"Why not polygamous marriage?"

[Strawberry]

If all women have more than one husband it could work. But you get that now with the wife and mistress. Why would marriage change that?

Most women would see being a mistress as a less attractive option than being a wife.

 

[Strawberry]

I think you'll find it doesnt, there are no financial benefits at all. no tax breaks, Inheritence rights are given to anyone who cohabits married or not already, so thats kinda irrelevant
what financial benefit would getting divorced bring ?
and what does it cost the uk tax payer
perhaps you know as youre the one making the claim

The divorce courts are a cost to the tax payer. Who do you think pays the judges wages, or funds the legal aid for people who can't afford lawyers?

 

[The Greater Fool]

No, because we can actually look at societies where polygyny is allowed. There are also a few examples where polyandry is allowed, but I can't think of a society which legalises polygamy in a sexually egalitarian way. If you can, please tell us what happens there.

Uh... that was my point. So every single assertion your making (or that I am making) are actually unsupportable. You just think your assertion, that all men would want multiple wives, but all women wouldn't want multiple husbands is rational, while I believe very few people would opt for polygomy that aren't already in or seeking pseudo polygomous relationships is rational.

 

[Marduk]

The divorce courts are a cost to the tax payer. Who do you think pays the judges wages, or funds the legal aid for people who can't afford lawyers?

in the uk, it costs money to get a divorce, thats where those funds come from, you cant get legal aid to get divorced, thats only if youre accused of a crime,
but what youre basically saying (even though its a fallacious argument), is that the only advantage for me getting married, would come when I get divorced
pessimist much ?

 

[Weird Science]

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.

I checked this very forum and found people who think necrophilia wouldn't be a big deal, under the "who does it hurt"? pseudo-argument. I wouldn't say that's a common position, but once you only accept absolute proof from first principles as the one and only argument against you doing something you like, then the squabbling over which logical principle applied ("it hurts nobody" vs. "consent is necessary") inevitably means the permissive version wins out, since it's always possible to find SOME argument (by vague analogy, if nothing else) to make whatever one wants to do this week kosher and paint anybody who opposes as "being against freedom" or "just being against it because they personally consider it yucky" or whatever.

So, after polygamy and incest -- I notice you didn't say anything against that, presumably since you realize you'd have to allow women marrying daddy so long as they want to -- I suspect necrophilia would be the next to go.

 

[Strawberry]

Uh... that was my point. So every single assertion your making (or that I am making) are actually unsupportable. You just think your assertion, that all men would want multiple wives, but all women wouldn't want multiple husbands is rational, while I believe very few people would opt for polygomy that aren't already in or seeking pseudo polygomous relationships is rational.

No, I can see how your point is rational, and as I've already pointed out I am not making the prediction that there would be a rush to polygyny among rich men. I'm just pointing out that the potential is there and I only got into it because a previous poster who'd also pointed that out was suddenly being hit with the snide question of whether he is or is not a low status male, which struck me as rather silly.

I would have thought the demographic implications were an obvious scenario to raise in any thread about polygamy, not a reason to be insulting anyone.

 

[KingMerv00]

I checked this very forum and found people who think necrophilia wouldn't be a big deal, under the "who does it hurt"? pseudo-argument.

You don't think harm is a relevant factor in determining what should and shouldn't be illegal?

 

[Complexity]

Poor, low status does not equal jerk. At the moment a jerk may be rejected, but a man with a low paying, low status job can still find a woman - usually one with around the same earning power and education as himself.

Who's trying to find a woman?

(not sure who brought them into this discussion)

 

[Marduk]

I'm just pointing out that the potential is there and I only got into it because a previous poster who'd also pointed that out was suddenly being hit with the snide question of whether he is or is not a low status male, which struck me as rather silly.
.

uhuh, so its irrelevant that the question was asked of the person who introduced the phrase "low status male" to this thread then when he was whining about not being able to get laid

I would have thought the demographic implications were an obvious scenario to raise in any thread about polygamy, not a reason to be insulting anyone.

well next time, might help if you actually read the thread and not the last few posts before offering an opinion on something thats already been shown to be irrelevant
if a polyamorous group gets married, how does that effect the demographics ?
it doesnt does it, no one is being deprived of anything, its just allowing those people in group relationship the same rights to marriage as everyone else. So youre opposed to equality then !

 

[Marduk]

Who's trying to find a woman?

I'm certainly not

(not sure who brought them into this discussion)

if you go back far enough it was the suffragette movement

 

[Strawberry]

uhuh, so its irrelevant that the question was asked of the person who introduced the phrase "low status male" to this thread then when he was whining about not being able to get laid

He made a perfectly valid point, it was you who interpreted it as "whining about not being able to get laid."

well next time, might help of you actually read the thread and not the last few posts before offering an opinion on something thats already been shown to be irrelevant

I started posting on this thread on page 1 or 2. And no, the demographics haven't been shown to be irrelevant.

if a polyamorous group gets married, how does that effect the demographics /
it doesnt does it, no one is being deprived of anything, its just allowing those people in group relationship the same rights as everyone else

You have yet to establish that that's what would happen if polygamy was legalised. And people in group relationships already have the same rights as everybody else.

 

[Marduk]

He made a perfectly valid point, it was you who interpreted it as "whining about not being able to get laid." .

well I must have missed that, so how about you tell me what it was ?

I started posting on this thread on page 1 or 2. And no, the demographics haven't been shown to be irrelevant. .

you posted twice on page one, you have yet to bother answering the numerous posts telling you your opinion is invalid, so I can only presume that you haven't bothered reading the other 6 pages of this thread as you said yourself, you just jumped in to complain that someone was asked a reasonable question. You're not doing too well so far, why didn't you bother replying to any of the posts in the thread you started based on the copy/paste from the ICKE forum, I was enjoying that

You have yet to establish that that's what would happen if polygamy was legalised. And people in group relationships already have the same rights as everybody else.

um, no they don't, they can't marry their loved ones. how is that the same
and wtf are you talking about, if three people who are already in a relationship get married, how is that going to change the male female ratio in the rest of the culture, you think the second its legal all the rich men will snap up multiple wives, isn't that a little bit denigrating to the values that most people hold dear, isn't that claiming that most women are dumb and greedy
your majority of posts here are based on the demographics claim, I already told you, thats irrelevant, I have given you examples of why thats irrelevant, others have stated that its irrelevant and given examples, can you do math ?
show me how mathematically the demographic argument is not fallacious reasoning

 

[Strawberry]

well I must have missed that, so how about you tell me what it was ?
because from my perspective, the guy whos already stated in other threads that hes not interested in womens rights was continuing his baloney of the last 24 hours since he was outed as a racist

He wasn't "outed as a racist", you just accused him of racism. That accusation was every bit as spurious as your claim that he was whining about not getting laid just because he pointed out that legalising polygamy might not exactly help the chances of low status males in the marriage market.

you posted twice on page one, you have yet to bother answering the numerous posts telling you your opinion is invalid, so I can only presume that you haven't bothered reading the other 6 pages of this thread as you said yourself, you just jumped in to complain that someone was asked a reasonable question. You're not doing too well so far, why didn't you bother replying to any of the posts in the thread you started based on the copy/paste from the ICKE forum, I was enjoying that

Are you talking about the Secret Weapons thread? If so, I was enjoying that too, but I felt the need to out myself as a Poe when somebody nominated me for a Stundie. Wouldn't want to cheat a genuine loon out of an award.

um, no they don't, they can't marry their loved ones. how is that the same

They can marry one person at a time, and have extra marital affairs with as many as they like, just like everyone else.

and wtf are you talking about, if three people who are already in a relationship get married, how is that going to change the male female ratio in the rest of the culture

You have yet to establish that legalising polygamy would result in nothing other than three people who are already in a relationship getting married.

 

[Marduk]

He wasn't "outed as a racist", you just accused him of racism. That accusation was every bit as spurious as your claim that he was whining about not getting laid just because he pointed out that legalising polygamy might not exactly help the chances of low status males in the marriage market..

Wtf did you get that from ?

Are you talking about the Secret Weapons thread? If so, I was enjoying that too, but I felt the need to out myself as a Poe when somebody nominated me for a Stundie. Wouldn't want to cheat a genuine loon out of an award..

I didn't realise you were a stundie nominee, well now I know what level of response to give your opinion

They can marry one person at a time, and have extra marital affairs with as many as they like, just like everyone else..

well, sorry, but I think thats morally outrageous
do you engage in extra marital/relationship affairs ?

You have yet to establish that legalising polygamy would result in nothing other than three people who are already in a relationship getting married.

because you missed most of this thread you don't seem to realise that my whole point was allowing poly groups to marry would be harmless as they are already together, the crap about rich men and low status males was Ziggurats claim and as he has yet to support it I am not obliged to answer it for him

well yanno, maybe next time you should discover what people are saying before pronouncing judgement

 

[Strawberry]

Wtf did you get that from ?

I got it from your post, which I see you very quickly edited.

I didn't realise you were a stundie nominee, well now I know what level of response to give your opinion

I'm not a stundie nominee, sadly. Once somebody nominated me, I felt guilty about lying so I admitted I was only joking. And that was the end of my nomination...*cry*

well, sorry, but I think thats morally outrageous
do you engage in extra marital/relationship affairs ?

I don't care what you think is morally outrageous and its none of your business what I engage in. The fact of the matter is that everybody in your country has the legal right to be married to one person at a time, and there's no law against engaging in extra marital sex. You are not being discriminated against in any way.

because you missed most of this thread you don't seem to realise that my whole point was allowing poly groups to marry would be harmless as they are already together, the crap about rich men and low status males was Ziggurats claim and as he has yet to support it I am not obliged to answer it for him

This thread is about legalising polygamy across the board. You have yet to establish that such a measure would impact nobody other than people who are already in group relationships. Ziggurat's claim - which is not unreasonable at all - is based on the potential for such a measure to impact the behaviour of the wider society.

well yanno, maybe next time you should discover what people are saying before pronouncing judgement

I'm not pronouncing any judgements. I'm discussing the issue on a message board, and incidentally am becoming increasingly amused at your OTT reaction to somebody disagreeing with you. This is getting nearly as funny as the Secret Weapons thread, only I'm not playing Poe in this one.....are you?

 

[Weird Science]

Legalizing polygamy is like legalizing heroin or legalizing prostitution. Nice, rational arguments can be had for all of them -- especially if one ignores all counter-arguments -- but reality is another thing.

 

[Marduk]

I got it from your post, which I see you very quickly edited.

I finished editing my post before you posted yours

snipped for irrelevance
I'm not a stundie nominee, sadly.

face it, your objections are based:-
you claimed the tax payers would lose out, I showed they wouldn't
you claimed that low status males would lose out, which you have yet to qualify
you stated that instead of valuing the sanctity of marriage vows, I should just cheat on my partner because everyone else does, which you didn't qualify (its actually around 18% of the population)
on your evasion of questions you didn't have a respectable answer for

youre not scoring any points here and morally, you stated that you don't care about morals, thats fine

Legalizing polygamy is like legalizing heroin or legalizing prostitution. Nice, rational arguments can be had for all of them -- especially if one ignores all counter-arguments -- but reality is another thing.

I think you should consider that reality is based on perception and perception is based on inner bias and you are the only one here who thinks that allowing poly groups to marry would lead to incest and necrophilia
that not telling you anything at all ?

 

[crimresearch]

I checked this very forum and found people who think necrophilia wouldn't be a big deal, under the "who does it hurt"? pseudo-argument. I wouldn't say that's a common position, but once you only accept absolute proof from first principles as the one and only argument against you doing something you like, then the squabbling over which logical principle applied ("it hurts nobody" vs. "consent is necessary") inevitably means the permissive version wins out, since it's always possible to find SOME argument (by vague analogy, if nothing else) to make whatever one wants to do this week kosher and paint anybody who opposes as "being against freedom" or "just being against it because they personally consider it yucky" or whatever.

So, after polygamy and incest -- I notice you didn't say anything against that, presumably since you realize you'd have to allow women marrying daddy so long as they want to -- I suspect necrophilia would be the next to go.

So all you've got now is flat out lying about what I said on the topic of incest, and claiming that selecting between logic and illogic is 'squabbling'... but your whacky guarantees about the future don't need explanation because you said so.

 

[Strawberry]

I finished editing my spelling in that post before you posted yours

You edited the content, not the spelling.

you claimed the tax payers would lose out, I showed they wouldn't

No, you claimed they wouldn't. A certain amount of marriages will always end in divorce, the public purse administers the courts, including the divorce courts. Allowing polygamy has the potential to increase the rate of marriage and therefore the number of divorces.

you claimed that low status males would lose out, which you have yet to qualify

There certainly is a potential for that, yes. As we have no model of polygamy being legal in an egalitarian society, neither of us can know for certain how it would impact the wider society.

you stated that instead of valuing the sanctity of marriage vows, I should just cheat on my partner because everyone else does, which you didn't qualify (its actually around 18% of the population)

I suggested nothing of the sort, I couldn't care less what you do. I just pointed out the fact that everybody in your society has the right to be married to one person at a time only, and that there's no law against extra marital relationships. Therefore, you are not being discriminated against.

youre not scoring any points here and morally, you suck

You know nothing about my morals.

 

[The Greater Fool]

Legalizing polygamy is like legalizing heroin or legalizing prostitution. Nice, rational arguments can be had for all of them -- especially if one ignores all counter-arguments -- but reality is another thing.

If I were clever like some folks around here, I'd make a couple changes in the quote to show how little you are actually saying.

Prostitition is legal in Nevada (not Clark county)... and the brothels are often considered "good neighbors". Reality here is apparently different than reality there.

I don't think anyone arguing for Polygomy to be legal thinks it will happen anytime soon, if ever. But, it is social convention that prevents it, not anything logically consistent or socially damaging.