Is Polygamy Next?

[JapaneseKappa]

Regarding the fact that sexual activity is down with this generation vs boomers and such …

That’s something of a double edged sword. Awareness of the risks (including physiological for women) is part of it. But I think more millennials are single, not only as a martial status but as in no romantic partner. The level of distrust and sometimes hostility towards the opposite sex by a number of my peers is amazing.

I often wonder if the future filled with women unable to find suitable men interested in dating and hordes of men giving up deciding it is not worth it.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbivore_men

 

[Lucretius]

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 mongamist and the polygamist don’t disagree that marriage is between two people, what they disagree about is whether one person can have multiple marriages. Leah was not married to her sister Rachel, but both were married to Jacob.

In other words, gay marriage subtracts an fundamental element to marriage that polygamy does not. This is why we can say that even polygamist cultures recognize that marriage is between a husband and a wife.

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

The reasons that justify gay marriage also justify polygamy, and the reasons that once ruled out both gay marriage and polygamy have been declared obsolete. In other words, it’s not only that one logically leads to the other, but also that accepting gay marriage leaves us with no reason not accept polygamy.

Indeed, all traditions were at some point new.

Conservative and progressive are ways in which people relate to the status quo, and so neither are necessary integrated to truth: we can both progress in error and conserve a truth, or conserve an evil practice while progress towards the common good.

Christi pax.

 

[michaelArc]

Regarding the fact that sexual activity is down with this generation vs boomers and such …

That’s something of a double edged sword. Awareness of the risks (including physiological for women) is part of it. But I think more millennials are single, not only as a martial status but as in no romantic partner. The level of distrust and sometimes hostility towards the opposite sex by a number of my peers is amazing.

I often wonder if the future filled with women unable to find suitable men interested in dating and hordes of men giving up deciding it is not worth it.

I think this has a lot to do with pornography. Many millennials who have an addiction admit they can’t relate to the opposite sex. Some simply prefer the fantasy of a partner on a pixelated screen than the responsibilities over a real life relationship. Sadly, this will only get worse with the advancement of VR and robotic sex dolls.

 

[mikekle]

I do not see much desensitization and/or conditioning relating to polygamy today though. If you look back at some of the things we are now accepting, it was things hollywood was once too scared to depict on screen, it was things that were once illegal, and taboo to even talk about.

I dread to think at who we will be apologizing to in the next 30-50 yrs, for all those years of ‘discrimination’ and making their sexual choices a criminal act! Im sure Hollywood will be celebrated for being the first to depict it in an acceptable light though, those people who resisted the laws and went ahead and indulged/ partook.

 

[frobert]

The reasons that justify gay marriage also justify polygamy, and the reasons that once ruled out both gay marriage and polygamy have been declared obsolete. In other words, it’s not only that one logically leads to the other, but also that accepting gay marriage leaves us with no reason not accept polygamy.

Are you saying that “A”, i.e, gay marriage, logically justifies a completely different “B”, i.e, polygamy even thought A and B are completely different and have nothing in common?

 

[Rhubarb]

Are you saying that “A”, i.e, gay marriage, logically justifies a completely different “B”, i.e, polygamy even thought A and B are completely different and have nothing in common?

No. They are saying the reasons justify. I’d have to see the reasoning to tell if it’s valid. But I don’t think it does.

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

I think this has a lot to do with pornography. Many millennials who have an addiction admit they can’t relate to the opposite sex. Some simply prefer the fantasy of a partner on a pixelated screen than the responsibilities over a real life relationship. Sadly, this will only get worse with the advancement of VR and robotic sex dolls.

The day after cheap robotics and human like AI merge is the day droves of men will cease pursuing women. Probably a quarter of men.

Because let’s be honest. Real relationships involve responsibilities and risks.

 

[Lucretius]

Are you saying that “A”, i.e, gay marriage, logically justifies a completely different “B”, i.e, polygamy even thought A and B are completely different and have nothing in common?

I’m saying that the reasons that justify gay marriage also justify polygamy.

So, if we justify gay marriage on the grounds that “people who love each other should be allowed to get married,” that too justifies polygamy.

Christi pax.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Monogamous marriages were not always the norm, nor is it necessarily the gold standard for everyone to abide by.

So a woman who marries five guys at the same time has found plenty of gold?

 

[JapaneseKappa]

I’m saying that the reasons that justify gay marriage also justify polygamy.

So, if we justify gay marriage on the grounds that “people who love each other should be allowed to get married,” that too justifies polygamy.

Christi pax.

In the government’s eyes, marriage is a form of contract or mutual agreement. It will never be extended to things or people that are incapable of entering into agreements or contracts. You will never have bestial marriage in the US because animals cannot consent to contracts. You will never have inanimate object marriage in the US because inanimate objects cannot consent to contracts.

I don’t think there is a good constitutional argument against polygamy, but the pragmatic one is simply this:

Allowing polygamy requires non-trivial changes to the rights and responsibilities of marriage as conferred by the government.

To legalize same-sex marriage, all you have to do is eliminate reference to gender, from the rights and responsibilities. Since most of the rights and responsibilities were gender neutral to begin with (e.g. tax free inheritance of spouse’s property) making this change was trivial.

But there is no trivial way to update the responsibilities for polygamy. You can’t just say “everyone gets to make everyone else’s medical decisions” and have that be the end of it. You need to actually pick a method to decide who gets power of attorney.

Because the decisions are no longer trivial, polygamists will have a divided front, and be significantly less likely to actually change their legal status.

 

[PRmerger]

Polygamy is about marriage, and it was clearly accepted by God.

What is the referent for “it” here? Marriage?

As in “Marriage was clearly accepted by God”?

Or do you mean “Polygamy was clearly accepted by God”?

If it’s the latter, can you offer some evidence for this?

(And please note: we are looking for evidence that God accepted polygamy, not a description in Scripture of polygamy. That something is limned in Scripture is NOT to be interpreted as “therefore, God accepted it”)

Monogamous marriages were not always the norm, nor is it necessarily the gold standard for everyone to abide by.

Irrelevant.

Women’s rights were not always the norm, but we do know that it should have been.

 

[frobert]

I’m saying that the reasons that justify gay marriage also justify polygamy.

So, if we justify gay marriage on the grounds that “people who love each other should be allowed to get married,” that too justifies polygamy.

Christi pax.

That is what is known as a “faulty” analogy.

You are trivializing the argument of love for gay marriage which is much nuanced than saying any people who love each should be allow civil marriage, or if one person loves multiple people of the opposite sex then that is sufficient justification to legalize polygamy.

 

[PRmerger]

That is what is known as a “faulty” analogy.

You are trivializing the argument of love for gay marriage which is much nuanced than saying any people who love each should be allow civil marriage, or if one person loves multiple people of the opposite sex then that is sufficient justification to legalize polygamy.

An argument for gay marriage is “Love wins”.

Love trumps every social barrier.
No one gets to tell me whom to love.

And that, my friend, fits quite nicely/grotesquely with…

polygamy.

Thus, one cannot argue for gay “marriage” without also arguing for polygamy.

 

[frobert]

An argument for gay marriage is “Love wins”.

Absolutely

Love trumps every social barrier.
No one gets to tell me whom to love…

Read Judge Kennedy’s decision and let me where it contains “Love trumps every social barrier. No one gets to tell me whom to love.” or anything close to that.

And that, my friend, fits quite nicely/grotesquely with…

polygamy…

Thus, one cannot argue for gay “marriage” without also arguing for polygamy

.

You make the same mistake over and over with analogies. Look up faulty analogy

 

[PRmerger]

Absolutely

Read Judge Kennedy’s decision and let me where it contains “Love trumps every social barrier. No one gets to tell me whom to love.” or anything close to that.

.

You make the same mistake over and over with analogies. Look up faulty analogy

But I didn’t make any analogy at all.

Perhaps you should look up what an analogy is, before you make such statements.

#irony

 

[PRmerger]

Absolutely

Read Judge Kennedy’s decision and let me where it contains “Love trumps every social barrier. No one gets to tell me whom to love.” or anything close to that.

.

You make the same mistake over and over with analogies. Look up faulty analogy

Why don’t you just address this:

Love trumps every social barrier.
No one gets to tell me whom to love…

Do you agree that this applies to polygamy?

Why or why not?

 

[Lion_IRC]

The slogan “marriage equality” is just a hollow mantra unless it also allows consentual polygamy, consanguity, beastiality and a widening of the marriageable age
…because LGBTQ teens surely ought to be able to marry the person they love.

Supporters of same-sex ‘marriage’ who try to insist that marriage can only be between two people are hypocrites because they are imposing their narrow, intolerant definition of marriage on others.

 

[Lucretius]

That is what is known as a “faulty” analogy.

You are trivializing the argument of love for gay marriage which is much nuanced than saying any people who love each should be allow civil marriage, or if one person loves multiple people of the opposite sex then that is sufficient justification to legalize polygamy.

I don’t see how I’m trivializing anything: the approach really is like that, that if two adults love each other and consent, they should be allowed to enter a civil marriage, even as it is presented by the more educated, even someone as lofty as Justice Kenny. If I am wrong, why don’t you present the correct view, or point to somewhere or someone who does present it?

Christi pax.

 

[frobert]

But I didn’t make any analogy at all.

Perhaps you should look up what an analogy is, before you make such statements.

You made an implicit analogy when you claimed that gay marriage is about love and polygamy is about love and therefore gay marriage "…fits quite nicely/grotesquely with…

polygamy."

Do look up the definition of analogy

Why don’t you just address this:

Do you agree that this applies to polygamy?

Why or why not?

I take it you agree that neither of your statements or anything close to them were in Judge Kennedy’s decision.

Do I agree with your statements? Yes and no.

I do not believe that “Love trumps every social barrier.”

I do agree that “No one gets to tell me whom to love…?” Can anyone tell anyone else whom to love?

 

[PRmerger]

You made an implicit analogy

I do not believe that “Love trumps every social barrier.”

Excellent.

So let us have the same rights you claim for yourself: we get to say that some types of relationships should be barred.

I do agree that “No one gets to tell me whom to love…?” Can anyone tell anyone else whom to love?

Emmm…yes. You get to tell your wife that she doesn’t get to love the Mailman.
She gets to tell you that you don’t get to love the porn actress down the street.

You get to tell Trump that he doesn’t get to love a 4th wife.
I get to tell Bannon that he doesn’t get to love a 4th wife.

In fact, I get to tell you that there are billions of people you don’t get to love by virtue of the fact that you are married to one person.

Billions.

(And here you is a hypothetical you. Not a personal you.)