer: It is wrong because it is illegal.

"Wrong" (moral judgement) and illegal are two completely different standards. Plenty of things are "wrong", but astill perfectly within the law.

Question: But why should it be illegal?

Answer: Because the Bible teaches against it.

Question: But what authority is the Bible? Why is the Bible all the justification the government needs to take away our liberties?

Answer: Because our country was founded by, is lead by, and is proportionately dominated by a culture who's values are based on the Bible's teachings, for better or worse.

It was, has been, and continues to be lead by many people who are not
Christian as well.

Religious doctrine has no standing as a basis for American Law. The Founding Fathers and the leaders in the early years of this nation made their intention clear with a separation of Church and State.

[JacksonMIA]

Religious doctrine has no standing as a basis for American Law. The Founding Fathers and the leaders in the early years of this nation made their intention clear with a separation of Church and State.

Only as it applies to establishing a religion.

[brisk]

No, not even close to the same maximum liberty issue. Again, we are talking about consenting adults. According to the Law, a minor cannot consent to sexual activity. Pedophilia has nothing to do with liberty, it has everything to do with the inability to legally consent to the activity.

I can see where JacobTM is coming from regarding the polygamy issue. I can see where the new Dutch party is coming from regarding minors' liberty. I wonder that if you are capable of seeing things the way the new Dutch party sees things. If yes, we could talk more about why there is double standard.

[big_black]

Only as it applies to establishing a religion.

Up until recently, I would probably agree. It's a pretty commonly held misconception. I recently ran across a little known document, the Treaty of Tripoli. I had not heard about this article previously, I happened upon it doing some research in another area.

Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli:
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

This treaty was unanimously ratified by Congress. It was signed in 1796 and gives, what I feel, is a pretty good idea of what the Founding Fathers had in mind during Framing.

American Law may have been inspired, but not based on Biblical teachings. We are a religiously neutral country.

[big_black]

I can see where JacobTM is coming from regarding the polygamy issue. I can see where the new Dutch party is coming from regarding minors' liberty. I wonder that if you are capable of seeing things the way the new Dutch party sees things. If yes, we could talk more about why there is double standard.

There is no double standard because the issues are not even close to the same....not even similar.

[brisk]

There is no double standard because the issues are not even close to the same....not even similar.

If you are in the "It ain't so because I said so" mode, I have nothing more to add.

BTW, a substantial amount of minors have been involved in polygamy. Think about it.

[TheArchitect]

Who would want more than one?

[gripweed]

Adultery is actually illegal in many states, though the laws are rarely enforced.

Adultry may be illegal, but to my knowledge there are not any fornication laws on the books any more (not that I'm a lawyer lmao). Sex between unmarried people is fornication.

[JacksonMIA]

Up until recently, I would probably agree. It's a pretty commonly held misconception. I recently ran across a little known document, the Treaty of Tripoli. I had not heard about this article previously, I happened upon it doing some research in another area.

Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli:
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

This treaty was unanimously ratified by Congress. It was signed in 1796 and gives, what I feel, is a pretty good idea of what the Founding Fathers had in mind during Framing.

American Law may have been inspired, but not based on Biblical teachings. We are a religiously neutral country.

That does not mean that laws that are deeply rooted in Christian (and other religions) fundamentals cannot be passed. Inspiration usually has a way of working itself in. Many of the laws were decided by the morals of the society of the time in which they were written. In a predominately Christian society such as early America, morals were often dictated by Christian law.

I agree with what you're saying there. Religion shouldn't have played a part, but I don't think there was any stopping it.

No, I don't think Congress should pass a law because the Bible says to do a certain thing. But I do think that a law should pass because the majority of the people want it to pass - even if they want it to because of what the Bible says. I'm not saying that's the case here, but if it were I don't think there's any legal argument against it.

There is no real seperation of church and state, as I see it.

[JacksonMIA]

Adultry may be illegal, but to my knowledge there are not any fornication laws on the books any more (not that I'm a lawyer lmao). Sex between unmarried people is fornication.

Arkansas has them.

[big_black]

There is no real seperation of church and state, as I see it.

Of course there isn't. We wouldn't be discussing the issue of separation of Church and State if there really was one. The intention of the Founders and leaders in the early years are clear in their call for a distinct separation, that was my only point. What we do with their wisdom is up to us.

Already probably too political, so I'm out.

[big_black]

That does not mean that laws that are deeply rooted in Christian (and other religions) fundamentals cannot be passed. Inspiration usually has a way of working itself in. Many of the laws were decided by the morals of the society of the time in which they were written. In a predominately Christian society such as early America, morals were often dictated by Christian law.

Certainly not, but in order to pass those laws you have to have a logical argument to support the case besides the fact that the Bible tells you *whatever* is wrong.

[JacksonMIA]

Certainly not, but in order to pass those laws you have to have a logical argument to support the case besides the fact that the Bible tells you *whatever* is wrong.

You don't have to have ANY reason to want a law passed. Just a 3/4 majority.


You're right. This is probably getting too political.