Remember, there's no slippery slope:
Well... he's right.
What's so wrong with polygamy? Government shouldn't have the right to dictate who I make a contract with beyond stating both parties must give (and be able to give) consent.
The guy has a point. What's yours?
That he has a point?
Sharia-inspired polygamy is good for the man and wives, their children, and society.
See how easy that is? Case closed.
The problem is this, numbers of men and women are almost identical with women having slightly higher numbers. In monogamous societies everyone gets a partner.
In polygamous societies the older alpha males hog all the available women for themselves. This sets up a viscious level of competition for the available women amongst the younger men. This is why polygamous societies have historically been much more violent than monogamous ones.
I'm all for polygamy if all parties give full informed consent.
I don't think that it should be inspired by Sharia though. That's just going to open up a world of hurt.
Sifu is right, you don't want to go down that path.
As he said, polygamy creates a more violent society, it practically begs for young men to blow up shit.
Such a society will face growing numbers of womenless losers who won't be super happy to masturbate for a lifetime.
Second, it also degrades women.
As much as I like to daydream about a private harem in detail
...the half-vietnamese half-irish serf would be as flexible and obedient like my old transformer toys and she'd be also a redhead- no, the half-italian half-gypsy cook-wench was already a redhead, so maybe another brunette? This time with short hair? Hmm...
Sorry where was I?
Ah, yes, women tend to lose their rights, which isn't a good thing. As much as I detest the pussification of modern life and as peculiar as my own views about "gender equality" may be, I don't want our society to go in that direction. Every step where a society gets more unfree and eager for systematic violence seems wrong to me.
And that's why there's no slippery slope - as opposed to gay marriage (what this thread is really about - based on an exchange the OP and I had on the gay marriage thread) the practice of polygamy in its practical application tends to infringe on womens' rights and liberties. And that's why it is forbidden and not only opposed by a small majority.
In our free, plural and democratic societies, we've put safeguards into place to protect the rights of the individual. As I've stated before - legalising and embracing constructive self-determined gay relationships has nothing to do with male-dominant polygynic practices - reading the whole article actually clarifies that quite nicely. Hence - there's no slippery slope, even if single voices may proclaim it, it will not gain momentum within our societies.
PS: Danke Schwarzfahrer - Dein Beitrag hat den thread bereichert.
If that's their orientation, why discriminate against them?
Those against polygamy seem to have constructed their own slippery slope. If we allow polygamy in our society, (one with laws, courts, and law enforcement still present to protect the individual) so many will choose to participate there won't be any available women folk left?! What are we talking about, a minority of folk who'd freely choose such a marriage? Yet, we'll supposedly into a third world tribal society, where the protective laws of the present no longer exist! We'll be unfree, unless we tell free people how many they're allowed to marry! Come on, folks. Don't discriminate against the poly-romantic
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
Aha. So it's gay marriage again?
The western, juidicial process of creating laws is a matter of reason, first and foremost, not morals. You can go to Iran if you want a strong, moral state.
And secondly, good laws are also meant to be logical, coherent and hopefully as small as possible (sadly that's more a bonus today, but still).
That explains for instance, why the condemnation of (especially moralic), victimless crimes died out in the western hemisphere one by one.
While striving for a free society, the state should carefully balance along that line of freedom vs reasoning.
Until some time ago, that meant that you're free to marry a consenting adult of the opposite sex. Before that, you'd have to ask her owner (the father) beforehand. Before that, her clan. Before that, depending upon culture, you may even had to rob her.
Note that "love" plays zero significance here, as today.
Today, there might be fourteen year old, adult (in a sense that they are mentally and sexually fit) girls who'd willingly marry someone. We forbid that.
So why on earth did we go backwards with this detail, gettin more and more liberal generally but actually more severe with the age issue?
Simply because in this case, expanding freedom for some would in the end reduce freedom for most of us. Same with pedophilia.
If two consenting men want to marry to enjoy certain benefits (and that's what it's about, legally), I fail to see the victim. Not much would change at all, since those who'd marry are together anyway.
Nor do I see society getting more unfree as opposed to polygamy (ie.polygyny for practical purposes), where society could and would change because you'd (re)introduce a new (archaic) element.
1 adult +1 adult is a good coherent model and as we can see and it seemlessly worked with gays so far in some countries.
And to satisfy your curiousity in advance, yes, if someone brings along an adult, consenting (I'd really like to see a speaking horse!) animal before the wedding altar, we might expand that law again in the future.
@Mick, do you consider anal intercourse a perversion as well? How many Tguys here do you think practice it regularly? Why did western law allow anal sex at some point? Because it got somehow less perverted?
Why is a homosexual monogamy less of a monogamy?
So, marriage, which contracted a woman into the servitude of a man wasn't a perversion?
This would be great for bi-sexuals. Think about it, seriously. Two males and females (or whatever number of each) married in a committed relationship so they may satisfy the full spectrum of their orientation.
Good post, but no doubt it'll be lost on the likes of Mick.
His post did nothing to refute what Sloth wrote.
We don't disallow 14 year olds to marry because it would "reduce freedom for most of us". It is disallowed because we do not consider them mature enough to consent to such an arrangement. We disallow pedophilia because there is a victim who is to young too give consent. Pedophilia is undeniably damaging to the victim. None of this applies to a consensual polygamous relationship between multiple adults.
His only real justification for disallowing polygamous marriage boils down to the fact that he does not morally approve of the arrangement. His position is directly comparable to Christians who oppose gay marriage.