Polygamy Discussion Thread: More Americans Now Than Ever Say Polygamy Is Morally Acceptable

[Pem123]

Freedom granted only when it is known beforehand that its effects will be beneficial is not freedom.

Friedrich August von Hayek

 

[panamaican]

how would divorce work?

I'd assume proportionally. 5 people, 1 leaves and gets 20% of the stuff. A more complicated question is about the children to me.

But same sex marriage actually makes the whole polygamous divorce easier. Now the man can divorce the women and they can remain in a ssm marriage without losing their marital status.

I think polygamy is the next step and I don't see any legitimate legal arguments against it. There's the usual traditional arguments but I think they're a farce considering where we are now.

 

[Gandhi]

As stated polygamy IS traditional marriage my only concern is the potential for one sided abuse.

 

[panamaican]

As stated polygamy IS traditional marriage my only concern is the potential for one sided abuse.

I agree. One man with 3 wives is probably going to need access to a help line. :icon_chee

 

[Higus]

Do people choose to be polygamists, or are they born that way?

 

[OldGoat]

why is it so difficult to find someone who is NOT a relativist?

You mean "the only axioms to adopt with the regards of arguing morality are mine, dammit!"

 

[JDragon]

I think polygamy is the next step and I don't see any legitimate legal arguments against it. There's the usual traditional arguments but I think they're a farce considering where we are now.

Remember the incest thread I made? It was based on the consenting adults notion and I got a surprising number of responses that agreed with my initial thesis that while certainly weird in the eyes of most people, there was no actual basis to make a law and punish people for it. There were, besides the usual yelling, some very good arguments that considered the inevitable power asymmetry in such a relationship, making a good case for why it could still be forbidden.

Now polygamy is a tricky issue and I agree that with the rise of SSM, the traditionalistic arguments lose power. Originally it was "only between a man and a woman", now it is "only between two consenting adults", but what exactly fixes the number to be two?

Here is my line of thinking:

1) Polygamy is not forbidden. You can have as many wives or husbands as you can handle - only not on paper. You can have polygamy but not multi-person-marriage.

2) That said: If I can have a second wife, why could I not have a 3rd wife? Or a 10th wife - who would really define the maximum? And if each of my 10 wifes has additional 10 husbands on her own - where some of them would be sharing the same husband? Eventually, 'marriage' could - at least in theory - become an n-dimensional cube of relationships.

And all of these marriages would get tax advantages.

Once you give up on n = 2 in marriage, you really get a conceptual problem because at least in theory, mankind could be married to itself.

 

[K1levelgrappler]

It's going to be hilarious watching social conservatives having to go through the whole fight over and over any time some group tries to assert itself.

 

[Islam Imamate]

So now women whose primary ambition in the first half of their life is to manage a home and raise children are "breeders/whores" who should be viewed as losers? Typical meanspirited, faux-liberal bullshit.

How do you feel about men who want to be stay-at-home dad's while mom provides in the workforce? I guess they are to be applauded and respected since, as males, they are following the faux-liberal marching orders and operating outside traditional gender roles.

Today's so-called left is suffering from a kind of mental illness.

I think there is a bit of an over-correction among in the left when it comes to gender roles. When you look at Japan, you see how profound the consequences of neglecting motherhood are. That's not to say women can't have careers and be mothers and that Japan should just shove women back in the kitchen but if all your women are these independent , ambitious career women content with visiting a host club a couple times a week over having children and raising a family your society very well could collapse.

freedom is not about whether its good for society, we give people freedom because we thought it is their God given right, to be free and choice their way of live.

if consenting adults want to be in polygamy relationship, why should you have the right to tell them otherwise.

and old rich people will have many young women around them anyways.

I don't think its wrong for society to allocate its benefits in such a way as to promote certain unions over others so long as there is good reason. I don't think there is a good reason to keep gay marriage from being recognized but polygamy brings with it those issues I mentioned so I'm okay with it not being recognized.

That said if a court decided the individual right overruled those concerns I wouldn't loose sleep over it and I think those who are saying we should look at polygamy in light of the Supreme Court decision have a point but as I said earlier I think the easier case is for 1st cousin marriages given its already recognized in 20 states and DC but cohabitation with your 1st cousin is illegal in 8 so it has a certain level of legitimacy and persecution.

 

[SODACKER]

Remember the incest thread I made? It was based on the consenting adults notion and I got a surprising number of responses that agreed with my initial thesis that while certainly weird in the eyes of most people, there was no actual basis to make a law and punish people for it. There were, besides the usual yelling, some very good arguments that considered the inevitable power asymmetry in such a relationship, making a good case for why it could still be forbidden.

Now polygamy is a tricky issue and I agree that with the rise of SSM, the traditionalistic arguments lose power. Originally it was "only between a man and a woman", now it is "only between two consenting adults", but what exactly fixes the number to be two?

Here is my line of thinking:

1) Polygamy is not forbidden. You can have as many wives or husbands as you can handle - only not on paper. You can have polygamy but not multi-person-marriage.

2) That said: If I can have a second wife, why could I not have a 3rd wife? Or a 10th wife - who would really define the maximum? And if each of my 10 wifes has additional 10 husbands on her own - where some of them would be sharing the same husband? Eventually, 'marriage' could - at least in theory - become an n-dimensional cube of relationships.

And all of these marriages would get tax advantages.

Once you give up on n = 2 in marriage, you really get a conceptual problem because at least in theory, mankind could be married to itself.

And if everyone turns gay (an extreme like every marrying each other) society stops reproducing and humanity goes extinct. The mankind marrying itself doesn't hold much water to me.


And you could always be gay, just not married on paper. And that was a major issue that being against indicated bigotry.

 

[klnOmega]

Pedophilia is next, not polygamy. Liberals don't care about polygamy, because it is really more of a religious thing. Pedophilia is something they can get behind, though.

The ball is already rolling. We have people arguing that schools shouldn't teach kids not to have sex, or not to wear booty shorts, or not to twerk at prom, because of "slut shaming". We also have people defending the twerking little boy at the gay pride parade.

 

[Pem123]

So now women whose primary ambition in the first half of their life is to manage a home and raise children are "breeders/whores" who should be viewed as losers? Typical meanspirited, faux-liberal bullshit.

How do you feel about men who want to be stay-at-home dad's while mom provides in the workforce? I guess they are to be applauded and respected since, as males, they are following the faux-liberal marching orders and operating outside traditional gender roles.

Today's so-called left is suffering from a kind of mental illness.

wow, i never thought hearing this from you.

the left like to complain about women cannot make their own choices, but complain when they do make their own choice and choice to stick with old rich dude.

probably because most of feminist libbies are 5-6 in attractiveness at best

 

[JDragon]

Pedophilia is next, not polygamy. Liberals don't care about polygamy, because it is really more of a religious thing. Pedophilia is something they can get behind, though.

Pedophilia does not work with the "consenting adults" logic. You are only trying to flame.

 

[SODACKER]

Pedophilia does not work with the "consenting adults" logic. You are only trying to flame.

The thing is these are just definitions that are obviously fluid. Marriage was just union between husband and wife, and people could use that definition of marriage as a reason that we wouldn't have same sex marriage ever.

These definitions are obviously set in stone so it's silly to think that if we can change one part that we can't change another.

 

[sleepwalk]

I'm pretty much down with polygamy. I can only imagine the argument against it would be tax and entitlement structuring at this point.

The incest is a lot more iffy. I happen to live in a state where it is legal to marry a first cousin (no, I didn't.) First degree incest (parent/child, siblings, aunt/nephew, uncle/niece) carries a substantial increase in the likelihood of significant birth defects (when there is a family history of harmful recessive phenotypes) and infant mortality. In this, one must revisit the ethics of reproductive rights; something oft discussed in this country.

Ah, incestuous marriage. Another time-honored traditional marriage structure. Practiced by such Western cultural heavyweights as Edgar Allan Poe, Charles Darwin, Albert Einstein...and Rudy Giuliani.

Don't forget FDR.

 

[oldshadow]

The thing is these are just definitions that are obviously fluid. Marriage was just union between husband and wife, and people could use that definition of marriage as a reason that we wouldn't have same sex marriage ever.

These definitions are obviously set in stone so it's silly to think that if we can change one part that we can't change another.

This as it depends on what people classified as pedophilia and the age of consent and marriage could be lowered to 16 to 15 to 14 to 13 as it has been in the past.

If a 13 year old has the right to be sexuality active and have a good sex life why could they not make it one partner in a committed relationship.

 

[2DUM2TAP]

My only problem with multiple spouses is that some dude like Brad Pitt could afford to horde 1000 women all to him self, and would have no problem getting a 1000 smoking hot ones....

Given that the ratio of men to women is approximately 1:1 then it makes for about 999 other dudes out there who will be stuck being lonely and palming it for the rest of their lives.

 

[SakuMemories]

My only problem with multiple spouses is that some dude like Brad Pitt could afford to horde 1000 women all to him self, and would have no problem getting a 1000 smoking hot ones....

Given that the ratio of men to women is approximately 1:1 then it makes for about 999 other dudes out there who will be stuck being lonely and palming it for the rest of their lives.

you have to consider if you would want to marry or even date one of those 999 bitches. What would you think of a woman that solely exists to please a celebrity? Or any rich guy for that matter?

 

[ShoelessRye]

One way to get universal healthcare. Literally have everybody marry the guy with best government health insurance in America.

 

[JDragon]

Given that the ratio of men to women is approximately 1:1 then it makes for about 999 other dudes out there who will be stuck being lonely and palming it for the rest of their lives.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sex_ratio

Not an issue in the Western world.