Is Polygamy Next?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Charlemagne_III
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I used to be skeptical of “slippery slope” arguments, but it’s an inevitable implication of marriage just being a contract between consenting adults with all sense of natural law gone out the window.

I’m much more cynical than I used to be. 😛
 
Hatikvah said:
I think polygamy in either form is more natural: at least it is, in any settlement, a male(s) and female(s) together. It makes more sense, although it is odd and wrong to us. 🤷
Click to expand...
If same-sex marriage is legal, why not polygamy?

If American Muslims and Mormons should happen to favor it, don’t they have the same civil rights that homosexuals have?
 
Strydersroom said:
It’s wrong to put since in there. Gay marriage has nothing to do with legalizing polygamy, incest, pedophilia or beastiality. See Bradski’s law 🤷
Click to expand...
Same-sex marriage has everything to do with polygamy since both involve marital status. 🤷
 
Wesrock said:
I’m much more cynical than I used to be. 😛
Click to expand...
Yeah, reality has that affect on people T_T.

To answer the question, it might not be next, but it’s certainly on the docket. With no foundation for defining marriage as anything other than an emotion contract, there is no legal recourse to deny a polygamous relationship the same status as any other “emotion contract.”

Also, Strydersroom; you’re going to need to link to some documentation on that “law,” because when I google search it I find an actual law firm, and then your posts on this forum. Nothing else. You can’t just make up a law and then present it as some sort of refuting force.
 
This discussion fails to realise that there is no NEXT. Polygamy is perfectly lawful in many countries and in Europe many Muslim men are married according to their religious rites to more than one woman just not civilly. It’s not unlawful to do that. In fact the Social Securiyy code has a chapter on how to deal with it in the UK which is st least 30 years old
 
There were in the west three principles.
  1. There had to be two humans.
  2. Both of which should be alive.
  3. They have to be of different genders.
All over the world there are cultures that had something different to say about marriage. Allowing woman with more than one men, but more commonly the opposite. Sometimes marriages with animals or the death were conducted. These marriages were often highly symbolical and rooted in folk beliefs.

But since the west is growing to be more globalist. There’s no reason if one of these principles changes. Rule 3 which barred SSM, is a precedent for further change. Why couldn’t any other rule change? Well they can. If they get the popular vote it will change. With loads of islamic immigrants and the growing sentiment pro-polyamory and pro-polygamy during recent years this kind of change is likely. (swinging and open relationships keep getting more traction in modern society) First step will be a partner registration with several people. Likely this will be in one of the SJW’s nations like my own country the Netherlands. (maybe it’s already legal in some countries) Afterwards these types of registrations will be seen more in other non-islamic countries. Than there is bound to be a country that decides polygamous marriage doesn’t have to be illegal, because there are already people with these types of partner registration.

If this will happen is debatable. I think it might be hard for polyamory or polygamous people to get the majority to back them in their mission. But if some countries cave, others in the west are bound to tumble after them.
 
PatrickKennedy said:
This discussion fails to realise that there is no NEXT. Polygamy is perfectly lawful in many countries and in Europe many Muslim men are married according to their religious rites to more than one woman just not civilly. It’s not unlawful to do that. In fact the Social Securiyy code has a chapter on how to deal with it in the UK which is st least 30 years old
Click to expand...
This thread originates in the United States, where polygamy is not lawful, though it is secretly practiced in some places.
 
Young_Ludovicus said:
There were in the west three principles.
  1. There had to be two humans.
  2. Both of which should be alive.
  3. They have to be of different genders.
All over the world there are cultures that had something different to say about marriage. Allowing woman with more than one men, but more commonly the opposite. Sometimes marriages with animals or the death were conducted. These marriages were often highly symbolical and rooted in folk beliefs.

But since the west is growing to be more globalist. There’s no reason if one of these principles changes. Rule 3 which barred SSM, is a precedent for further change. Why couldn’t any other rule change? Well they can. If they get the popular vote it will change. With loads of islamic immigrants and the growing sentiment pro-polyamory and pro-polygamy during recent years this kind of change is likely. (swinging and open relationships keep getting more traction in modern society) First step will be a partner registration with several people. Likely this will be in one of the SJW’s nations like my own country the Netherlands. (maybe it’s already legal in some countries) Afterwards these types of registrations will be seen more in other non-islamic countries. Than there is bound to be a country that decides polygamous marriage doesn’t have to be illegal, because there are already people with these types of partner registration.

If this will happen is debatable. I think it might be hard for polyamory or polygamous people to get the majority to back them in their mission. But if some countries cave, others in the west are bound to tumble after them.
Click to expand...
We live in a post-Christian civilization already when the highest Court in the land regards same-sex marriage as a civil right. So what’s next? It appears that we are ready to embrace anything goes. Bestial Pride marches clopping down 5th Avenue?
 
What is this “next” business? Wouldn’t polygamy just be bringing back traditional marriage? (The Old Testament tradition, that is)
 
Charlemagne_III said:
Is that a logical deduction?
Click to expand...
The deduction might be valid, depending on what the steps of the argument and the premises are.

Also. Whether the argument works also depends if it’s sound. Even a valid argument based on false or untrue premises make for a bad argument.

I don’t see the logical connection between same-sex marriage and polygamy. I mean, except that both have to do with marriage. If same-sex marriage can be used in a positive argument for polygamy, that doesn’t necessarily defeat possible negative arguments for it.
 
Rhubarb said:
The deduction might be valid, depending on what the steps of the argument and the premises are.

Also. Whether the argument works also depends if it’s sound. Even a valid argument based on false or untrue premises make for a bad argument.

I don’t see the logical connection between same-sex marriage and polygamy. I mean, except that both have to do with marriage. If same-sex marriage can be used in a positive argument for polygamy, that doesn’t necessarily defeat possible negative arguments for it.
Click to expand...
What would be a possible negative argument against polygamy?
 
Charlemagne_III said:
This thread originates in the United States, where polygamy is not lawful, though it is secretly practiced in some places.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure why it would be practiced secretly. I’m not American, but I don’t think there is anything in most states legally preventing people from living together and having sex unless there is an issue surrounding the capacity to give consent, as in the case of minors. I have no idea what civil marriages are supposed to represent. I think it has to do with some romantic notions, but primarily with legal rights to property, pensions, inheritance, health insurance, tax deductions stuff like that. It seems that in most places common-law marriage, defined as living together for something like a year or more, carries the same financial obligations as marriage.The difference might be the issue of fidelity, but statistics reveal the majority of people do not adhere to that promise. I don’t see polygamy being officially recognized as marriage in the west, not for moral reasons, and not because of prejudice, but because of the economic cost. It’s a sad state of affairs, so to speak.
 
I think far too many people think sin will just reach a certain level or extreme and then just ‘plateau’, like with gay marriage and what is next. Personally I think pedophilia is going to be the next fight, society has been primed for this for awhile now, its in the news all the time.

Whatever is next, what we can expect is that sin is progressive, its not going to just plateau and level off once a certain type of sin is recognized legally, its going to keep going until we are so twisted and turned around, no one will able to determine right or wrong anymore
 
Aloysium said:
I’m not sure why it would be practiced secretly. I’m not American, but I don’t think there is anything in most states legally preventing people from living together and having sex unless there is an issue surrounding the capacity to give consent, as in the case of minors.
Click to expand...
I was referring to legal contracts. Nothing prevents a man from living with and have a romantic relationship with five women (if he can handle that!), but the law does not license such a family.

The same in Italy, which is why some Muslim leaders there are campaigning to legalize polygamy.

npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90857818
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top