hahahah

Quote: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.

Um... you don't think that happens now?

(July 9, 2015 at 2:16 pm)Metis Wrote: 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.

Quote: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.

Quote: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.

Quote: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.

Quote: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.

Goddamn, Esq.

(July 9, 2015 at 1:31 am)Salacious B. Crumb Wrote: I don’t understand marriage, period. I never have. I don’t understand why people would want the government in their lives in that way. Why do people want all these legal contracts between themselves? Isn’t a relationship supposed to be something out of love, and not a contract forcing people to stay together that don’t actually want to be together anymore? If two or more people want to be together, then let them. If people don’t want to be together, then don’t have a relationship with each other. I’d rather be happy than miserable. I’d rather be in a real relationship with someone, than to be under a contract, that basically keeps us tied down together in an unnatural way.

If you’re happily married, good for you. I have no problem at all with that, but I’ve seen a few divorces in my life, and they aren’t pretty. It should be a clean split, in my opinion. Not some ongoing split that takes years to settle. Why do you want the government involved in your relationship? Have a mock marriage or something, make your own promises to each other. If you want to have a party to signify that you want to be together with each other for life, than go for it, but why a contract? ..especially when 50% of marriages end in divorce. I don’t think we’re meant to be monogamous. About 3-5% of mammals on the planet are monogamous, it doesn’t seem natural.

Marriage is a legal contract.  If one wants the contract, then it makes sense to get married.  If one does not want the contract, then it does not.

If anyone is unsure whether they want such a contract or not, I recommend not getting married until and unless one is reasonably certain one wants it.

I am in the U.S., so what I am about to say may or may not apply to marriage where you are, but very likely some of it does.  Now, since I am married, if I am in the hospital, my wife can visit me.  She is legally now family.  If she were just a friend, then on those occasions when hospitals only allow visits from family, she could not visit me.  Also, in the event that I am incapacitated, she can direct the doctors to pull the plug as soon at it is legal to do so (which is what I want her to tell them).  If she were not my wife, what she said about it would mean nothing and have no effect on anything that is done (unless there was some special contract made, but then the doctors would have to realize it is binding before they would act on it, whereas her being my wife, they will recognize that she does legally have some say in what goes on).  It also affects taxes, retirement benefits, inheritance, and probably some other financial things that I am presently not thinking of.  Oh yeah, in some states in the U.S., but not all of them, one is financially liable for all debts of one's spouse.  (In the other states, one is liable for only some debts, and for the details, you will want to search online or consult with an attorney in the relevant jurisdiction.)  There are also laws about children, that any children produced while we are married are legally both mine and hers (that is, any children she has while we are married).  I have probably omitted several other aspects of this, though the details (and this makes it a very interesting contract) vary according to where one lives.

So the upshot is, there is a bundle of rights and responsibilities of marriage that have a great deal of legal significance in many situations.  So if one wants that bundle of rights and responsibilities, then one will want to get married, and if one does not want them, then one will not want to get married.

There is also various symbolism that one may or may not like, and there are social implications (i.e., many people will treat you slightly differently).  That is less important than things that the force of law brings to the above considerations.

Bold emphasis is added:

(July 8, 2015 at 9:49 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: I'm down with consenting adults doing whatever they want.

It gets a little funky when you get the government involved. Do you put a cap on polyamorous relationships? Can 40 people be married? Does one of their employers have to provide dependent benefits to all of those people on one person's salary?

On the other hand, if for example 4 people are in a relationship and want to commit to lifelong relationships to each other, they should be able to choose that, and be able to have all of the societal benefits that come with it, like hospital visitation, mortality decisions, etc.

Which spouse gets to make the mortality decisions?  If three people are married, one is unconscious in the hospital, and the other two disagree about what medical procedures should be done, what happens?

I am all for having everyone make a living will in which such things are declared so that the person who is presently unconscious really makes the decision in advance, but most people don't have living wills.  And also they are usually not detailed enough to cover all possibilities, which makes it helpful if one has a trusted spouse to tell them what you would want.  But having two spouses is often, in practice, going to screw that up completely.

Quote: Marriage is a legal contract.  If one wants the contract, then it makes sense to get married.  If one does not want the contract, then it does not.

If anyone is unsure whether they want such a contract or not, I recommend not getting married until and unless one is reasonably certain one wants it.

Yes, but.  Beware of "Palimony."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palimony

Quote:Palimony is the division of financial assets and real property on the termination of a personal live-in relationship wherein the parties are not legally married. The term "palimony" is not a legal or historical term, but rather a colloquial portmanteau of the words pal and alimony coined by celebrity divorce attorney Marvin Mitchelson in 1977 when his client Michelle Triola Marvin filed an unsuccessful suit against the actor Lee Marvin

I can't see anything morally or ethically wrong with it, as long as everyone involved knows they are not the only girl and are ok with it. I wouldn't want it for me personally, I'm selfish and want someone all to myself when I'm in a relationship. If that's what other people want to do though I have no objection.

I do see how it could be really complicated as a legal "marriage" though

Mush, it must suck to be us, huh,