Polygamy (Split from Anti-Muslim Terrorist Attack)

[Belz...]

If consenting adults want to enter into a relationship that doesn't hurt anyone, they should be able to.

It's... distasteful for the overall society to basically go "Yeah you aren't hurting anyone, but we don't feel like dealing with the fallout so we're just going to invoke the vague 'harmful to society' to make it easier on us."

It's the same sort of logic used against gay marriage, anyway. Somehow it was going to cheapen real marriage or spread "the gay" to your children, etc. It was just common sense right until the point where it wasn't.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I remember back when gay marriage was still a big debate (he says nervously hoping that particular fight is over and certain forces that remain nameless don't bring it back) and "Oh so what's next polgyamy!" was one of the big "gotchas."

Even then I was like "Yeah probably. And?"

 

[Ziggurat]

Would you accept such a level of evidence from anyone else?

We all do, quite frequently. It's only ever a question of what subjects you accept it about.

Sometimes our "common sense" understanding of things turns out wrong.

And sometimes it turns out to be right.

Do you have anything beyond skepticism to suggest I'm wrong? Because as of now, my understanding of human nature matches up with both the historical record and the available data.

 

[Ziggurat]

If consenting adults want to enter into a relationship that doesn't hurt anyone, they should be able to.

It's... distasteful for the overall society to basically go "Yeah you aren't hurting anyone, but we don't feel like dealing with the fallout so we're just going to invoke the vague 'harmful to society' to make it easier on us."

Now apply that logic to taxation.

 

[Arcade22]

Laws should not be made based on good reasons for allowing things to occur, they should be made for good reasons to disallow behaviours to occur.

While this is generally true, the current status quo in much of the world is that one is not allowed to be legally married to more than one person at the same time. As usual, the burden is mostly on the people suggesting a change from the status quo to show why that should be done.

It's not a case of having a good reason for allowing polyamorous marriage, that there are people that engage in this behaviour outside of the religious ones, is good enough reason to see if there is enough logical and secular based reasons to keep it illegal.

Yes i think i understand what you meant here.

As to saying that there isn't a lot of support in the west, this is because it's illegal and so those that are interested have to find other ways to do it and most of them don't advertise it because of the social stigmas attached to it.

Generally speaking it's not illegal to be in "polyamorous relationships". Bigamy is usually illegal and marriages between multiple people are not legally recognized as valid, but at least where i live there's nothing illegal about being in sexual relationships with multiple people at the same time.

Legally speaking the situation could be quite complex in terms of inheritance and separation. The Swedish law on cohabitation, for example, explicitly only applies to "two persons who live together in a couple relationship and have a common household". So having a harem of nubile maidens that you impregnate over and over would be legally complicated.

Removing the illegality also helps to remove the stigma and allows those that are interested in it to be able to make their relationships official and recognised.

Pragmatically speaking it seems to me that it would be better to make such relationships more socially acceptable, which is being done right now, rather than legally recognizing polygamous marriage in an attempt to make polyamorous relationships more socially acceptable.

 

[carlitos]

Do you have any evidence for that save for your own observations of history?

And an understanding of human behavior.

You would trust this argument coming from an Imam, right? A priest? A feminist activist? A polygamous cult leader? They all have an understanding of human behavior and observations of history, so they could make their arguments using your standard of evidence.

Sometimes our "common sense" understanding of things turns out wrong.

And sometimes it turns out to be right.
Do you have anything beyond skepticism to suggest I'm wrong? Because as of now, my understanding of human nature matches up with both the historical record and the available data.

Reversing the burden of proof again = fail.

 

[Ziggurat]

Reversing the burden of proof again = fail.

You actually have this backwards. Chesterton's fence: the burden is properly on the people who want to change.

 

[JoeMorgue]

You actually have this backwards. Chesterton's fence: the burden is properly on the people who want to change.

So interracial marriage and gay marriage shouldn't be a thing?

*Cue that's different because..... well because saying that would make me look bad.*

 

[Ziggurat]

So interracial marriage and gay marriage shouldn't be a thing?

*Cue that's different because..... well because saying that would make me look bad.*

What makes you think they're the same? Because... well because saying that might make you look good.

And the arguments for both interracial marriage and gay marriage have been hashed out elsewhere. No equivalent serious argument in favor of polygamy has been offered here.

 

[JoeMorgue]

What makes you think they're the same? Because... well because saying that might make you look good.

And the arguments for both interracial marriage and gay marriage have been hashed out elsewhere. No equivalent argument in favor of polygamy has been offered here.

Because it's consenting adults entering into a relationship that doesn't take any hair off your head.

I'm not sure what "argument for" that you're looking for that isn't "They want to and it's not hurting you." I'm not sure why exactly you think you have some right or obligation to put further demands on other people's behavior.

 

[carlitos]

Do you have anything beyond skepticism to suggest I'm wrong? Because as of now, my understanding of human nature matches up with both the historical record and the available data.

Reversing the burden of proof again = fail.

You actually have this backwards. Chesterton's fence: the burden is properly on the people who want to change.

ETA - re-posed the seeded quote above, so you can see the "please prove a negative" in context.

You have lost track. You are making fallacious arguments in defense of your position. Here is an overall summary of your argument. Please feel free to defend it or abandon it.

[

But am I correct that your principal argument is therefore: more women would be swept up by these sorts of relationships (presumably congregating around the most desirable men) leaving less desirable men celibate and causing social unrest?

Basically, yes.

 

[Ziggurat]

Because it's consenting adults entering into a relationship that doesn't take any hair off your head.

I've already explained the external effects of polygamy. There are no such effects for either interracial or gay marriage.

I'm not sure what "argument for" that you're looking for that isn't "They want to and it's not hurting you."

You're not familiar with Chesterton's fence, are you?

Social institutions exist for a reason. They don't happen by accident. Unless you understand that institution does (and I don't think you actually do), why it exists in the first place, you've got no idea what taking it down would do.

 

[JoeMorgue]

You're not familiar with Chesterton's fence, are you?

I'm familiar with the idea that you've latched onto it as a way to make "Appeal to (a random arbitrary point in a long) Tradition" more palatable. You obviously see it as a "Don't rock the boat" magic word.

Chesterton's Fence makes gay marriage, interracial marriage, stopping slavery, and crapping indoors in the winter all go away just as easily as polygamy, you're just applying it randomly and arbitrarily to things you don't want to happen.

 

[Ziggurat]

I'm familiar with the idea that you've latched onto it as a way to make "Appeal to (a random arbitrary point in a long) Tradition" more palatable. You obviously see it as a "Don't rock the boat" magic word.

Chesterton's Fence makes gay marriage, interracial marriage, stopping slavery, and crapping indoors in the winter all go away just as easily as polygamy, you're just applying it randomly and arbitrarily to things you don't want to happen.

As usual, you are wrong on every single count. Applying the standard of Chesterton's fence does not preclude change. And the justification for all those other changes which have come to pass extended far beyond, "well, why not?" or "let people do what they want to".

 

[PhantomWolf]

Basically, yes.

You know I don't see...

"Women should be forced to settle for men they deem as less attractive so those men can have sex and not be disruptive to society"

as being a big hit as a caption on Women's Rights posters.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Social institutions exist for a reason. They don't happen by accident. Unless you understand that institution does (and I don't think you actually do), why it exists in the first place, you've got no idea what taking it down would do.

When those social institutions and laws exist in the way they do purely because of religion (in the west's case Christianity and the belief that Marriage was created by god to be between a man and a woman) then yes they should be scrapped and rebuilt based on logic and secular understandings.

 

[theprestige]

You know I don't see...



"Women should be forced to settle for men they deem as less attractive so those men can have sex and not be disruptive to society"



as being a big hit as a caption on Women's Rights posters.

Coincidentally, all the societies that are big fans of polygamy are also not big fans of women's rights.

That is your claim, right? It's a coincidence?

 

[PhantomWolf]

While this is generally true, the current status quo in much of the world is that one is not allowed to be legally married to more than one person at the same time. As usual, the burden is mostly on the people suggesting a change from the status quo to show why that should be done.

The only reason that is needed is that it is a violation of people's rights. This is the exact same argument that won the cases of Gay Marriage.

Generally speaking it's not illegal to be in "polyamorous relationships". Bigamy is usually illegal and marriages between multiple people are not legally recognized as valid, but at least where i live there's nothing illegal about being in sexual relationships with multiple people at the same time.

Generally speaking it's not illegal to be in "homosexual relationships". Sodomy is usually illegal and marriages between people of the same sex are not legally recognized as valid, but at least where i live there's nothing illegal about being in sexual relationships with people of the same sex.

Legally speaking the situation could be quite complex in terms of inheritance and separation. The Swedish law on cohabitation, for example, explicitly only applies to "two persons who live together in a couple relationship and have a common household". So having a harem of nubile maidens that you impregnate over and over would be legally complicated.

You do realise that this is not the general form that polyamerous relations take right? You also realise that in a proper polyamerous relationships that all partners have to agree to the introduction of a new member? The fact is that in a society where men and women have equal rights, the highlighted straw would simple not exist. And as to the legal ways of dealing with dissolving a party of the marriage, dealing with kids and so forth, we already have those rules set up, we just have to change the math a bit.

Pragmatically speaking it seems to me that it would be better to make such relationships more socially acceptable, which is being done right now, rather than legally recognizing polygamous marriage in an attempt to make polyamorous relationships more socially acceptable.

Pragmatically speaking it seems to me that it would be better to make such relationships more socially acceptable, which is being done right now, rather than legally recognizing same sex marriage in an attempt to make same sex relationships more socially acceptable.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Coincidentally, all the societies that are big fans of polygamy are also not big fans of women's rights.

That is your claim, right? It's a coincidence?

Actually that is Ziggurat's claim and I have already pointed out that relationship is because women are treated as goods not because they have free will to decide if that is what they really want.

Ziggurat, and now apparently you are trying to draw a causation between Polygamy and a lack of women's rights, but he has continuously failed to actually show that causation. You are welcome to try, but I suspect you will also fail because the causation is the other way around. A Lack of women's rights to the point of them being treated as goods will create a polygamous society where the powerful and rich have a lot of wives because they are status symbols.

This says absolutely nothing about how polyamorous relationships would exist in a society where men and women have equal rights, equal status, and equal power.

 

[Roboramma]

Actually that is Ziggurat's claim and I have already pointed out that relationship is because women are treated as goods not because they have free will to decide if that is what they really want.

Ziggurat, and now apparently you are trying to draw a causation between Polygamy and a lack of women's rights, but he has continuously failed to actually show that causation. You are welcome to try, but I suspect you will also fail because the causation is the other way around. A Lack of women's rights to the point of them being treated as goods will create a polygamous society where the powerful and rich have a lot of wives because they are status symbols.

Wouldn't that predict that the vast majority of societies where women lacked rights would be polygamous, rather than that the vast majority of polygamous societies lacked women's rights?

The latter seems to be the actual case, but the former is not (particularly if you look at history). So the correlation seems to go in the direction predicted by Ziggurat's viewpoint and not yours here.

This says absolutely nothing about how polyamorous relationships would exist in a society where men and women have equal rights, equal status, and equal power.

Do we have data from hunter-gatherer societies on this? My understanding is that they are much more egalitarian than settled societies, so could offer a test for how things would go in an egalitarian setting.