The fact that there can be inequalities and abuses in existing marrigaes between only two spouses is not a reason to allow polygynous marriages in which such abuses become more likely.

I realize that America is not Saudi Arabia, however, there is Muslim immigration, and I am talking about social trends. The tendency of polygynous marriage is to move society in the direction of making women socially subservient and inferior to men.

I am not implying that sex is all there is to marriage! I specifically said IF people want to be promiscuous they do not need to get married in order to do so. Notice the word if. Obviously, there are people who have other objectives than promiscuity. I never said there weren't.

With regard to the point that people can have lots of children and still have them all covered by their family insurance policy, there is a limit to the number of children that a family can have if there is only one woman to give birth to them. Most women do not want to spend their whole life pregnant but even if they do, they are still generally not going to be able to have more than about 20 children. Whereas, if a many can have as many wives as he wants, he can also have as many children as he wants, and it is not unusual in polygynous marriages for there to be hundreds of children. So it does make a difference. Insurance companies can calculate an average family size, as long as they know that there are only two spouses. And in polygynous families, the children as well as the wives tend to be exploited as resources by the husband. Child labor laws do not shield children from working for their parents.