- The American Conservative - http://www.theamericanconservative.com -

And So The Campaign For Polygamy Begins

Now that same-sex marriage is all but a fait accompli in the US — come on, do you really think that Justice Anthony Kennedy is going to miss his chance to be the swing vote on constitutionalizing SSM? — it is time to move on to the next frontier: legalizing polygamy. Many SSM proponents have long been indignant that anybody would suggest that legalizing SSM would lead to legalizing polygamy. They’ve depended on indignation to quiet fears of the slippery slope, on the grounds that if people started thinking through the logic of all this, they might not be so quick to support gay marriage.

Well, now that they’ve just about won this thing — and I don’t know anyone on my side of the SSM debate who, at this point, holds out serious hope that gay marriage is not going to be the law of the land soon — it is becoming politically and culturally safer to argue for polygamy. As with gay marriage 10 to 15 years ago, the groundwork for accepting polygamy will be laid by stories and essays in the media seeking to challenge the taboo.

Example 1: Jillian Keenan’s essay in Slate last year: [1]

While the Supreme Court and the rest of us are all focused on the human right of marriage equality, let’s not forget that the fight doesn’t end with same-sex marriage. We need to legalize polygamy, too. Legalized polygamy in the United States is the constitutional, feminist, and sex-positive choice. More importantly, it would actually help protect, empower, and strengthen women, children, and families.

For decades, the prevailing logic has been that polygamy hurts women and children. That makes sense, since in contemporary American practice that is often the case. In many Fundamentalist Latter-day Saints  polygamous communities, for example,women and underage girls are forced into polygamous unions [2] against their will. Some boys, who represent the surplus of males, are brutally thrown out of their homes [3] and driven into homelessness and poverty at very young ages. All of these stories are tragic, and the criminals involved should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. (That goes without saying, I hope.)

But legalizing consensual adult polygamy wouldn’t legalize rape or child abuse. In fact, it would make those crimes easier to combat.

Here’s the crux of it:

Finally, prohibiting polygamy on “feminist” grounds—that these marriages are inherently degrading to the women involved—is misguided. The case for polygamy is, in fact, a feminist one and shows women the respect we deserve. Here’s the thing: As women, we really can make our own choices. We just might choose things people don’t like. If a woman wants to marry a man, that’s great. If she wants to marry another woman, that’s great too. If she wants to marry a hipster, well—I suppose that’s the price of freedom.

And if she wants to marry a man with three other wives, that’s her damn choice.

Choice! The Holy of Holies! This is how polygamy is going to become legitimized among the coming generations of Americans, who are terrified of being judgmental.

Example 2: this puffball interview on the Atlantic‘s website today [4], in which the journalist queries a Brooklyn polyamorous lawyer who fights to advance the cause of polyamorous rights. Excerpt:

Why does polyamory work for you?

I remember from a very young age realizing that I was bisexual, and that I tended to be attracted to many different people at the same time. I really think that polyamory for me is an orientation, like being heterosexual or homosexual. Humans in general have a hard time with monogamy. That’s always been the case. We used to have a sense that it was acceptable for husbands to go out and have other lovers, but with the shift to egalitarianism, rather than to say that woman could do that too, we’ve gone in the other direction.

What are the consequences of that, do you think?

I think it’s interesting to see the way that when people get into a monogamous couple dynamic, they often have to neuter their sexual desires. As the initial intensity of a relationship shifts to feelings of long-term love, you can end up in a sexless marriage, and I think that’s a huge contributor to infidelity and the breakup of a lot of families. We put so much emphasis on a partner being everything—that this person completes you—and when that doesn’t happen it creates a lot of pressure. I don’t think that open relationships are for everyone but it’s something that you should no longer feel ashamed to talk about at a time when so many marriages are failing.

What do your other lovers give you that your primary partner can’t?

Well, for example, with my female partners, I feel a different kind of power dynamic. I feel a protective impulse toward women I’m involved with. It’s a different kind of love feeling. My partner Ed is a wonderful feminist man, though sometimes I’d really like to be out on a date with the kind of man who wants to open car doors for me and treat me like a princess. I don’t want that all the time, but I might want that once a month.

There’s not a single question that remotely challenges anything Diana Adams, the lawyer, thinks, believes, or is working towards. It’s all so cuddly and warm and embracing. Get used to this kind of thing in the media. We’re going to be seeing a lot more of it in the years to come. This is how you prepare the public to accept something radical that would have caused them to recoil in the past. If I were pro-polyamory, I would be working the same angle.

Stage one is to tolerate it. Stage two is to legislate it. Stage three is to make opposition to it intolerable. Wash, rinse, repeat.

135 Comments (Open | Close)

135 Comments To "And So The Campaign For Polygamy Begins"

#1 Comment By tomfinn On February 19, 2014 @ 8:35 pm

Let’s face it, as people here point out, the case for polygamy is even stronger than the case for SSM, since at least there are respectable precedents of polygamous societies, including durable societies like the medieval Muslims society, which lasted for quite a while, and sported some impressive achievements.

But let us not be narrow in our thinking. Allow me to offer a modest proposal. Let us be far-sighted. The true issue at hand, though only a few brave souls will yet touch it, is not polygamy – and not even pedophilia, though 18 is clearly an arbitrary boundary for adulthood, and true freedom should obviously be extended to all including what we call “minors” – but anyway, the true issue at hand is bestial marriage.

Yes. My slogan is “If you can eat it, you can marry it.” I expect that feminists will soon be saying that “If a modern independent successful woman chooses to marry a horse, that’s damn well her choice, and if we force horses to let us ride them, then why not force them to marry us?” Besides, I feel that man married to sheep (or goats) have a stronger case for adoption than homosexual couples, in that sheep can provide natural milk to suckling humans, which homosexuals cannot (I guess unless they buy some – but are we sure they would?). And science has surely proved by now that natural milk (including sheep & goat milk) is better for infants than is baby powder.

I also move that our scientists and philosophers officially ban the principle of “reductio ad absurdum” along with the principle of “necessary reason.” Since science and truth are just societal constructions, we no longer need the damnable scholastic vestiges of classical logic.

#2 Comment By Andrea On February 19, 2014 @ 8:36 pm

Tax nightmare. Though it will be interesting to see if it comes to pass. I think polygamy is arguably an issue of religious freedom. I don’t object if the people involved are all consenting adults.

#3 Comment By J On February 19, 2014 @ 8:59 pm

A second to others who have mentioned the “T”. That will probably be the next social frontier for better or worse.

It’s not a frontier. Past experience says that the center of conflict is invariably the Bathroom War(s). Who gets to use which one when, how, why. If that’s at your level, enlist and enjoy it.

As for polygamy, unlike gay marriage it’s a very well known and understood social phenomenon. There are well documented albeit poorly articulated reasons in healthy human nature and well functioning social life why monogamy, absolute or serial, is greatly preferable for most well functioning people most of the time. The pithiest one is the traditional Chinese pictograph for ‘conflict’, which simply places two adult women under one roof.

I think it’s unwise for polygamists to press for legalization. They may get it, but in the process they’ll have to expose the rationales for it- cultural tradition, religion, calculations of social advantage, societies in which historically large proportions of the younger men died in warfare- fully to the light of scrutiny. That famously does not work out in favor of traditionalistic rationales.

I wouldn’t be surprised if social liberals go from pragmatic neutrality to pragmatic opposition to legalization of polygamy as a bloc. It’s the splitting up of the conservative side that will be interesting. Some conservatives will be opposed on religious and traditionalist grounds. Others will be in favor on religious and traditionalist grounds. A third group will be in favor of legalization largely to spite liberals. How/whether conservatives find unity again will be worth watching.

#4 Comment By Devinicus On February 19, 2014 @ 9:29 pm

M_Young is exactly right, and those who think we won’t have polygamy because it’s legally messy need to grapple with the facts s/he brings up (and I did as well). Children in California and British Columbia right now may have three legal parents. The US Supreme Court in Windsor said that children are harmed when their social parents may not legally marry.

The conclusion is clear: all opposition to polygamous/polyamorous unions is nothing more than animus — irrational hatred.

#5 Comment By M_Young On February 19, 2014 @ 9:49 pm

“There are well documented albeit poorly articulated reasons in healthy human nature and well functioning social life why monogamy, absolute or serial, is greatly preferable for most well functioning people most of the time. ”

I could — I will — say the same thing about heterosexuality.

” The pithiest one is the traditional Chinese pictograph for ‘conflict’, which simply places two adult women under one roof.”

Do you really want to stand on the ‘Wrong Side of History’ ™ based on sexist ideograms of the Patriarchy

#6 Comment By M_Young On February 19, 2014 @ 9:50 pm

“Yes. My slogan is “If you can eat it, you can marry it.””

I like it — should be a tee-shirt and mug at Zazzle.com.

#7 Comment By Bobby On February 19, 2014 @ 10:07 pm

The problem with slippery-slope arguments is that they’re generally employed to avoid discussing the merits of the issue at hand.

There’s no logical connection between polygamy and SSM, except that traditionalist Christians tend to oppose both. Neither of these bear any logical connection to interracial marriage, which traditionalist Christians opposed into the 1990s.

SSM fits comfortably within the existing legal and cultural framework for bilateral coupling. The delay in its adoption derives primarily from anti-gay animus, not from a desire to preserve the traditional Christian view of the institution. After all, traditional Christian notions of marriage went by the wayside decades ago. Simply put, there are few, if any, rational non-religious reasons for not recognizing SSM.

As far as I know, there is no similar animus against polygamists. The practice is perfectly legal in all 50 states, and has been praised by conservative scholars as distinguished as Martha Nussbaum. But because of the small number of its practitioners, no state has yet seen fit to create a legal system that accounts for multi-lateral coupling. It’s not even clear what such a legal system would look like. Such a system would have to be created ab initio.

In contrast, we have a well established legal system for handling bilateral coupling. Thus, SSM imposes almost no administrative burdens on the state.

#8 Comment By Thomas Aquinas On February 19, 2014 @ 10:17 pm

Earlybird writes: “The reason the ban on gay marriage has been falling state by state is because the legal, moral and rational arguments for barring marriage between two same sex adults have been beaten by better legal, moral and rational arguments.”

Not even close, since it’s not a matter of arguments, in the strict sense of the term. It is a matter of plausibility structures, slowly changed over time due to a collection of converging factors, including a desires account of the human good. Without that assumed premise, SSM arguments are wildly implausible. Who, in their right mind, when looking at human beings and their nature would conclude that the institution of marriage did not arose as the means by which the complimentary sexual powers of men and women may flourish for the good their union and the subsequent children that will likely result? It is so obvious that an argument to establish it would be like trying to prove to a solipsist that you exist. But once you are distracted to believe that the only goods that we can know are our own internal desires, and that the only restraint on them is absence of consent, then the world is your oyster, so to speak. Then bringing to bear on this mega-right anything remotely like the grounds of traditional marriage seems implausible, since it is the mega-right and the nature of things that really matters to the human good.

We will pay dearly for this, but in ways we will never appreciate, since unless the mega-right is challenged we will continue to live like victims of a moral Stockholm Syndrome: we would rather sympathize with our captors than face the moral and public shame that would occur if we challenged the mega-right.

#9 Comment By ginger On February 19, 2014 @ 10:19 pm

“The pithiest one is the traditional Chinese pictograph for ‘conflict’, which simply places two adult women under one roof.”

Awesome. Just plain awesome. And utterly true.

#10 Comment By Josh McGee On February 19, 2014 @ 10:25 pm

M_Young, I believe the correct term in CA is not duocentric but dosnormative.

#11 Comment By Erin Manning On February 19, 2014 @ 11:57 pm

If we consider the theories of Carle Zimmerman and Pitirim Sorokin, where we are right now is perfectly consistent with the late sensate, atomistic “family” structure stage. In a sense, gay “marriage” is the ultimate in redefining the family in a totally atomistic way, since two men or two women can’t have either the physical or familial unity of a man and a woman, and will remain totally autonomous individuals who can easily separate from each other regardless of whether they sign up for “marriage” (which, in a sense, may be a bad move for many of them as civil marriage will make the eventual separation more costly and less fluid than the partings they are used to).

Legalizing poly “marriages” is the next step for people who believe in the primacy of the autonomous individual (consumer) above all other concerns. If we have decided that adult happiness is the sole purpose of civil marriage (and we have) then there is no logical reason to deny marriage to three or more adults if we would give it to any two of them. Concerns about children etc. are too little, too late; we’ve already been told ad infinitum that marriage has NOTHING to do with children or their rights–a necessary principle on which to found gay “marriage,” which of necessity can have nothing intrinsically to do with children.

So we will have poly “marriage,” and the question is not “if” but “when.” It’s after that point that history may take a strange twist.

Some religious groups (extreme fundamentalist Mormons, fundamentalist Islamic groups, etc.) will practice polygamy in accordance with their traditions and understandings. At the same time, seeing “spinster sister” marriages which are not about sex but about letting two women manage their household together, some who do not share the desire for fundamentalist, sex-based polygamy may see tax and other benefits arising from defining their own extended families, communities, or the like as a “marriage.” Within such large-group marriages, of course, there would still be religious marriages of just one husband and one wife, but as far as the state was concerned all the people involved would have a poly marriage to each other–which would likely limit state involvement and oversight in the group in some ways.

In other words, just as the atomistic family is set to collapse under the weight of its own precious idiocy, a new form of the trustee family (as described by Zimmerman) may arise, where one’s individual religious marriage to one’s own spouse may not matter as much to society as the tribal, clan, or group marriage one has entered with other members of one’s family, faith group, or community.

And this process would only be hastened against the backdrop of any extreme economic collapse or other catastrophe, at which point an ideational society might emerge as well.

Granted, I’m talking about a time frame of a century or so; none of this will happen quickly. But I don’t see any way in which it will not happen at all; the atomistic family made up of autonomous individuals whose connection to the family is always weaker than their own present desires is not a form that has ever lasted for long, and I see no reason why our present age should be an exception somehow.

#12 Comment By Bobby On February 20, 2014 @ 12:07 am

@Thomas

The view of marriage you’ve articulated was largely discarded–even by religious conservatives–decades ago. If opponents of SSM were truly motivated by a desire to restore traditional procreative marriage to cultural prominence, then they should be as vocal in the opposition to no-fault divorce as they are in their opposition to SSM. But I’m not aware of any major legislative effort to ban no-fault divorce. Why the silence?

No-fault divorce and SSM are both equally logical outcomes of the redefinition of marriage that occurred in the ’50s and ’60s. It makes no sense to accept the former and shun the latter, unless your reasoning is clouded by anti-gay animus.

So-called traditionalists wonder why no one takes their arguments seriously. Well, perhaps it’s because their conduct calls their commitment to traditionalism into question. It looks mighty suspicious when gay people are the only ones being asked to bear the burdens of restoring traditional marriage.

#13 Comment By Mr. Patrick On February 20, 2014 @ 12:22 am

I propose that what it’s supporters call “traditional marriage” is more properly termed Benthamite Marriage, because they return again and again to the Utilitarian well to frame their expectation that marriage should produce the greatest happiness for the greatest share of society. Mind you,I don’t oppose utilitarianism in principle,it’s just that they shouldn’t make these arguments and try to pass off their opposition as spiritual, unless they worship Bentham’s stuffed corpse.

#14 Comment By Bobby On February 20, 2014 @ 12:34 am

@Erin

Your comment suggests that there’s some groundswell of moral opposition to polygamy in this country. If there is, I’m entirely unaware of it. Granted, most Americans aren’t interested in having a plural marriage, but that’s not the same as moral disapproval. After all, polygamous relationships are legal in all 50 states and have been so for decades.

The question is this: Is the state required to invent an entirely new legal framework that establishes default rules for structuring plural marriage? Note that this is a different question from the one the courts face in examining bans on recognizing SSM. While SSM may challenge traditionalist notions of what marriage is, it does not ask the State to create an entirely new institution out of nothing. To the contrary, SSM merely asks the State to make the existing institution of bilateral civil marriage open to a wider range of couples.

I’d guess that the moral disapproval of polygamists is much lower than it is for gay people.

#15 Comment By M_Young On February 20, 2014 @ 2:31 am

“M_Young, I believe the correct term in CA is not duocentric but dosnormative.”

LOL, literally.

#16 Comment By M_Young On February 20, 2014 @ 3:07 am

You know, Bobby seems like an intelligent fellow, with some worthwhile arguments. He uses big phrases (‘bilateral couplings’) and generally has a certain logic to his arguments. But then he let’s loose with stuff like this.

“As far as I know, there is no similar animus against polygamists. The practice is perfectly legal in all 50 states, and has been praised by conservative scholars as distinguished as Martha Nussbaum.”

Where to begin? The US literally fought a war against the Mormons, mostly because they were polygamist. It forced them to give up this doctrine of their faith in order to join the holy Union (given that they were in a landlocked, surrounded territory they didn’t have much choice). That one law professor writes an article supporting polygamy doesn’t prove there is no animus against it. And in Utah at least, and I believe other states, marrying bigamously and in some cases even living bigamously is illegal.

#17 Comment By Devinicus On February 20, 2014 @ 6:55 am

Bobby goes around the bend:

“praised by conservative scholars as distinguished as Martha Nussbaum.”

Now THAT is a howler! A woman who praises bare-back homosexual sex and argues for an end to laws against sexual intercourse in public places (bathrooms, parks) is a “conservative”? I’ve seen it all now!

#18 Comment By Bobby On February 20, 2014 @ 9:26 am

@M_Young

I’m not sure what you mean by “living bigamously.” There is no place in the US where it is illegal to practice plural marriage. There’s just no means of legally registering such relationships.

There may have been widespread moral disapproval of such relationships in the 1870s, but, when I last checked, our culture’s thinking on sex and marriage had changed a bit over the course of the intervening 140 years.

Most people wouldn’t want a multilateral relationship for themselves. But that’s not the same as moral disapproval.

That being said, I think polygamy could be socially destabilizing if not coupled with legal slaveholding. Otherwise, there would be an excess of unmarried heterosexual men. In traditional cultures, wealthy men had multiple wives, while poor men became slaves (and had none). As foreign as such an arrangement as such an arrangement may seem to us, this is probably closer to what “traditional marriage” is than that centered around the nuclear family.

#19 Comment By Bobby On February 20, 2014 @ 9:34 am

@Devi

Perhaps it’s better to refer to Nussbaum as iconoclastic. She is at the University of Chicago, though, which is the nation’s top conservative law school.

#20 Comment By MH – Secular Misanthropist On February 20, 2014 @ 9:54 am

“Yes. My slogan is “If you can eat it, you can marry it.””

You can eat alligators, so this rule could get pretty dangerous.

#21 Comment By Siarlys Jenkins On February 20, 2014 @ 11:38 am

The question is this: Is the state required to invent an entirely new legal framework that establishes default rules for structuring plural marriage? Note that this is a different question from the one the courts face in examining bans on recognizing SSM. While SSM may challenge traditionalist notions of what marriage is, it does not ask the State to create an entirely new institution out of nothing. To the contrary, SSM merely asks the State to make the existing institution of bilateral civil marriage open to a wider range of couples.

That assertion is of course convenient for Bobby’s purpose, which is that HE wants HIS stable, monogamous, homosexual relationship to be normativized with a marriage license.

But the statement is false. While both marriage as understood by all law in all 50 states prior to Goodridge is binary, and same-sex monogamous couples are binary, to combine two men is structurally DIFFERENT than to combine a man and a woman. To combine two women is different from either.

For the very reasons Bobby argues with regard to polygamy, the state has no obligation to create a new legal structure, even if it bestows the same name upon it.

In this light, I believe that the state is generally barred from imposing criminal penalties for sleeping with more than one partner, but the state scrupulously refrains from granting legal rights, duties, or claims to more than one spouse.

There is no animus against polygamy because few take seriously the notion that it will soon be taken seriously in law or politics. Convince us otherwise, and revenge for “Mountain Meadows” may have a ring similar to revenge for “Khaybar.” Oh, not against the Mormons… they’re all monogamous now. Could Mittens have run for president with three wives? Would all three of them have even agreed he was “the only one who can beat Obama”?

#22 Comment By FatHappySouthernBoy On February 20, 2014 @ 12:50 pm

Bobby you are confusing plural marriage and sleeping around.

The two are not the same.

#23 Comment By EarlyBird On February 20, 2014 @ 1:11 pm

Thomas Aquinas,

You are arguing against gays marrying because they are biologically incapable of meeting a standard to which the world hasn’t held married heterosexuals for about…ever. Indeed, we celebrate the marriage of elderly, infertile and otherwise disinclined-to-procreate heterosexual couples.

It is understood that the institution, when entered into seriously, transforms the married persons into better, more mature persons, that their commitment before God, the law, their family and the public stabilizes their circle, their community and adds to “human good.

This is exactly what gay people are asking to enter into.

Perhaps you see the quest for gay marriage – as I used to – as just another way for the left to obliterate meaningful distinctions and traditions for the sake of “rights!,” “progress” and “inclusion!,” that the movement is fundamentally just a political game being played. It is not. It is a movement which respects and is serious about the institution of marriage. These are people who want to settle down, not party.

#24 Comment By Hector_St_Clare On February 20, 2014 @ 1:20 pm

Bobby,

Polygamy makes demographic sense under some circumstances, like when large numbers of men have been killed in war. we also now have the capability, in theory, to consciously control the sex ratio of our offspring (and I don’t mean by selective abortion). It’s possible a future society might deliberately produce a female biased sex ratio which would enable polygyny.

Polygamy in the strict sense can comprise both polygyny (man on many women) and polyandry (many men on one woman). It’s possible that modern forms of polygamy might include polyandry in roughly equal numbers as polygamy- for example, some men might be happier being the fourth husband of Carly Rae Jepsen than the sole husband of someone less glamorous. If that happened, then altered sexual ratios and distortion of the sexual marketplace wouldn’t be an issue.

#25 Comment By IJS On February 20, 2014 @ 1:57 pm

So polygamy, a biblical practice which has been wide spread among humans ought to be unthinkable because . . . because. But same sex marriage should also be unthinkable because of a half dozen of bible verses which mostly refer to ritualistic or non-consensual encounters.

Really, at the end of the day, I think we need to face up to the fact that we humans have no idea what we’re doing and never have. Looking to the bible for instructions is all well and fine except that it’s a really lousy instruction book. It gives rules for slavery on the one hand while sowing the seeds for its eventual destruction with the other hand. Those most scrupulus followers of scripture were the ones Jesus called servants of Satan.

Perhaps the time has come to show some humility and admit that we just don’t know as much as we think we do. When we ate from the tree of the knowlege of good and evil, we got the fruit of knowing good and evil – the drive to make judgments on good and evil – without ever first having gained the knowledge required to actually make such judgments. Yes, there is wisdom passed down through the ages, but much of that wisdom comes from showing us what not to do. The past never was a nirvana of good morals and brotherly love. We’ve been winging it the whole time. Now all the rules are going out the window and it may well be that we’ll need to make some mistakes born of too much freedom in order to learn how best to conduct ourselves. I wouldn’t say that we’re progressing, but we’re probably growing up. Which may or may not be a good thing – most of us were probably better human beings at 3 than 23. But it’s inevitable.

#26 Comment By J On February 20, 2014 @ 2:00 pm

You can eat alligators, so this rule could get pretty dangerous.

If he’s coprophagous it becomes rather amusing.

#27 Comment By Bobby On February 21, 2014 @ 2:22 am

@SJ

I think you’re reading more into my statement than I was intending to say. I’m simply pointing out that SSM imposes no additional administrative burden on the state, as it can be folded into the existing legal structure of civil marriage. I understand that you oppose SSM. Still, that doesn’t have anything to do with the administrative burden it imposes.

In contrast, there is no existing system into which multilateral marriages can be folded. Such a system would have to be created ab initio, resulting in heavy administrative burdens on the state. Moreover, there is no dominant form that these relationships seem to take, which makes it difficult to identify any single legal rubric that would be suitable for everyone who wants to benefit from it.

#28 Comment By Siarlys Jenkins On February 21, 2014 @ 8:06 pm

Oops, says Bobby, someone applied what I said in a manner inconvenient to my argument, so let me clarify I didn’t mean to go so far as that.

Now how many times do I have to clarify, I don’t OPPOSE same sex marriage, I’m rather INDIFFERENT to it. What I oppose is distorting constitutional jurisprudence for the opportunistic purpose of concocting a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT of gay couples to have a marriage license issued to them.

Whether a given change would impose a heavy administrative burden on the state is secondary, as to whether it would be sound public policy, and irrelevant, as to whether it would be constitutionally mandated.

The Affordable Care Act imposes a considerable burden on the state, probably more so than licensed polygamy would. But I’m all for it. I’m insured, finally, for the first time since July 2009.

#29 Comment By Equalibrian On February 23, 2014 @ 12:28 pm

Indeed, LGBT excludes the PS to their logic: Polygamist. Sibbleger (involved in incest). Wonder why?

#30 Comment By wynotme307 On February 25, 2014 @ 1:12 am

First, we accept same sex marriage. Then we accept polygamy. Then we accept beastiality. Then we move down to pediphilia.
Where does it stop? Are there any borders that we will not cross? After all, this is freedom to the uttermost. Freedom to do as you wish with whom ever or what ever you wish. It is all a right, is it not. Who says no, and confines my liberty to your ideals?
The answer is, GOD. You may deny the existance of the spiritual man, but it is none the less present. There will be a price to pay if we allow our society to accept what is detrimental to our society. The punishment may not come from God himself, but the whole of society will be diminished as a result of our acceptance of pervertions. The family structure is already being cracked by the Hammer of lgtb. The Polygamists have television shows and go unpunished. Some people insist the family cat or dog is a member of the family and endow them with human characteristics, and child molesters are declared to have a mental disease and given treatment instead of death.
Society will falter and crumble if society doesn’t come to It’s senses soon.

#31 Comment By Gwyna On February 25, 2014 @ 2:43 pm

One correction; Polygamy is traditionally one male with many females, and many of the arguments that include “unwanted boys” apply to that relationship style, but not to the modern movement of polyamory that The Atlantic discusses.

Also, in my experience, the toss off of “polyamory hurts women” isn’t a claim made by people who are familiar with the community. The community itself almost could qualify as matriarchal, with women often carrying the balance of power in relationships.

#32 Comment By Grendel007 On February 28, 2014 @ 2:49 pm

I am enjoying watching you destroy yourselves, especially with the tools of “intellect” and “equality”.
Do not mistake this as a snarky comment. It is meant in all seriousness.

#33 Comment By Nothing new (nor good) under the sun… On February 28, 2014 @ 6:59 pm

IJS said: “So polygamy, a biblical practice which has been wide spread among humans ought to be unthinkable because . . . because. But same sex marriage should also be unthinkable because of a half dozen of bible verses which mostly refer to ritualistic or non-consensual encounters.”

In stating that, IJS shows his biblical ignorance. There are cases of polygamous marriage within the Bible(Solomon, who actually wrote some of the Old Testament being one of the major examples); but nowhere in the Bible is the practice ever endorsed, let alone taught or promoted as being a correct or Godly one.

The instances of polygamy recorded in the Bible are there for the same reasons it records that Rahab was a harlot: because it is depicting the details surrounding the stories being put forth. No more no less.

Trying to twist it to use it claim a contradiction between polygamy and homosexuality that isn’t in the text shows duplicity at worst, and ignorance at best.

And anyone who has not been able to see the legalization of polygamy coming for more than twenty years now, either hasn’t been paying attention, or is an utter dullard. And anyone who says it will end there is either an idiot so fully realized as to make Joe Biden seem like Aristotle, or is a rank liar.

#34 Comment By Paul Emmons On May 22, 2014 @ 6:56 pm

As usual, those who blame SSM for a campaign for polygamy rely on everyone’s simply shrinking with horror from the idea. Why? If you oppose it so much, why content oneself with vague horror?

I suspect that they do so because to provide any objective arguments against polygamy would expose the fallacy of the connection with SSM that they are trying to make. To my mind, valid arguments abound, and none of them follow from SSM.

1) If my high school biology teacher was correct, male human embryos are more fragile than female. Therefore, female births outnumber males when the mother is undernourished or in poor health. This must often have been the case in primitive, subsistence societies. When women outnumber men for this reason, as well as due to casualties in warfare and occupational hazards, polygamy makes sense. Happily, this is not the case with us.

2) Polygamy is Islamic. If you investigate the marital status of terrorists, I think you will find that most of them are unmarried men. It is not surprising if sexual frustration leads to violent or even suicidal inclinations, especially given propaganda to the effect that countless nubile virgins will greet them as soon as they pass on to heaven.
Al Quaeda et al. are able to exploit these dreams with men who have lost a game of marital musical chairs. We don’t want it.

3) Polygamy is greedy. Who do you think will hog the women? They will become more trophies of wealth, leaving the poor even more deprived than they are now.

I think that these are a few sound objections to polygamy. If you think that it is a bad idea, why not give a few others?

#35 Comment By christopher james langston On December 17, 2014 @ 4:19 pm

i think polygamy should be legalize in the united states of america in california.