Who's Afraid of Polygamy?

NY Times ^ | March 11, 2006 | John Tierney

[Halfmanhalfamazing]

If gay marriage becomes legal, its opponents have been warning, the next step in America's moral deterioration will be legalized polygamy. These conservatives won't be happy with "Big Love," the HBO series starting tomorrow night.

[colorcountry]

Your answer, my Dread Lord?

[Jibaholic]

Eagle Eye, you are a trip! You crack me up.

At least we don't have to put up with any self-righteous "I'm being oppressed!" victimology from you! OTOH, you might win more converts to your cause if you took that approach.

[Eagle Eye]

And you can read where Paul admits that there are those with more than one wife.

He doesn't condemn it but says that those who want to be bishops or deacons must only have one wife.

[SQUID]

Muslims love polygamy. I'm sure they can't wait to outpace the typical American family of 1.5 children. That should be easy enough with one wife let alone 10 to speed things up a bit.

[Eagle Eye]

Glad I could entertain you! I'll be here again next week.

If you can't have fun, why bother?

Some people play vicitms better than others. It never worked for me for some reason. Ten of us could get in trouble but I've always been the one that 'should have known better'.

Having more than one wife in this society would require near superhuman strength, kindness, patience and understanding, wisdom, and energy.

Unfortunately I haven't found a five women with those qualities to take as wives.

(((ducking while running away)))

[snarks_when_bored]

Maybe you should actually see life instead of reading about other people's ideas.

The fact that you don't know that the notions you're pushing were being pushed 2,500 years ago (and often since) is no reason for me to pretend not to know it.

Can you think of examples when the weakest control more assets than others?

In human society, there's always a push-and-shove going on over assets. Sometimes, those who would conventionally be called 'the stronger' come out on top; sometimes, they don't. History can produce numerous examples of both outcomes. The constitution of the United States was designed by smart men who hoped to find a way to balance the interests of the conventionally stronger and the conventionally weaker. We, the heirs of that legacy, ought not at this late date be prepared to surrender to what are claimed to be iron dictates of raw nature.

And I'll remind you that in the jungle, the non-human organism that inspires the greatest fear is the army ant. Individually, army ants are puny, weak things; but, in a mass, they're relentless and almost unstoppable (except by humans).

"I'll give you the last word."

[Chasaway]

Actually, I'm not afraid of polygamy at all.

I'm just afraid of bringing it up with the wife.

[attiladhun2]

You are correct. There are probably a thousand reasons why even barbarian societies like the Norse chose monogamy as the norm rather than pologyny (multiple wives). I think it had to do with giving every man a sense of rough equality with every other man, with preventing the spread of veneral disease, with social tranquility, and with limiting incest. I think we cast off traditional marriage to our own peril. It seems to me one could almost advance a "Boolean" argument in favor of one man/one wife marriage also, monogamy tends toward a long-term social "plus" wereas polygyny tends toward the "negative" in how it effects society.
Somewhere in the distant past, these European peoples came to the conclusion that polygyny could not be reconciled with the social contract of a free people. It is interesting to note that it is these societies that most influenced and gave us our concepts of liberty. There is some Semitic influence through the Bible. However, by the time of the New Testament, the Jews were almost universally monogamous, and the Lord Jesus Himself put His own imprimatuer on the institution.

[colorcountry]

Ah, thank you for your voice of reason. As a hysterical, emotional and distraught woman, I deeply appreciate it.

Keep reading the thread, you'll see what I'm talking about. : )

[Reily]

Actually many of these social changes will involve you !
It just will not involve you immediately. Plural marriage will in the long run will cause increase violence in our society because of the surplus of young men and the dearth of marriageable age females. It will very likely ratchet up costs in child welfare because these marriages are inherently unstable. They will break up and the social costs of that will be passed to the taxpayer. (All past welfare reform will go out the window! All these divorced former plural wives with kids will be voters & they will demand help !) It like gay marriage will play havoc with current property right, insurance and inheritance laws as 'creative lawyering' and naked greed take over and drive laws governing societal interaction to some illogical but of course 'good for the litigators' conclusion. Once gay marriage becomes 'more established' watch health insurance rates to explode upward ! (Median lifespans of gay males is quite short compared to heterosexual males. I have never seen CDC figures on lesbians, so I can't comment.) Now add plural marriage and I guarantee the actuarial tables that govern health insurance will go nonlinear (and it won't be nonlinear downward !) when you factor that in. Of course the 'public' will demand the government do something so the government will step in and pass laws repealing the laws of probability & statistics. The government will 'regulate' for the good of us all, which of course will destroy the insurance industry. Insurance will have to then propped up by taxes. In short it will be wonderful ! BUT no you won't be involved !

[Dead Corpse]

If I were to take on more than one wife, it would have to be a unanimous decision, not just a passive consent from some or all.

Exacta-mundo!!!

[Dead Corpse]

In your opinion, should cannibalism be against the law?

What??? A victim willing to be eaten while alive cannot be considered "menatlly stable", killing someone against their will is an initiation of force, ect...

I suppose it could be argued that a dying person could bequeath their flesh to whoever would be interested in it, but it'd be a heck of a lot easier to just head down to Burger King.

All that aside, WTH does it have to do with polygamy?

[Dead Corpse]

Farkin' weird question to toss out there. Apropos of nothing even.

[Dead Corpse]

Sounds like a better argument to get rid of the unConstitutional gun laws on the books, kill welfare, and over all keep government out of the marriage business altogether.

[RHINO369]

There isn't a legal way to stop people from doing this stuff, but it is very terrible for a society to do.

If polygamy was practiced by 25% of men and they averaged 3 wives thats 75% of the women married to 25% of the men. That leaves atleast half of all men with zero hopes of ever having a wife or even a girlfriend. There are several things that keep young men under societies control, women, property, and food. If a man has all these things he is MUCH less likely to go out and cause trouble.

[colorcountry]

I didn't say anything about killing or murder. But if after someone dies, should there be any prohibition against it? It's just flesh. It requires no consent from the dead, they are dead...in fact it is a possible good food source so why not, right?

We should not judge cannibalism because there's nothing prohibiting it in the bible...well, on the other hand we shouldn't base laws on morals or ethics anyway, right?

How about desecration of a dead body? Should there be any prohibitions against what we do to the dead? Necrophilia...no harm done, right?

[Reily]

Perhaps BUT that's not political reality !
For example, philosophically I support the repeal of all drug laws. In theory drug users can suffer the personal consequences. However it won't be just them that suffer the consequences, their consequences will either directly or indirectly effect all those around them. In our present political situation their consequences will put a hand in my pocket.
Consider Holland, recreational drug use is quite common in the cities ( I have never spent much time in the Dutch countryside! So I can't comment!). In fact its so common it seems required!(Thats a joke!) Has drug use there increased since they became so liberal on enforcement, the short answer is NO , it has increased (I can't remember the figures anymore!), addict populations have increased. Amsterdam is still the place to go for chemical befuddlement ! Has their society & culture improved since they became so enlightened? No not really ! Has their state welfare costs decreased? Again NO !(Add in Muslim parasites and its a volatile mixture!)
My point is gay marriage & plural marriage all sound like things that maximize individual liberty. I submit that they most certainly do not, if one looks at the long term consequences. If we truly lived separate lives and our existence or nonexistence did not ever effect another, then these causes would have libertarian merit. However I also submit the case that such a separate absolute libertarian existence is impossible for modern life. It certainly would make modern economic life impossible. As long as we have to interact with each other, subgroups that engage in 'risky behaviors' will be able politically to pass the consequences of that risk to the general society. In short we will be required to pay their bills! Given that, I demand the right to regulate 'risky behaviors' to keep those numbers down. That unfortunately is a right that I am probably going to lose. The George Clooney's of the world will never feel those consequences because of their $10M incomes and their armies of tax lawyers & trust fund accountants will shield them. (They rarely even feel the consequences of their own idiotic actions!) They can always afford these sophomoric theories of individual liberty. If you look at successful& non-sucessful societies it is clear that there is a distinction between libertarian-oriented societies and being a libertine-oriented societies.(I also submit that libertine-oriented societies are extraordinary oppressive, there only the elites can partake of it's 'liberties'!) I am afraid ever increasing numbers of individuals are blurring that distinction.

[Dead Corpse]

WTF are you nattering on about? If you have a question about cannibalism, I suggest you start another thread.

Morals and Ethics? Again, you aren't making any sense. Laws are for protecting common Rights. Anything more than that would be removing someone else right of action in regards to their own life.

You've got some morbid fixation going on here. As far as disposal of someones mortal remains, their last will and testament would constitute a binding contract.

I still have no idea how this relates to polygamy.

[Dead Corpse]

Failure of a government policy/law/regulation to fix a perceived problem may indicate more of a problem with said government than it does with the perceived problem.

Having an open borders policy, for instance, is sheer lunacy when illegals have full access to welfare. Saying that immigration alone is the problem obscures the true problem of stealing from one person to pay off another.

Same with this issue. If marriages had remained in the hands of our various religions Priest classes, it wouldn't be the huge issue it is now. It also wouldn't be any concern of my neighbor how many wives/children I had as there would be no increased useage of welfare/school/ect if all such programs were run on a true capitalism model instead of the current socialized model.

Our main problem today resides solely with us having far too much government. Point to an issue, and you find government asshattery peeking back out at you.

[colorcountry]

I directed the question to you because it has to do with laws that don't hurt anyone else or anyone else's property and are based upon religion (if you want to call morals "religion".)

Your screen name brought the question to mind. Because you are arguing against my morals interfering with your rights, I thought necrophilia or cannibalism might be an appropriate sub-group in the argument about laws and freedom.

Obviously you failed to see the connection. You have also failed to state your opinion. I respect that. I was simply trying to find out if your legal precepts are consistent, and based upon the principal that your rights trump my moral outrage. Hence if someone chooses to "sleep with" a dead corpse is it any of our business? It's a simple question.