The idea of suggesting that a larger family has fewer problems sounds interesting, but it falls on several levels. First, it is true that a larger family will have a higher income, but on the other hand, a larger family means that more people will be fed by family income, which will result in a similar income per person. In addition to the fact that polygamy is more common, families will have fewer male partners, which, combined with a lower average female salary, results in an even lower family income per member [[goo.gl/kNzmz]]. In addition, there will be more children per man, resulting in a higher percentage of family members who depend on others, which reduces family income per person. Second, if someone is unable to manage their family, there is always the possibility of using grandparents, babysitters or friends, and there is no need for government recognition. In addition, if the state allowed this marriage, the partners would be responsible for each other and they would be more likely to live together in the same household, which can lead to even greater tensions in the family. More partners in a marriage also means more opinions on different topics, so the possible cooperation between partners becomes much more difficult. It is always difficult to reach consensus. So, the most important person will probably decide. This makes other members unequal, creates tension and an oppressed environment. Voting is always an option, but some families may be heterosexual (not strange) and either way, there will be people who disagree with the decision.

None of these scenarios help a family function. In addition, both scenarios lead to family tension, jealous behaviour, and stress between non-consenting same-sex partners. This occurs in particular in cases of non-compliance with the admission of other members [[goo.gl/tdkth p. 317]]. In short, the polygamous family will no longer prosper, but even worse thanks to disagreements and lower incomes, which is why the state should not recognize it. As Baude points out in his commentary, polygamy should remain illegal because it would increase gender inequality and social instability: polygamy can cause serious psychological damage to part of marriage and children. Marriage is an institution in which the education of children is one of the main objectives. An ideal context for growing up means having two parents – a mother and a father representing both sexes equally. Growing up in a polygamous family can have disadvantages such as:a) Understanding that one sex is superior to the other if it is not represented in equal numbers in marriage.b) Confusion of authorities – Who should children listen to in particular? Is the word of the other “mother” as important as that of the real mother? It can also lead to a deterioration of the relationship between adults, caused by the desire for one partner to be loved by the children more than by the other, or the discrediting of their authority, resulting in a great sense of inferiority and frustration. Women in polygamous marriages usually do not have to say whether the man marries another woman.

As one of many spouses, they feel inferior alongside the opposite-sex single spouse, who is the “king of the house” and the superior same-sex spouse. Long-term frustration associated with feelings of inferiority can lead to suicides or mental disorders. The mental health of women from polygamous marriages is much worse than that of monogamous couples, and their self-esteem and life satisfaction are significantly lower. [[goo.gl/iaQ8n]] We can see that even if spouses voluntarily enter into polygamous marriage, they end up suffering serious psychological damage. Most importantly, we need to take into account children who cannot choose their families – parents` mental health has a negative impact on children, as development is strictly determined by the family atmosphere. Therefore, polygamous marriage should not be recognized in order to prevent such harm. The unlimited use of electronic devices and machines such as cars, televisions, ovens, refrigerators and all the things we use everywhere at every moment will bring from present to future the catastrophic consequence when our earth will be abandoned by all plants, and of course fresh air, water (because nature is the system, all things depend on each other), which, as we and all earthly peoples will believe, are the most important things to consider first, apart from the visas of unknown mortals, the devious accusations of the liberal choice of a man with women, the simplicity of opposition, which maliciously exaggerates polygamy as hell to be a place of suicide or severe punishment for the unmarried minority. Logically, we see the efficiency of a polygamous family with six partners who have a refrigerator (the example and the main reason for global warming), but on the contrary, in polygamy (because it is now the main prevalence in our society), these five women of said six-partner family must have had a five-mic refrigerator or a five-mic oven of each of their own in simple monogamy. And while this is really what the opposition wants to think that polygamous families spend their money per member and are not considered rich or rich because of the food and expenses of so many people, we thank the opposition for the idea that the larger the family members, the greater the overall efficiency.

Because in the monogamous family, the members will be practically in small numbers, which means a little money for deprivation and other needs and a lot of money for things like cars, televisions, computers, etc., which are the main animosities of man`s natural and therefore systematic well-being. So, in the end, we thank the opposition once again, believing in the assumption that the more polygamous the family, the better the efficiency from present to future, economically and systematically. But the marriage equality movement was strangely hostile to polygamy, and for one particularly unsatisfactory reason: short-term political necessity. Many conservative opponents of marriage equality have advanced the slippery slope argument, insisting that same-sex marriage would inevitably lead to a further redefinition of what marriage is and means. See, for example, Rick Santorum`s famous comments on “man on dog”, in which he equated the desire of two adult men or women to be married to sodomy. Polygamy was often one of these slippery arguments. Typical of such arguments, the reasons why marriage between more than two partners would be destructive have been taken for granted. I am sorry to say that many marriage equality advocates have agreed with this accusation without proof of polygamous marriage. They choose to get around the problem by insisting that same-sex marriage would not lead to polygamy. That legally sanctioned polygamy was a fate worth fearing was self-evident.

Such is life for those among whom polygamy is permitted. That is why the Human Rights Committee and the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women have so strongly rejected polygamy as a violation of women`s fundamental right to marital equality. For the same reason, it seems extremely unlikely that the U.S. Supreme Court will strike down the state`s criminal laws that prohibit it, despite the recent ruling by Sister Wives and Kody Brown. With same-sex marriage now legal across the country, many (like William Baude in the New York Times) are now wondering if legalized polygamy might come next, and some (like Fredrik Deboer in Politico) suggest it should. The criminalization of the practice only prevents people from reporting their experiences and observed abuses. Living in the shadows prevents many people from seeking the help and resources that should be mandatory for injuries and abuse. Legalization will not completely stop abuse, but it will provide better opportunities for education, prevention, and anti-violence. The more polygamous families are integrated into mainstream society, the safer it becomes for all concerned.

It starts with tolerance and does not force people to withdraw from law enforcement, health care and the public education system. Now that same-sex marriage is legal in all 50 states, writer Freddie de Boer wants his advocates to take a new direction. “Where will the next progress come from?” he asks in an essay to Politico. Now that we have defined that love, devotion, and family are not just about gender, why should they be limited to two individuals? The most natural progression for marriage is legalized polygamy. If the current legal structures and precedents are not conducive to collective marriage, they will be built over time.