Polygamy: Right or Wrong?

Recently I have heard a few members of this site say something along the lines of having many sexual partners is wrong, because of [some proof texting they did from the Bible]. Which we all know is wrong. However, I was wondering what the different sides were when it came to politics. As well, a few comments from gays saying they do not want to be intertwined with polygamy when it comes to non-traditional American marriages.

Should we allow it in America? How would we go about it?

Is it inherently wrong? Sexist? Could it work in America?

I don’t have a problem with it. Let people live there lives however they want too.

It’s neither wrong nor sexist.

But then again, I hold the same position on prostitution or pornography.

Wrong? No. But will it make for a sable society? Hell no.

Fast forwarding to the public policy question “could it work in America?” - the answer is no, and it would hasten the decline of marriage as a legal privilege. Polygamy in the modern era, of course, doesn’t entail “many wives”, it entails “many spouses” - and recognition of whatever arrangement consenting adults could conceivably come up with would define marriage out of existence.

Which, if you are a certain kind of libertarian, that end result is fine, as it would get the state out of the marriage business altogether. If you think the state has a role in privileging and nurturing marriage because of the social dividends it yields, polygamy/polyandry would be another step toward the destruction of that institution.

[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:
Wrong? No. But will it make for a sable society? Hell no.[/quote]

Dow we want a stable society?

Hell no.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Recently I have heard a few members of this site say something along the lines of having many sexual partners is wrong, because of [some proof texting they did from the Bible]. Which we all know is wrong. However, I was wondering what the different sides were when it came to politics. As well, a few comments from gays saying they do not want to be intertwined with polygamy when it comes to non-traditional American marriages.

Should we allow it in America? How would we go about it?

Is it inherently wrong? Sexist? Could it work in America?[/quote]

Also in the bible, there were many men with many wives and God never said anything against it.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Fast forwarding to the public policy question “could it work in America?” - the answer is no, and it would hasten the decline of marriage as a legal privilege. Polygamy in the modern era, of course, doesn’t entail “many wives”, it entails “many spouses” - and recognition of whatever arrangement consenting adults could conceivably come up with would define marriage out of existence.

Which, if you are a certain kind of libertarian, that end result is fine, as it would get the state out of the marriage business altogether. If you think the state has a role in privileging and nurturing marriage because of the social dividends it yields, polygamy/polyandry would be another step toward the destruction of that institution.[/quote]

What do you mean by many spouses instaed of many wives?

Wrong, but Fun. Especially if the wives start doing each other…

What people do in their own home is not my business.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Recently I have heard a few members of this site say something along the lines of having many sexual partners is wrong, because of [some proof texting they did from the Bible]. Which we all know is wrong. However, I was wondering what the different sides were when it came to politics. As well, a few comments from gays saying they do not want to be intertwined with polygamy when it comes to non-traditional American marriages.

Should we allow it in America? How would we go about it?

Is it inherently wrong? Sexist? Could it work in America?[/quote]

Economically it is beneficial in a number of ways. Typically, only really wealthy men could afford multiple wives so there would be a greater number of women and children not living in poverty under this type of arrangement. Multiple wives would be better at raising children than only one plus this means those not rearing children can enter the workforce and contribute to the means of the family unit.

There are some who argue that polygamy is hurtful because of the fact it leaves some men without a mate. This is no different than the way it is now. Some people naturally lose out in the sexual selection process. These would most likely be the men who aren’t cut out for marriage anyway. The difference is that women would be less likely to lose out and not have to raise bastard children.

And just because polygamy might be acceptable it would not mean every man would take multiple wives and not every woman would find herself in a multiple marriage. This would depend solely on ones means. More well to do women would not need to enter into a multiple marriage and only well to do men could.

There are many women in our society right now who would have benefited from a multiple marriage – those women who have found themselves raising some deadbeat’s children all by themselves.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Polygamy in the modern era, of course, doesn’t entail “many wives”, it entails “many spouses” - and recognition of whatever arrangement consenting adults could conceivably come up with would define marriage out of existence.
[/quote]

Good point but not economically feasible.

[quote]borrek wrote:
What people do in their own home is not my business.[/quote]

2nded…

[quote]orion wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
Wrong? No. But will it make for a sable society? Hell no.

Dow we want a stable society?

Hell no.

[/quote]

So you’re alright with someone bashing in your head and taking your stuff?

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. John Adams

[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:
orion wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
Wrong? No. But will it make for a sable society? Hell no.

Dow we want a stable society?

Hell no.

So you’re alright with someone bashing in your head and taking your stuff?[/quote]

No, he’s down with OPP…

[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:
orion wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
Wrong? No. But will it make for a sable society? Hell no.

Dow we want a stable society?

Hell no.

So you’re alright with someone bashing in your head and taking your stuff?[/quote]

No, but I am also not alright with a stable society.

As you might have noticed we live in societies that made and continues to make great economic and technological progress, at least all in all, and has one of the greatest social mobility in history.

You may prefer Pharaonic Egypt, which was just more of the same for a few thousand years or so, I dont.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Economically it is beneficial in a number of ways. Typically, only really wealthy men could afford multiple wives so there would be a greater number of women and children not living in poverty under this type of arrangement. Multiple wives would be better at raising children than only one
[/quote]
No. Step parents are more likely to abuse children than biological parents. Add in the fact that the many wives of one man are now competing simultaneously for his resources/inheretence and you’ve got a potentially nasty situation.

You enjoy working your ass off to support someone else’s children? You must be a proponent of the welfare state.

Hurtful is a loaded word choice. You imply that the problem is it hurts people’s feelings. The actual problem is that men who cannot marry will either drop out of/stop contributing to society, or they will turn to violence. This is where Jihad and the 72 virgins come from. You’ve got to cull the herd of young men.

Except the consequences will be worse.

No. Women have to raise bastard children because they fuck the men who aren’t cut out for marriage and when they get pregnant these men run off, leaving them to raise the bastard children by themselves.

Reality is, you end up with this guy. 29-Year-Old Has 21 Kids With 11 Women - NewsOne

[quote]
There are many women in our society right now who would have benefited from a multiple marriage – those women who have found themselves raising some deadbeat’s children all by themselves.[/quote]
You’re either saying that those men who couldn’t even be bothered to marry one woman to raise one kid will now marry many women and raise many kids, or you’re saying that wealthy men will go out and marry up all of the single mom’s who are struggling to raise the deadbeat’s bastard children by themselves. Maybe this is how things work in the magical never never land before time where you live, but in reality this is ludicrous.

I don’t give a shit what kind of relationships other people choose for themselves. But polygamy has far too many negative effects on society for it to ever be a good idea. It’s been done before, many times in many places, and the societies that have practiced it never prospered in the long run, and were never healthy places for the vast majority of their citizens to live in.

[quote]orion wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
orion wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
Wrong? No. But will it make for a sable society? Hell no.

Dow we want a stable society?

Hell no.

So you’re alright with someone bashing in your head and taking your stuff?

No, but I am also not alright with a stable society.

As you might have noticed we live in societies that made and continues to make great economic and technological progress, at least all in all, and has one of the greatest social mobility in history.

You may prefer Pharaonic Egypt, which was just more of the same for a few thousand years or so, I dont.

[/quote]
Your grasp of english isn’t very good. Stable doesn’t mean stagnant. In order to make great economic and technological progress you have to live in a stable society with a working infrastructure, a reliable food and water supply, a functional justice system. People cannot innovate when they are starving, and they rarely bother when corrupt officials will just steal their ideas.

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.