• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

"Why not polygamous marriage?"

another reason to oppose polygamy is that it is easily predictable that legalizing incest (at first, between adults) would be the next step -- and then, no doubt, pedophilia and necrophilia. (I wish I could be sure the sarcasm intended by me about these latter two is justified; I fear it isn't).
Click to expand...

Well, here's the thing. I hope this doesn't come as a shock to you. but there is this legal and moral thing called 'consent'. Children can't consent to sex, neither can dead people... thus it is illegal.

Gay and heterosexual adults can consent, so their having sex is in an entirely different category... perfectly legal.

Once again you draw comparisons that are flawed
 
Tsukasa Buddha said:
That's just silly. The problem is whether or not polygamy necessarily lead to the problems in the societies and sub-societies it is practiced in, or if the co-occuring women's oppression was merely incidental. I don't think anyone is denying the social problems and oppression of Mormon poly communities or the various other examples.
Click to expand...

But he was arguing that it is inherent because of how so many women care only about the wealth and status of their partner. With no justification why marriage vs trophy wives or mistresses would make such a difference. His argument presumes a large percentage of women change who they would be with if they could be some rich old guys 8 th concurrent wife.
 
crimresearch said:
"Because the real goal of legalizing polygamy, like that of legalizing gay marriage, is really to de-legitimize monogamous heterosexual marriage, not to promote anybody's rights.

Several people have asked for an explanation of exactly how the one causes the other.

BTW, what was the real goal of Loving v. Virginia?
Click to expand...

If I recall it was to destroy the white race.
 
Today, by chance, a Beduin man married to five wives -- naturally, illegally, and, naturally, without bothering to ask any of his previous wives if she agreed that he have another one -- was interviewed in the Israeli media, as a sort of social curiosity item.

Why he is not in jail for bigamy, or why the (female) reporter (Yael Dan) kept giggling, and joking with him at the expense of his slaves wives during the interview, is beyond me.

Needless to say his wives are kept as virtual house slaves, and nobody (least of all the reporter) heard a word from any of them, nor bothered to try and find out. He is the boundless master of the house, and when the interviewer asked him "which one do you love the most?" he replied quite simply and honestly, "the newest one".

Apparently he didn't get the note about how polygamy is all a matter of freedom of love and equality and nonjudgmentalism and blah blah blah, and instead treats his wives like property and social status. Who could have imagined something so perverted could happen! It's only the way polygamy is and was always practiced whenever it was allowed!
 
Weird Science said:
Today, by chance, a Beduin man married to five wives -- naturally, illegally, and, naturally, without bothering to ask any of his previous wives if she agreed that he have another one -- was interviewed in the Israeli media, as a sort of social curiosity item.

Why he is not in jail for bigamy, or why the (female) reporter (Yael Dan) kept giggling, and joking with him at the expense of his slaves wives during the interview, is beyond me.

Needless to say his wives are kept as virtual house slaves, and nobody (least of all the reporter) heard a word from any of them, nor bothered to try and find out. He is the boundless master of the house, and when the interviewer asked him "which one do you love the most?" he replied quite simply and honestly, "the newest one".

Apparently he didn't get the note about how polygamy is all a matter of freedom of love and equality and nonjudgmentalism and blah blah blah, and instead treats his wives like property and social status. Who could have imagined something so perverted could happen! It's only the way polygamy is and was always practiced whenever it was allowed!
Click to expand...
Could you get any more woo-woo?

You've been asked repeatedly to explain how applying the 14th Amendment to American poly families will mean Shariah law forced on everyone in America, and all you do is run away, and then come back honking the same thing.
 
Well, for starters, because there is also the equivalent equality under the law in Israel, and indeed, in many cases, "on the books" in countries that allow polygamy.

But when polygamy is legal and accepted, when women as a harem, a collection of trophies for a rich older man, are daily seen, what's on the books doesn't matter.

This sort of slavery will be the practical result in the USA as well. Perhaps not in such an extreme case, but it would surely be the end of female equality in the USA, if only for economic reasons of legitimizing the practice of older rich men financially controlling harems of younger women.
 
In principle, if all parties are consenting, it might work. (Though, IMHO, for most people it probably wouldn't).

In practice, it tends to be a very patriarchal system that is inimical to women having equal status in society.

On the grounds that, in practice, it is likely to increase misery and the subjugation of women, I would be against its spread or legal recognition.
 
This sort of slavery will be the practical result in the USA as well.


Broken record. You can't answer 'how', because there is simply nothing to back it up.
 
OK, so I observed:

Sexual status will always been unequal: women (eggs) are biologically more valuable than men (sperm). Supply and demand. Generally speaking. Super-high status men will always be more valuable than women. The main effect of monogamy is to equalize men: You only get one mate at a time (officially anyway).

Polygamy -- or, a free-market in marriage -- arguably benefits the majority of females, but harms the most desirable women in that now they have to share a partner. It undeniably benefits the studs but hurts a lot of men further down the totem pole.
Click to expand...

And your counter-argument is that the dynamics change because of property ownership, or more specifically...

ponderingturtle said:
By say giving them rather a decent percentage of assets if they divorce their husband?
Click to expand...

There are two several separate points. My first paragraph addresses the mistaken notion expressed by Ziggurat that polygamy must not be allowed because it harms women. But you're not responding to that. The next part says that the average woman actually benefits from polygamy, but you're not addressing that either.

It seems you were only addressing the very last sentence: women can take a "decent percentage" or a wealthy man's assets. Well, that already happens. I don't think anyone disputes that polygamy would lead to more elaborate marriage contracts, and it's not a great leap to guess that if a significant number of polygamous marriages took hold, then prenups would become more common and accepted, if only because a man could credibly argue "I'm not doing this for myself; I'm protecting my family." In other words, yours is a lousy non-argument.
 
Weird Science said:
Well, for starters, because there is also the equivalent equality under the law in Israel, and indeed, in many cases, "on the books" in countries that allow polygamy.

But when polygamy is legal and accepted, when women as a harem, a collection of trophies for a rich older man, are daily seen, what's on the books doesn't matter.

This sort of slavery will be the practical result in the USA as well. Perhaps not in such an extreme case, but it would surely be the end of female equality in the USA, if only for economic reasons of legitimizing the practice of older rich men financially controlling harems of younger women.
Click to expand...

Oh you're funny.

As we recently learned only 2% of Americans have an income of more than 1 million dollars a year. Of that 2%, some are women, some are past the of acquiring harems and a very healthy portion are God-fearin' conservatives who believe that polygamy should be a secret between a man and his call-girl. The rest may gather up a few women, depending on their time and inclination but they won't be the majority.

In other words, there wont be enough men who are wealthy enough and interested enough to cause some terrifying "hot chick" deficit.

ETA; Oh and btw, you somehow forgot to explain how the "real goal of legalizing polygamy, like that of legalizing gay marriage, is really to de-legitimize monogamous heterosexual marriage." is suppose to work.
 
Last edited:
Cain said:
My first paragraph addresses the mistaken notion expressed by Ziggurat that polygamy must not be allowed because it harms women.
Click to expand...

You are misrepresenting my argument. I think polygamy will first and most directly harm low-status men. I think that harm will cascade outwards so that it also harms women, but the most immediate harm, as I think I made clear, is indeed to men.
 
Ziggurat said:
You are misrepresenting my argument. I think polygamy will first and most directly harm low-status men. I think that harm will cascade outwards so that it also harms women, but the most immediate harm, as I think I made clear, is indeed to men.
Click to expand...

are you a low status male ?
 
Ziggurat said:
Again with the personal insults. Really, this is getting boring. Have you nothing better to say?

What am I saying, of course you don't.
Click to expand...
a question isnt an insult, you introduced the term "low status male" into this conversation
but fair enough
evasion noted
I think we can make up our own minds
thanks
:D
 
Marduk said:
a question isnt an insult, you introduced the term "low status male" into this conversation
but fair enough
evasion noted
I think we can make up our own minds
thanks
:D
Click to expand...

He happens to be right. Can't you do the math yourself? The human race is roughly evenly divided into two sexes, so there simply aren't enough women to go round for every man to have multiple wives. In a society where men are allowed to have more than one, who do you think gets left single - the rich, high status males, or the poor, low status ones?
 
Strawberry said:
He happens to be right. Can't you do the math yourself? The human race is roughly evenly divided into two sexes, so there simply aren't enough women to go round for every man to have multiple wives. In a society where men are allowed to have more than one, who do you think gets left single - the rich, high status males, or the poor, low status ones?
Click to expand...
Except in modern society, where it is no longer a matter of life and death for a woman to get "a man of her own", poor low status men are left single already. Quite a few women prefer to stay single than to be stuck with a jerk.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom