The issue is with legal status with regards to say wills, power of attorney, next of kin for example. Plus at the moment if a man, for example, married multiple women he’d be a bigamist and it’s against the law and the women have solid grounds for rebuttal with the only proof a woman would need is the man’s second marriage certificate, if polygamy was legal the man, going along with this example, could say that both women married him knowingly and they would need to prove that they did not. It would get INCREDIBLY complicated.
1:05 well, many of those men were taking child brides. So no, not consenting adults. And if one man can monopolize 9 women in a species with a (generally speaking) 50/50 male to female ratio, what do the other males who cannot get an available wife do? How would those men feel if a woman had 9 husbands?
Adult desire is one thing, but will these arrangements last? Provide some evidence about what's best for any kids involved. Marriage is about families. While adults may consent to relationships, kids have to take what they get. We should strive for environments that are good for them.
Polyandry doesn’t seem as great as all that in cultures where it is practised like in some Nepali villages presumably to keep the population downThe girl marries a family of brothers. That way it doesn’t matter so much which one is the father. All the boys have some sex. Maybe not so nice for the girl as she might not feel like it morning noon and night if the are 6 or more young brothers to service, besides all the housework.
Everyone in the comments is focusing on the grooming of young women and not the very real group of polyamorous people who would love to make formal commitments to each other but would be treated like child grooming pedophiles
I only have a problem with polygamy when children are involved (obviously not talking in a sexual manner). As soon as one or more parties involved have children then it becomes fucked for the kids development
Inaccurate. Lots of kids grow up better for having multiple adults involved in raising them. Usually it is grandparents in addition to parents, but also uncles and aunts, and friends of the parents who become honorary uncles and aunts. The benefits are numerous and the downsides are non-existent.
There is a difference between polygamy and polyamory, polyamory is I think what he’s talking about, where you have like 3 or more people romantically involved with each other, and yea, they all should be able to marry one another which is a form of polygamy, but polygamy historically on the other hand is where 1 man marries multiple wives and usually historically cannot be 1 woman marrying multiple men, most of the time, it’s a non consensual religious thing where women have mainly been seen as property and are concubines
I’ve known a few Mormons, they are quite a bit less haughty than most of the Christian denominations when interacting with those outside their faith, but their church does feel closer to Scientology than to Catholicism.
I mean they literally have a secret -cult- church building that only members can enter where you’re given the new name you’ll be called after the end of the world and where all official marriages and baptisms take place. Pretty haughty if you ask me
Some Mormons do still practice polygamy, but they all belong to very small fundamentalist sects, not the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS), which is by far the largest Mormon denomination. Polygamy in the sense they are talking about in this video is not actually illegal, because as far as the state is concerned, these people living together are not married. So "sister-wives" do exist in some sects, they just aren't _legally_ married to the same man. But some of these sects still break the law anyway, usually when a man marries a girl below the age of consent. The issue of polygamy has a complicated history in the church and led to battles between Mormons and other settlers. The Mormons eventually tried to form their own state of Deseret, which would protect their religion and the right to polygamy. They were partially successful, and the compromise of 1850 formed the Utah Territory, where polygamy was practiced openly by Mormons. But in 1862, Congress passed the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act (upheld by the Supreme Court in 1879), making polygamy illegal in the territories. The church officially ended the practice of polygamy in 1890, which may have influenced Congress to admit Utah to the union as a state in 1896, where polygamy remained illegal under state law.
Горжусь земляками! Самая эпичная метал группа Беларуси. Посчастливилось увидеть проездом в Минске в году эдак 2008-2010. Восторг! 🤘🏻 если бы я осталась в Беларуси, мы бы точно сварганили как минимум тандем! 🤘🏻🙂
Lies. The morman still have many wives. Just not reported. As in, lots of lost women controlled by a piece of trash is perfectly fine Sickening misrepresentation
The number should be 4. 1 wife to take care of the house and finance. 2nd wife to take care of the kids. 3rd wife to go out to make money and the 4th well I'm going to let your imagination come up with this one. 🛏️ 😉 😉
Of course you can have as many wife's, or husband's as you want, just not in the eyes of the law, but who would want the government to be part of the marriage.
Of course you can have as many wife's, or husband's as you want, just not in the eyes of the law, but who would want the government to be part of the marriage.
Of course you can have as many wife's, or husband's as you want, just not in the eyes of the law, but who would want the government to be part of the marriage.
Of course you can have as many wife's, or husband's as you want, just not in the eyes of the law, but who would want the government to be part of the marriage.
Polyamory is fine, all parties are involved, but polygamy is wrong bc it’s unfair, a man can have three wives but the wives can’t each have three husbands. It’s inherently sexist. It’s the old women as property thing
The Latter-Day Saints who practiced 150 years ago often defended their beliefs along the same line as Stephen’s idea: which is worse? Powerful men having their pick of the litter with no legal obligation to the slew of mistresses and children they sire, OR allow women the choice of who they marry and bind husbands/fathers to their families? Many agreed that if it were to happen, it’s better the women and children be legally protected.
The issue with polygamy isnt that its wrong inherently, but that its used in bad ways by bad people. Cult leaders being able to legally tie 20 young women to themselves is a problem
It's all cute and fun. But in these churches created by locally controlling men. They get all the women, and control who gets any, if any. (it's owning the community resources). Not cute and fun.
Joseph Smith basically copied Mohammed. (If you want to become a conman, copy another successful conman.) Mohammed also claimed that god’s angel told him he’s allowed to marry as many women as he likes. Ordinary Muslims are only allowed to married 4.
Funny thing is there is a reason why the 4 wives thing came about. It is believed by some Muslim scholars is why you are allowed to marry upto 4 wives. Is because if you lived in a village and say there were widows from war so their men went to fight and died. A man would be allowed to marry that woman even if he was already married to take over the finances and responsibilities of the man that died in battle. In a way it makes sense so if you knew if you died fighting your wife and possibly children would be taken cared of
@@UNION_JACK_THE_RIPPER Funny thing is every Muslim man is allowed to have 4 wives. However, Allah send an angel specifically to tell the prophet that he was allowed to have as many wives as he liked. If that does not make you realise it’s all a con job, nothing will.
Funny thing is, his third wife was 6 years oId at the time of marriage, and 9 at the time of consummation. He's a c h ¡ I d r @ p ¡ s t and musIims worship him for it.
Its a dumb question, the obvious answer is taxes. Think about it, once married you get a tax deductible. Now multiply that deductible by x amount of partners the government would owe you money. We just can't have that...
the issue with polygamy in a religious setting is that having several wives is tied to status and salvation, so the result becomes the trading of women as if they were cattle
Stephen was partially right. Plural marriages are illegal, but this was (like everything American) bigotry on the part of christians passing an anti-mormon law. Not legally marrying is quite allowed, it is the legal-contract of marriage that is regulated not what we do in our bedrooms. However marrying one and deceiving them and marrying another is the most egregious crime of bigamy. Interestingly enough "communes" not illegal per se. If a group of people all marry at one time, enter into the contract together, there is no deception and no pre-existing contract to invalidate; then we can and have legally had marriages of over 50 persons. And by persons I (of course) mean filthy hippies.
The problem with poly marriages from a legal perspective is that the modern legal definition of marriage (as an equal partnership, with equal access to joint assets and presumption of next-of-kin legal and medical proxy, and survivor benefits along with equal responsibility for children), doesn’t work. All of those statuses and relationships would have to be negotiated separately with each member, at which point..what is the point of legal marriage? Practically, one of the main objections to plural marriage has historically been financial impracticality- this wouldn’t necessarily be an issue in a relationship of multiple couples or polyandry, but in situations with one man and multiple women the cost and time/energy investment of raising the large numbers of children born as a result becomes unmanageable. The children end up effectively raised by a single parent while the other contributes almost nothing to support them, often leaving the family dependent on public welfare. While this *can* happen in other kinds of relationships, among groups that have historically promoted polygamy in the US, it was a deliberate practice- having as many children as possible and using their mothers’ unemployed and not legally married status to ‘bleed the beast’, using taxpayer money to support their children while living in large and sometimes lavish compounds. Making polygamy illegal was the simplest way to legally block this behavior, along with the criminal abuse of girls and women forced and trapped into these marriages.
That doesn't make sense, equality is the easiest example of a contract that can have members added without complicating the contract. It only gets complicated once you put in unequal matters.
Marriage is designed as a set of legal shortcuts- if I am incapacitated, my spouse is automatically treated as my medical proxy, for example. That relationship cannot be shared with two or more spouses. What if they disagree? Likewise power of attorney. Money and assets can be divided evenly (in theory- reality is usually much messier), but decision making can’t be. If I have to legally designate which spouse is actually my legal next of kin, how is that different from an unmarried relationship?
