Benefits to the Legalization of Polygamy - Comments

Won't polygamy be an awful good excuse for a person to marry several different spouses and not tell each partner about the others? It's a fuzzy line. Also, the Mormon Church no longer believe in Polygamy, but families still practice it. It's not religious persecution as no official religions practice it any more. Polygamy is a bad thing waiting to happen - jealously, trying to split your time between x amount of people, and all the children...

For instance a man works a 9-5 job, has 3 wives, each with 3 children - that's 13 mouths to feed in total. The mothers likely won't work while they bare the children and while they raise them... Who will pay for all those children? I'm not sure how it works in the US but in the UK, for every child you have you get more benefits. 9 children with one father, no way is his wage going to cover all the expenses. So the government will be paying out for the kids. While other monogamous couples will have a father who only has to pay for 3 children instead of 9.

@Robin

We are a monogamy-normative world so people believe children would be better off being raised by two [preferably opposite gender] individuals. People cannot believe that loving polyamorous relationships exist and won't harm children. [It's the jerks in society that harm children.]

Really, the biggest drawback is it makes it easier for cult leaders to have multiple wives, but I think that children shouldn't be allowed to marry even with parental permission, so I consider that a secondary point.

This is very interesting, and makes some valid points. I see nothing wrong with polygamy, if you want to do it; go for it!
There must be some type of cons to it though, other then just people thinking its wrong.

I'm all for it. I would love to have multiple husbands ^.-

You give no references for people to look at, you state things that can't be backed up, where a lot of it has more personal opinion.
Interesting article.

All prosecution to any poly relationship is religious based. Just like with same sex. It is thought of as against the main religion of this country therefore is outlawed. Which is against the constitution no matter what way you look a it. Some of your points are written in circles, and some need more research, but for the most part I am behind you on this article.

I'm on the same page as everyone else. This is sort-of off topic, but being a fellow Missiourian I have to say this, there are a lot of stupid unfair things our state government does.

I agree with your views on some of this but the thought that half brothers and sisters would be married isn't one I like. No, it's not just because I feel it is incest( Because they have a right as well as anyone else) but for the fact traits such a cancer and other deformaites will occur. I'm not sure if I read that right on your article but in any case this is how I feel.

I agree it should be legal, though this is the first I've heard of 'polygamy' covering polyamorous relationships, which I've always considered to be separate.

I completely agree with you that polygamy should be legal and people should not be persecuted for consensual, private relationships. I think you provide great evidence in this article and a lot of logical reasons, but there are two points you make that I disagree with:

Your genetics argument is eugenics, and not supported by science at all. Things like job skills are learned behaviors, not genetically ingrained in elite humans, and the theory of natural selection does not apply, thus they cannot be passed down. Additionally, polygamists in the United States are often very isolated and finically unstable because they require such privacy to avoid being judged, and that has nothing to do with their genetics. Additionally, based on your logic, the United States should be progressing towards homogeny right now, when we're not. To say something like that demonizes the poor, the disabled and infertile as bad parts of society, and this isn't Nazi Germany. Also, the most common type of polygamy is not polyandry- women would not be any more likely to bear children with multiple fathers, but multiple children with the same fathers. I also think it's erroneous to think that legalizing polygamy will increase it's prevalence. The people who want to be polygamous already are, they just get judged and persecuted for it. Making polygamy legal won't change the sexuality of monogamous people.

Your argument about money is flawed as well. Missouri did not prosecute anyone for polygamy last year; in fact, they probably haven't in ages. There is a reality show on TV where a family proudly shares their polygamist lifestyle, and though prosecution was threatened, it was never followed through with. The state doesn't waste time prosecuting polygamy as it is, even though it's illegal.