Your views on MARRIAGE

[Esquilax]

1) Polygamy reduces genetic diversity: If we look at the Polygamous Mormons, or even today the Modern Fundalmentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints we see a very disturbing trend; boys are being kicked out of the family home, exposed or abandoned shortly after birth because of the competition for wives. In the same way the Chinese don't want female children because of earning potential with the one child rule, Fundamentalist Mormons do not want boys, they endanger the souls of all other men if there is not enough women to go around (having multiple wives is a requirement for a good afterlife).

In any culture that has allowed polygamy one way (the Jews were not immune to this) we see serious consequences for one or both genders. It also narrows the genepool considerably as a smaller percentile of the population is reproducing.

I would suggest that this has more to do with religious ideas, than it does with polygamy or polyamory; the motivation for not wanting boys that you point out has everything to do with heaven, not with the practice itself. Same with the China example; that's antiquated gender roles, nothing more.

But these things aren't tied to polygamy, they're added baggage bolted on by what we consider to be the big examples of it.

2) STDS: The more people you sleep with, the more chances bacteria and other assorted parasites have to interact with one another. Rather like how Hospitals are hotbeds for the mutation and formation of new dangerous diseases it's usually sluts who become the breeding labs for new mutated STDs. The more it's passed around, the more of a risk of such a mutation or transmission of it.

Safe sex is good, but again, this has more to do with reckless promiscuity than it does with poly stuff; a group of any size who are clean and fluid bonded has the same risk of STDs as any couple.

4) Economics: As pointed out above polygamous societies traditionally have struggled to some degree with unsustainable economies. The Mormons are again the prime example of this, there's many cases of men actually being murdered so that their widows could become marriage material and shared out amongst the others.

It also tends to lead to the demeanment of one sex, which is fairly prominent in Islamic societies. A man is clearly the dominant partner having the right to take controll of multiple womens affairs, just as women have control over men in parts of Nepal where it is women who can take multiple husbands. In their respective cultures, the "dominant" sex reserves many rights and legal privileges that the other does not have.

But we're talking about gender roles as applied to a polygamous social structure, not polygamy itself. I spent years in my little commune, and there was never any sense of one party dominating the others; your complaint is with the gender politics that places one sex above the other, but that's equally true in particularly fundamentalist christian sects where marriage is between one man and one woman, but with the man in charge.

What's demeaning to women is the religious doctrine, not the number of partners they have. I can't tell you how tremendously empowering it is to have other people to turn to when something goes sour between you and a partner, how much of a downward pressure that exerts on even thoughts of domestic abuse (not that I had any, but I can imagine it pretty easily) when you aren't able to isolate a spouse and control their reality.

5) Culture: ...I can't believe I'm making an appeal to tradition but oh well.

We have evidence of heterosexual marriage in the west for aeons, we also have reference of same sex marriages in Ancient Greece, what we don't have unlike Asia is polygamy. Look at all the old helenistic works like Medea, it was pretty clear men could kick their wives out whenever they liked, or take as many concubines as they could afford. What they couldn't do however was take two wives.

Does it make sense? Not especially, but that was sacrosanct then as it is for most today. Perhaps it is silly, the same way being gay was seen as icky fifty years ago. For now most appear to feel that is a bridge too far as it contradicts the idea of Romance as between two people (in the past of course lust being something one could freely exercise elsewhere outside of it).

That's... not really an argument.

The last one is more shakey, but I do think there are serious economic concerns to have against polygamy. Supposing it happened, great, now millionares can keep Solomonesque harems of hundreds of Russian Supermodels. Where does that leave the average man or woman? I see that breeding much resentment.

Yeah, god, because there's so much stopping millionaires from getting sexual access to multiple women now, isn't there? It's just impossible for them.

I am an average man: still had three partners and five friends-with-benefits at one time. Getting them isn't necessarily the hard part.