Poll of the Day > So what is the current rationale against polygamy?

(+) Yeah! (+)

That it's icky? Anything better than that?

Nobody mention the typo, ok?
---

Old school beliefs
Illegal

CTLM posted...

Old school beliefs
Illegal

That isn't an argument, just because something was once outlawed, doesn't mean it should always be outlawed.
I'm asking why it should logically be illegal in this modern age, I know that it is.
---

Split loyalties.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Split loyalties.

Why should it be up to the government to decide if someone can handle more than one spouse? Plus it's not like adultery or breaking any marriage vows is a crime so they clearly don't care that much.
---

Dreaming_King posted...

CTLM posted...

Old school beliefs
Illegal

That isn't an argument, just because something was once outlawed, doesn't mean it should always be outlawed.
I'm asking why it should logically be illegal in this modern age, I know that it is.

I'm not arguing for or against. You asked what the rationale was against it and those are the common reasons why people are against it

Dreaming_King posted...

Plus it's not like adultery is a crime so they clearly don't care that much.

Adultery is a crime in many states.
---

CTLM posted...

Dreaming_King posted...

CTLM posted...

Old school beliefs
Illegal

That isn't an argument, just because something was once outlawed, doesn't mean it should always be outlawed.
I'm asking why it should logically be illegal in this modern age, I know that it is.

I'm not arguing for or against. You asked what the rationale was against it and those are the common reasons why people are against it

Rationale implies rational objections, which would exclude that common anwser.

GanonsSpirit posted...

Dreaming_King posted...

Plus it's not like adultery is a crime so they clearly don't care that much.

Adultery is a crime in many states.

Huh, well I'll admit I didn't know that. Although from a quick check... looks like it's less than half of them, mostly backwards states, is almost never brought to court, and when it is is found unconstitutional, and even then if it isn't it's just a small fine in most places. So I think we can ignore that point.
---

Tax dodging
---

Lokarin posted...

Tax dodging

What if they all just agreed to fine separately? Plus law makers have shown they'll bend over backwards for certain groups, why not this one by writing new laws that make it fair?
---

Actually, it seems like a pretty good idea. I might even get married again if I didn't have to put up with him full-time.
---

Dreaming_King posted...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Split loyalties.

Why should it be up to the government to decide if someone can handle more than one spouse? Plus it's not like adultery or breaking any marriage vows is a crime so they clearly don't care that much.

That applies to marriage as a concept.

You can marry as many people as you like with non-legally-binding marriages, you just can't have the government recognise and support it as it goes against the principles the government represents.
---

Yeah but why doesn't the government represent it? What is their logic? That the majority of people (I assume) are against it? If that's the case what logic does the population have to justify not giving equal rights to the people who want to do something outside the norm?
---

Dreaming_King posted...

Yeah but why doesn't the government represent it? What is their logic? That the majority of people (I assume) are against it? If that's the case what logic does the population have to justify not giving equal rights to the people who want to do something outside the norm?

Puritan beliefs and biblical values. Even though it's separate from our government, we're still using it in judgment

It would be bad for most men. Many women would rather share Chad than have their own average joes. And then all the loser men would be forced to orbit around one girl because theres less options.

No thanks...
---

The only truly rational reason I can think of is that it would really complicate marriage, and especially divorce law. There would probably need to be massive overhauls in that department.
---

CTLM posted...

Dreaming_King posted...

Yeah but why doesn't the government represent it? What is their logic? That the majority of people (I assume) are against it? If that's the case what logic does the population have to justify not giving equal rights to the people who want to do something outside the norm?

Puritan beliefs and biblical values. Even though it's separate from our government, we're still using it in judgment

If that was the case, same sex marriage wouldn't have been legalized. That's why I said "current" in the title, otherwise that idea would hold water.
---

CTLM posted...

Puritan beliefs and biblical values. Even though it's separate from our government, we're still using it in judgment

We actually inherited monogamy from the Roman Empire. The Bible verses people point to in order to justify one man, one woman marriage don't actually mean that because the Jews were polygamists. Another Bible verse speaks of having only one wife as a requirement to be a church leader, which wouldn't make sense if monogamy was the default teaching of the church.
---

Dreaming_King posted...

Yeah but why doesn't the government represent it? What is their logic? That the majority of people (I assume) are against it?

Yes. Governments act on public interest when it doesn't require specialist knowledge.

Dreaming_King posted...

If that's the case what logic does the population have to justify not giving equal rights to the people who want to do something outside the norm?

Split loyalties. Even when people don't practice loyalty, they still value it in others. Polygamists are viewed as disloyal deviants so have a much bigger hump to get over than people who just like their own sex.
---

GameReviews posted...

The only truly rational reason I can think of is that it would really complicate marriage, and especially divorce law. There would probably need to be massive overhauls in that department.

Pretty much. Right now divorce law (barring a pre-nup) says everything starts at 50-50 and is negotiated after that. Now imagine you have polygamy. Is it 33-33-33? Does the person divorcing get 50 from both spouses, making it 25-25-50? Do they only want to divorce one spouse but not the other? Just sounds like a legal nightmare.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Polygamists are viewed as disloyal deviants so have a much bigger hump to get over than people who just like their own sex

People said the exact same thing about same sex couples though, and please note that I'm not making any judgments whatsoever, when you look at the data on promiscuity... Besides I highly doubt that the general opinion up until maybe 20 years ago put polygamists far above same sex couples, if at all on the "deviant" scale. Also just because people view a group they're not familiar with in a certain light doesn't actually mean they are that way in reality.
---

Dreaming_King posted...

People said the exact same thing about same sex couples though

Nothing inherent about being gay makes you disloyal though, there's no logical connection, just typical religious rumour milling.

Having two (plus) partners is inherently a split load.

Dreaming_King posted...

Besides I highly doubt that the general opinion up until maybe 20 years ago put polygamists far above same sex couples, if at all on the "deviant" scale.

Icky-gross definitely tops the deviant scale, but it's also very volatile. Polygamy has solid logical grounds.

Dreaming_King posted...

Also just because people view a group they're not familiar with in a certain light doesn't actually mean they are that way in reality.

I've never known a loyal polygamist, they're very often unpleasant people from personal experience.
---