Oh! I see! You subscibe to utopian polygamy in which peace and harmony reign! Ok, for those of us in the real world, wives will have unequal status.
Guess I missed this class on human rights? When was "traditional" marriage defined as a "right"?
The short answer: both parents have an obligation to provide for their children - they can't abandon or harm them. We recognize that obligation legally with the name "marriage." For a more detailed answer into parental obligation, read this. It is in response to the "violinist defense" of abortion, which denies parental obligation to children.
So a good reason to keep plural marriages illegal is to prevent tribal warefare? Ummmm, I guess you forgot that we live in the US and warfare against another person is usually and already illegal.
Parents are law-abiding. Husbands are law-abiding. Large groups of young men without wives - and no hope of getting one - are not law-abiding. They have no stake in society.
So now you are going to play the class warefare card? So are you saying a poor husband won't look at a single wife as sexual property? Sorry, not a good reason.
"poor husband" is an oxymoron in a society that allows polygamy. The choices are "rich and powerful husband" and "poor lifelong bachelor."
Ummm, again, you are assuming a lot with this point, it's rather a weak premise to begin with.
I assumed nothing, which is why I attached a link to an article about polygamy in africa. Everything that I described is taking place there.
Famine and poverty and HIV are rampant in Africa.
Is polygamy the blame for that, too?