It's not the state's business to dictate our sex lives. I'm blown away that "disagree" is so popular. I'd love to hear why... hello? Anyone?

TL;DR -- If polygamy is restricted to 1 man + multiple females, then I'm against it. But if there's equality across the board, then sure, why not?

I'm against it if polygamy is restricted to 1 male + however many females he wants.

But if women get the same luxury, then by all means, sign me up for the sausagefest.

I think fraav made a good point about most people associating polygamy with religion and men dominating/abusing women. It's easy to perceive such an arrangement as commodifying women, turning them into baby making machines or using them as trophies to show off one's wealth ("hey, look at me, I can afford 12 wives!"). Granted, the reality of polygamy probably isn't like this in modern times, but women still perceive it as a threat because of how women were treated in the past. Take those elements out of it, make sure that each and every partner has equal rights in the relationship, and that no one is being exploited, and I don't see a problem with it. But if we adhere strictly to the traditional, patriarchal model of polygamy, then I'll take up arms against it myself.

Edit: Another point that just came to mind -- in traditional polygamy, the goal is to procreate as much as possible. We definitely need less of that in this day and age for multiple reasons, which I won't get into here because that's beyond the scope of this argument. But yeah, "spreading the ol' seed" as far as one can needs to be discouraged right now. Religious views on birth control do not help in these matters. Just some food for thought.

Edit Edit: Another thought that just came to me -- it might also be the case that women feel threatened by the idea of traditional polygamy because, let's be real, no one wants to share their man. I know I don't. Forgive me for sounding as domineering as I'm accusing men of being, but I staked my claim and honey, ain't no one riding that horse but me.

Men seem to like the idea of polygamy because 1) it fills a subconscious, primal need to prolifically procreate, and 2) some of them just want the freedom to bang as many women as they can. Women generally don't like that. We're very territorial creatures. And the idea of polygamy becoming legal is threatening because it essentially gives men permission to be promiscuous. No woman wants to take the risk of their man getting the idea in their head that "hey, you know polygamy is legal now, why don't we try it?" because once that idea is out in the open, it will cause resentment and doubt if the woman is unwilling but the guy is really into the idea. And no woman wants her guy to pressure her into that situation.

So, whether they're founded in logic or paranoia, those are some of the reasons I believe people have against the idea of polygamy. But, like I said, take all of the religion and one-sidedness out of it, and eventually I think people will come around.

Especially if polygamy moves towards more modern trends of equality in marriage, then I don't see too many problems with legalizing it. As it stands, though, polygamy is associated with some problematic outcomes.

• There is nothing inherently wrong with polygamy---people should be free to do as they wish, including observing their own types of marriage, and it would be nice for the institutions of marriage in general to respect that. Of course, there are problems with taxation and other fiscal matters to contend with, but overall a legalized polygamy shouldn't necessarily have to cause that many societal issues.

• There are some concerning aspects of current polygamist trends.
  Rose McDermott, a professor of political science at Brown University, wrote in The Wall Street Journal in 2011:

"According to the information I have helped to collect in the Womanstats database, women in polygynous communities get married younger, have more children, have higher rates of HIV infection than men, sustain more domestic violence, succumb to more female genital mutilation and sex trafficking, and are more likely to die in childbirth. Their life expectancy is also shorter than that of their monogamous sisters. In addition, their children, both boys and girls, are less likely to receive both primary and secondary education."

• McDermott's research provides further insight into potentially concerning aspects of the polygamist culture:

"Polygynist cultures need to create and sustain an underclass of unmarried and undereducated men, since in order to sustain a system where a few men possess all the women, roughly half of boys must leave the community before adulthood. Such societies also spend more money on weapons and display fewer social and political freedoms than do monogamous ones.

When small numbers of men control large numbers of women, the remaining men are likely to be willing to take greater risks and engage in more violence, possibly including terrorism, in order to increase their own wealth and status in hopes of gaining access to women."

• A more "equalized" polygamy is interesting to consider. If there were a man and two or more women or a woman and two or more men who were able to feel that there was no hierarchy within their marriage, maybe a type of equality better suited to everyone's needs could be reached. I wonder, though, if this would be more likely to happen only in a new kind of case: two or more men and two or more women together in a single marriage. Three- or more way marriages of the same sex happen sometimes, but I actually haven't heard of any marriages with multiple men and multiple women together. I wonder if they do or could happen.

[Polyamory] (https://www.healthline.com/health/relationships/polyamory-vs-polygamy) is the practice of having more than one intimate partner. Polygamy is the legal practice of having multiple spouses. The former should be perfectly acceptable; the latter creates more problems than it solves.

• Legalising polygamy as a marriage arrangement in the US or the UK would mean altering some of the central [features/benefits] (https://www.theknot.com/content/benefits-of-marriage) of marriage as we know it.

• We don't know what a widespread polygamous Western world would look like, but polygamy [doesn't promote stability] (https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2018/03/19/why-polygamy-breeds-civil-war). [Studies show] (https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/868370) that monogamous marriage is better for society - better child welfare, lowered neglect, abuse, accidental death, homicide and intra-household conflict.

• Polyamory [as a social practice] (https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2017/03/23/521199308/a-cultural-moment-for-polyamory?t=1627726355597) should absolutely be acceptable. Consenting adults should be able to do what they want. But Western society is [built around monogamous values] (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/05568641.2018.1450642?journalCode=rppa20). Polygamy does not sufficiently show benefits over monogamy to justify uprooting core elements of marriage/partnership as they currently stand.

We shouldn't interfere with consensual relationships, but there are a couple of arguments for keeping this seemingly outdated law.

• In general, I think romantic and sexual choices made by freely consenting adults should not be anyone’s business and should therefore not be illegal. While condemnation of polygamy with roots in Christianity has been strong historically (the Republican Party called it one of the ‘twin relics of barbarism’ alongside slavery), this should not affect the law today.

• However, there are legitimate reasons to keep polygamy in general illegal. A 2012 study suggests that child welfare suffers in polygamous cultures. Other studies suggest that violence against women is more common in polygamous relationships with multiple wives As with many other practices, many would argue that bringing them into the light by legalising them makes them safer for those at risk.

• On a practical note, the issues around legislation surrounding inheritance could cause potential issues. However this alone should not dictate whether polygamy is legal, if the principle behind banning it is flawed.

why not?

I think the presumption here is that agreeing to "Polygamy should be legal" implies that we are agreeing to "Consensual, non-exploitative polygamy should be legal." Absent exploitation, arguing that polygamy should be legal invokes the same argument for why gay marriage should be legal-- it simply isn't the role of the state to decide which groups of private citizens can marry.

As someone has already mentioned, the state should have no business in the private affairs of citizens. That being said, if the state were to recognize such affairs , then naturally tax considerations will come into effect. Someone who was claiming against Poly relationship brought the point of destabilizing western society. In my thoughts, the destabilization comes from a much deeper rooted problem than poly marriage. Rather, we should be focused on individual liberties, but that’s a different conversation.