The case for polygamy

[notyoueither]

Are the 3 in your quoted article hiding from the authorities?

The only polygamous people who hide from the authorities are crazy cultish people.

JM

It happens in the US and Canada. Some of your crazies escaped the farm and have polluted our beautiful garden. They live in a small area of BC, ironically called "Bountiful."

Their case is being argued before the SCoC after long agitation by former wives forced the government and police to actually do something.

[notyoueither]

and it's two people.

The two conversations are the same husband and wife under different circumstances.

[notyoueither]

Not for religious reasons. For cultural, rational, and enlightened reasons.

Plenty of married women live as virtual slaves too.

The issue is that do we, as a society, want to support polygamy. It would be stepping back over 500 years to change our minds to yes.

JM

Many of the proponents of polyamory are feminists.

This isn't all about man and many wives, Jon.

Can you get past that?

[notyoueither]

Believe it or not, there are women who see no reason to restrict themselves to one man.

My first exposure to this was over coffee the morning after the night before, many years ago.

She said "I don't believe in monogamy."

[Jon Miller]

Many of the proponents of polyamory are feminists.

This isn't all about man and many wives, Jon.

Can you get past that?

A lot of feminists are in the 'this is the new ideal' frame of mind despite it not working out well, and not rationally being advantageous to society or the people involved (often).

Have you studied up on this?

JM

[Jon Miller]

Believe it or not, there are women who see no reason to restrict themselves to one man.

My first exposure to this was over coffee the morning after the night before, many years ago.

She said "I don't believe in monogamy."

A lot of people don't believe in it. It doean't mean that society should support them.

In fact, they are some of the most damaging people for soceity (who aren't criminals).

JM

[notyoueither]

A lot of feminists are in the 'this is the new ideal' frame of mind despite it not working out well, and not rationally being advantageous to society or the people involved (often).

Have you studied up on this?

JM

I think the thread should make clear, Jon. Yes, I have spent some time studying this.

Who are you to tell people who are living happy, productive lives that it is not working out well?

[notyoueither]

A lot of people don't believe in it. It doean't mean that society should support them.

In fact, they are some of the most damaging people for soceity (who aren't criminals).

JM

No, Jon.

Some of the most damaging people to society are those who are busy living everyone elses lives for them, and proscribing everything for everyone.

People who know all about what is good for all other people have cost untold trilions of dollars and untold millions of wasted and broken lives.

[Jon Miller]

That includes people who think that what is good for all other people is that they should be supported in doing whatever they want.

There is a big difference between saying your actions aren't illegal.

It isn't illegal to have 2 men and 2 women live together and have sex and share responsibilities/etc.

And saying that we will support your activities and lifestyle.

And we don't support 2 men and 2 women living together.

So it is a life style choice, that people are free to make, but it isn't a supported lifestyle choice. It isn't one that society thinks is good.

The same should be true for circumcision, btw. It should be a free choice, but not one that is supported by the government/etc. This is a crucial difference.

The reasons we don't do this, and I think we shouldn't do this, are already listed here.

You can bring up feminists and other modernists/post modernist groups all you want.

I am not interested unless you can defend it from a rational standpoint.

Rationally:
1. A couple is 1 bond, a triple is 3 bonds, the difficulty of keeping all bonds growing stronger increases much stronger than linearly. (and if they aren't growing stronger, they are etting weaker)
2. Due to societal structures and probably instinct (according to some research), groupings are far more likely to have multiple women then multiple men. I don't care what post modernists/feminists say, unless they have something to back it up. This is a societal issue (as pointed out).
3. The complications of relationships ending also increase much more than linearly with number of partners. This isn't so much a problem in traditional societies because they don't allow relationships to end. This is a legal/etc issue.
4. Relationships are more valuable if they last. This should be obvious, but I know a lot disagree with me here. The depth can't exist without long term. And no, I don't consider it a relationship really even if the people are still married if they are emotionally unconnected.
5. Emotional connection is already lacking in many relationships. This includes with children as well as with adults. Adding the number of bonds required just means that there is less chance for real emotional connection (not just for a moment, but the sort that doesn't exist without 10-20 years effort) to happen. Because people won't have time for it. A lot of people don't make time for 1, because of their poor choices/etc. Why should we support people making it more difficult for themselves to form emotional connections?
6. There is always favorites. People say the ideal is not have to have them, but this is denying the realities of relationships.

The lack of emotional connections is a real serious problem in society. And not one that is or should be criminal. This causes far more waste and broken lives than the few who are 'busy living everyone elses lives for them'. In fact, it is probably the number one cause of humans damage other humans.

So I don't want this to be supported selfishly because I think that society will be worse. This has been detailed in the links. I don't want this to be supported altruistically because I think that a lot of people will think it is a rational choice of forming a real mature relationship and will thus never get the chance to do so. I recognize that most people will not form real mature relationships in their lifetimes anyways, but they should at least be given the chance. I already see far too many people who ruin their chances for a mature intimate connection due to believing in the ideal of polygamy and this is with the current level of support!

JM

[Jon Miller]

I think the thread should make clear, Jon. Yes, I have spent some time studying this.

Who are you to tell people who are living happy, productive lives that it is not working out well?

I have seen people claim it is working out well and being miserable.

I have seen people who are scared/etc of any real emotional connection and really believe that their life is going wonderfully, but are miserable whenever they allow themselves to think.

So yes, I don't believe them.

JM

[rah]

I have seen people who are scared/etc of any real emotional connection and really believe that their life is going wonderfully, but are miserable whenever they allow themselves to think.

I don't think the form of their marriage is necessarily the differentiation. Many traditionally married people are in the same boat.

[Jon Miller]

BTW, I would expect that societal support for serial monogamy would come before it for polygamy. Afterall, most people are serial monogamists at some point in their lives, and many are always so.

A link:

http://www.good.is/post/domestic-partnerships-should-be-an-alternative-to-marriage-for-all-couples/

Note that this has been an argument for anti-gay marriage people for a long time. They have viewed gay marriage as an attack on marriage, and it seems obvious that it is for some (especially in this thread). It seems to be more the heterosexual proponents of gay marriage though...

I see the difference. Gay marriage is an expansion of the marriage idea, it is encouraging that ideal among the homosexual community. Polygamy would be otherwise though, it would be encouraging alternate ideals than (Traditional) marriage.

JM

[MikeH]

I think the difference is that polygamy is a lifestyle choice and homosexuality isn't.

And to me that's a valid reason to say we can treat the two cases differently if that's what we decided.

[onodera]

I think the difference is that polygamy is a lifestyle choice and homosexuality isn't.

And to me that's a valid reason to say we can treat the two cases differently if that's what we decided.

People also used to say that homosexuality was just a life stile choice or a mental illness. Neither you nor I are polygamous, how can we be sure there aren't any people that are polygamous by nature?

[MikeH]

Partly why I think it's more reasonable to allow it.