Why is ploygamy illegal?

[POKE1911]

All the gay marriage stuff makes you wonder. If the separation of church and state allows for gay marriage in our country why would polygamy be illegal?

I am a republican.

I am a Christian, I believe that homosexuality is a sin. I believe that people are born born into homosexuality as all people are born into sin. Your sin maybe gambling or drunkeness, it maybe lust or greed or hatred. Sin is sin in the eyes of The Lord, we were all born unclean and into sin.

I am an American, I believe that the greatest thing about this country is the freedoms that we enjoy. The greatest of all freedoms is that of religion. You can believe and worship whoever you want. If you like, you do not have to believe in anyone at all.

Though as a Christian I view homosexuality as a sin, making it against the law or not granting equal rights would be un-American. I cannot press upon others my views as a Christian. There is not a valid excuse that denies gays the right to wed other than those that are based off of religious teachings. People might say it takes a man and woman to procreate, but if they cannot or chose to not have kids is their marriage less valid? Some might say a child needs a male and female presence in their life, should we take away the kids of single mothers and fathers?

So now that you know where I stand on gay rights, why is polygamy illegal? Is it because people do not view it as right or as "sinful." Is it hypocritical to be for gay rights but against polygamy? I am not Morman nor would I like more than one wife (god help me!). But do we have the right as society to persecute those who practice polygamy by their faith?

 

[HMFIC]

... it's illegal because we don't have enough lawyers to handle the polydivorce cases.
The court system would get backed up further than a portapotty at a hotdog eating contest.

 

[SMS]

Sort of like HMFIC said, it's illegal in part because those who practice it just do it and don't make a lot of noise about it.

My wives know to keep their trap shut, LOL.

 

[chuter]

Either the gov defines marriage or it doesn't define marriage.

If it defines it then someone is going to be left out, which doesn't make sense to me. If any two adults can marry why shouldn't any 3?

If it doesn't define it then any number can get married.

Seems to me that on the surface any number of consenting adults should be able to marry. But boy, think of all the legal troubles regarding wills, divorce, etc.
And we'll need a lot of studies about children raised in polygamous families.

 

[GlockPride]

I am a Christian and against gay marriage, but I am resigning myself that this is going to happen. Does it disgust me to the core, sure. But, if we are going to be a free society, we might as well go more of the way towards it. Who knows, maybe someone finds my gun disgusting...

I am for more freedom, but its too bad that some of these that get new freedoms impose upon others usurpations or ugliness.

*If* we were doing our duties of upholding our Christian principle, then I don't think this topic would even be an issue. Same with several other inflammatory subjects in today's society.

 

[Old Fart]

"Why is ploygamy illegal?"

Because some people are so ugly they'd never get a wife if it wasn't.

 

[henschman]

Why is ploygamy illegal?

In short, busybodies.

 

[Glocktogo]

Our entire legal system is loosely based on the 10 Commandments. At some point, people drew lines and said "this is a moral AND lawful act", but "that is not". In America, polygamy is classified as a "mala in se" or morally wrong criminal act. In some very conservative states, homosexuality is as well, though I don't know how stringently its enforced at this point.

Where things get really interesting is the classification of a "mala prohibita" act, or crime by prohibition. Is prostitution a mala in se or mala prohibita? If conducted between two willing participants under no duress or coersion, with no ill after effects such as disease transfer, it is literally a victimless crime. Yet it depends on who you ask whether its a moral crime or crime by prohibition.

It gets even more complicated when a federal prohibition exists, yet a local area may consider it perfectly acceptable and harmless behavior, such as marijuana in hippy towns.

What I doubt anyone could effectively argue is that we don't have too many people in jails or with debilitating criminal records who have never harmed anyone in their life. They suffer the stigma of being a "criminal", simply because someone somewhere decided they were wrong from afar, whether by a lack of morals or by statute.

In more civilized societies, many of these infractions are dealt with civilly, sucha as a civil regulatory violation that may carry stiff fines, but no criminal record or jail time.

I personally think that somewhere along the line, we went WAY beyond ensuring public order and simply criminalized things we would find offensive if we learned about them, even if no one was harmed and there was no breach of the public peace. That's something we need to get a handle on, before we all crack from the stress of pleasing everyone, all the time.

Who really wants to live that way?

 

[HMFIC]

"Why is ploygamy illegal?"

Because some people are so ugly they'd never get a wife if it wasn't.

Oooh that is a fine point Old Fart!

If dead sexy he-men like me and 870WingBlaster were allowed to legally round up all the wimmins we wanted, all the rest of you jokers would be making your own sammiches.

I'll be back later today... I'm going to go build a corral in the backyard.

 

[n2sooners]

So exactly where in the constitution does it give government the authority to define and regulate the historically religious tradition of marriage? All benefits tied to marriage should be declared unconstitutional and marriage should be returned to the people. Marriage should be between people and God, not people and their government. No one should have to get the government's permission to be married. What gets me are people arguing that marriage is a right. Well, if you have to get a license from the government to do it, then it isn't a right *cough*carrylicense*cough* it's a privilege.

Sorry, just tired of both sides arguing how the government should define marriage and practically no one asking why the government gets to define it at all.