Should polygamy be legalized?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

If it's completely consensual (and I'm talking both polyandry and polygyny), I honestly don't care. The idea that "normal" relationships can be monogamous only is without a basis.

That being said, I wouldn't be interested in polygamy myself (I'm not interested in marriage at all).

Even if it is completely consensual, there's the damaging psychological effects on any children that are raised by parents practicing polygamy.  And of course, pretty much every time polygamy has been legalized, women have suffered as a result.

Really? Do you have a source for that claim?

I forget which thread and don't care enough to spend 15-20 minutes looking for it (no offense, I don't mean that in a dismissive way or anything), but there was another thread where someone was debating this with L.D. Smith and already covered all of that in detail (with a number of sources).  If you're really curious, I'm sure you can find the thread.

I see. I'm just of skeptical of how, say, having a dad and two moms, or a mom and two dads, would be extremely physiologically damaging. I mean, it's not like the traditional "nuclear family" madel is the only possible way to raise a family.

Yes, this is one of the most overused talking points. It's not about model of the family, but how it works in individual cases. There are plenty of people who were raised by "traditional model family" and were extremely psychologically damaged.

Polygamy in the west isn't normal.

I don't want to make specific comparisons, but a lot of things that are seen as totally natural today were "not normal" not so long ago. This is yet another badly overused talking point.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So the whole point of marriage is utilizing wives? Lol.


And once again, I'm not advocating polygamy. I wouldn't be interested in being in a polygamous marriage myself, but some of the reasoning in this poll is... interesting.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

No.

Completely ignoring all moral issues and looking at it only on practical grounds, just about all laws involving marriage make no sense if more than two parties are involved, (imagine divorce proceedings) and it's so rare that the utter mess of trying to legislate it is not worth it. Imagine a scenario where person A is married to person B, and person B is married to person C, and person C is married to person D, who is also married to person A, but not person B, etc. How on Earth does this work for inheritance and tax filings? Also as laughably inane as J. J.'s pension fraud argument was against gay marriage, the potential for abuse in situations like this are quite common and I'd wager that >95% of polygamous "marriages" would actually just be for reasons like this.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

God No, anyone who believes this, and wants more than one wife, as previously mentioned, should be institutionalized. I thought liberalism opposed the oppression of women, and all the complications that come with it, but I guess for people it's just much FREEEDOM. Which is the most annoying, not to mention dumb argument.

Yeah. It's issues like this that make me doubt whether a large segment of American liberalism is actually left-wing in any meaningful sense. It's pretty clear these people have no understanding of structural forms of oppression and how they flourish under certain "muh freedum"-inspired policies.

You're committing the often committed fallacy here of assuming that weirdo Atlas posters are representative of greater society in any way.

The percentage of IDed liberals in the US who support this is probably in the single digits. When did any Democratic politician, candidate for office, LGBT activist or liberal activist of any prominence whatsoever call for the legalization of polygamy? This issue is so fringe that trying to make conclusions about American liberalism on it makes zero sense. It's even more ridiculous than trying to draw conclusions about Sanders supporters based on idiots on Reddit, or about contemporary feminism based on whackjobs on Tumblr.

[Antonio the Sixth]

God No, anyone who believes this, and wants more than one wife, as previously mentioned, should be institutionalized. I thought liberalism opposed the oppression of women, and all the complications that come with it, but I guess for people it's just much FREEEDOM. Which is the most annoying, not to mention dumb argument.

Yeah. It's issues like this that make me doubt whether a large segment of American liberalism is actually left-wing in any meaningful sense. It's pretty clear these people have no understanding of structural forms of oppression and how they flourish under certain "muh freedum"-inspired policies.

You're committing the often committed fallacy here of assuming that weirdo Atlas posters are representative of greater society in any way.

The percentage of IDed liberals in the US who support this is probably in the single digits. When did any Democratic politician, candidate for office, LGBT activist or liberal activist of any prominence whatsoever call for the legalization of polygamy? This issue is so fringe that trying to make conclusions about American liberalism on it makes zero sense. It's even more ridiculous than trying to draw conclusions about Sanders supporters based on idiots on Reddit, or about contemporary feminism based on whackjobs on Tumblr.

You're right. I still think there is a more general problem with American liberalism (and the European left, for that matter) trending toward being "socially liberal" for the sake of it rather than out of a consistent set of principles, but thankfully few people take these attitudes as far as supporting polygamy.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

J. J.'s pension fraud argument was against gay marriage

That's kind of reminds me of Norman Tebbit claiming that if gay marriage is legalized in the UK, he'll be able to marry his son for tax purposes.

Yeah. It's issues like this that make me doubt whether a large segment of American liberalism is actually left-wing in any meaningful sense. It's pretty clear these people have no understanding of structural forms of oppression and how they flourish under certain "muh freedum"-inspired policies.

Admittedly, if patriarchy did not exist, I'd say it would be a legitimate issue to discuss. Not sure if I'd be for or against it in that case, but that's pretty irrelevant considering patriarchy not only exists but is in fact one of the most powerful and all-encompassing social phenomena in the history of humanity.

I honestly don't think that relationships with more than two people in (and I'm not talking about exclusive "one man, two or three women", there's also a thing called polyandry) are inherently bound to be oppressive. We've seen literally thousands of "normal" monogamous relationships that were just going awful.

I have problems with some implications of such discussion: about "inferior" and "superior cultures", just like with the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that declared polygamy unconstitutional.

I will agree, however, that it mixed with a patriarchal model is in most of the cases a serious problem. BRTD does made a pretty good point about legal aspects too.

Anyway, it's all theoretical, as far as our part of the world is concerned.


I'm guess I'm just an anti-marriage type ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[IceSpear]

No. As BRTD said, this is just nonsensical given marriage laws. It's not equivalent to gay marriage at all.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

No. As BRTD said, this is just nonsensical given marriage laws. It's not equivalent to gay marriage at all.

Of course it isn't. Anyone claiming otherwise is committing a gross hyperbole.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

God No, anyone who believes this, and wants more than one wife, as previously mentioned, should be institutionalized. I thought liberalism opposed the oppression of women, and all the complications that come with it, but I guess for people it's just much FREEEDOM. Which is the most annoying, not to mention dumb argument.

Yeah. It's issues like this that make me doubt whether a large segment of American liberalism is actually left-wing in any meaningful sense. It's pretty clear these people have no understanding of structural forms of oppression and how they flourish under certain "muh freedum"-inspired policies.

You're committing the often committed fallacy here of assuming that weirdo Atlas posters are representative of greater society in any way.

The percentage of IDed liberals in the US who support this is probably in the single digits. When did any Democratic politician, candidate for office, LGBT activist or liberal activist of any prominence whatsoever call for the legalization of polygamy? This issue is so fringe that trying to make conclusions about American liberalism on it makes zero sense. It's even more ridiculous than trying to draw conclusions about Sanders supporters based on idiots on Reddit, or about contemporary feminism based on whackjobs on Tumblr.

You're right. I still think there is a more general problem with American liberalism (and the European left, for that matter) trending toward being "socially liberal" for the sake of it rather than out of a consistent set of principles, but thankfully few people take these attitudes as far as supporting polygamy.

Nowhere but here would supporting polygamy be considered "socially liberal". You seem to be thinking more of socially libertarian, but even then extreme libertarians would be unlikely to support polygamy and just want to abolish government recognition of marriage altogether.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Anyone who thinks they want more than one spouse should be institutionalized.

Not too long ago, people were saying that about people who wanted to bone people of the same gender ... Guess liberalism and being enlightened is, in fact, relative to the time period...

God No, anyone who believes this, and wants more than one wife, as previously mentioned, should be institutionalized. I thought liberalism opposed the oppression of women, and all the complications that come with it, but I guess for people it's just much FREEEDOM. Which is the most annoying, not to mention dumb argument.

Yeah. It's issues like this that make me doubt whether a large segment of American liberalism is actually left-wing in any meaningful sense. It's pretty clear these people have no understanding of structural forms of oppression and how they flourish under certain "muh freedum"-inspired policies.

Admittedly, if patriarchy did not exist, I'd say it would be a legitimate issue to discuss. Not sure if I'd be for or against it in that case, but that's pretty irrelevant considering patriarchy not only exists but is in fact one of the most powerful and all-encompassing social phenomena in the history of humanity.

Polygamy means more then one spouse, male or female

[HisGrace]

I honestly don't think that relationships with more than two people in (and I'm not talking about exclusive "one man, two or three women", there's also a thing called polyandry) are inherently bound to be oppressive. We've seen literally thousands of "normal" monogamous relationships that were just going awful.

Yup, you could use the exact same arguments in this thread ("but we live in a patriarichal society", "look at all the abuse that happens") to say that we should ban all marriage. In a similar vein, the specific problems that emerge frequently with polygamy are generally things that are already illegal. When a psycho in Utah marries his two teenaged nieces, the least important part of that is that there's two of them, as opposed to his committing incest and marrying underage girls.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well that's pretty much the crux of what social liberalism is today, which is why I stopped calling myself one a couple years ago despite coming down on their side of most of the mainstream hot button issues. Pretty much the same mindset as social conservatives, only different values being imposed. Despite all the talk about multiculturalism, very few people truly represent pluralism anymore

[ElectionsGuy]

Yes

[ingemann]

I will do the same as the last time we discussed this.

Here's a map of states where polygamy is fully legal



Would I like my country to share the same colour as the counties on that map? Not really.

[Goldwater]

Ugh, not that argument again. The reasons those countries are horrible has nothing to do with polygamy laws.

[Intell]

Ugh, not that argument again. The reasons those countries are horrible has nothing to do with polygamy laws.

Yes it does, in contribution to other reasons.

[Kingpoleon]

I will do the same as the last time we discussed this.

Here's a map of states where polygamy is fully legal



Would I like my country to share the same colour as the counties on that map? Not really.

China, North Korea, Russia, Venezuela, and Cuba are all great countries to associate one with.

[RaphaelDLG]

Slightly tilt legalize, because I don't give a sh**t about what people do if it doesn't hurt anyone and floats their boat, though

1) Because I'm a huge sap, I would never do it

2) The tax implications, as people have said, would be insane, so there'd have to be, like, a single designated tax spouse or something

3) The societal implications of encouraging a system that has

A) been somewhat proven to result in worse parenting and
B) almost inevitably due to naturally selected programming (I think even if polyandry was also legalized) creates a world with harems of women married to wealthy men and throngs of disaffected sexually frustrated young men and
C) may even go against most of our socially monogamous instincts

might be really bad.

Actually just kidding, I tilt against legalization now, I'm starting to convince myself.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I will do the same as the last time we discussed this.

Here's a map of states where polygamy is fully legal



Would I like my country to share the same colour as the counties on that map? Not really.

...and that map should really put into perspective how silly it is to describe this as "social liberalism run amok" or whatever like Antonio is.

Also it's outdated, since India just recently banned all polygamy (it was previously allowed only in predominately Muslim areas.)

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Different places can arrive at the same policies for different (in this case all bad, but different) reasons.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Actually for a good example of that, Burma also recently banned polygamy too. But it's widely agreed the only reason they did was that it's practiced almost exclusively by Muslims whom the government is engaging in a campaign of repression against. Same President who signed it is also calling for a ban on inter-religious marriages.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Yeah, Burmese religious politics is a [Inks]ing nightmare.

[Antonio the Sixth]

"social liberalism run amok" or whatever like Antonio is.

Is this another of the things you're never gonna leave down?

Yes, I get more passionate when I see self-proclaimed liberals take a functionally sexist and oppressive position under the guise of "muh freedum" that when a gazillionth conservative does so. That doesn't mean I think it's a bigger problem. It's just that I expect conservatives to have this kind of crappy view, because they're conservatives and sexism is one of their ideological pillars. My point is that we're better than this and should strive to remain better than this.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I honestly don't think that relationships with more than two people in (and I'm not talking about exclusive "one man, two or three women", there's also a thing called polyandry) are inherently bound to be oppressive. We've seen literally thousands of "normal" monogamous relationships that were just going awful.

No, of course no one specific relationship is bound to be oppressive. I have no problem imagining a perfectly healthy and loving polyamorous household, though it's not something I could ever myself into. I can't say if having children in such a situation would present a risk to their development, because I haven't heard of any study on the matter (and frankly I hope it never comes to the point where we need studies on that). But there are consequences for society at large. Thinking only at the individual level (as modern political discourse, left and right, tends to do) completely omits the impact of social norms and values on policies and vice versa. Again, the fact that patriarchy exists and that, even if weakened, it's here to stay for the foreseeable future, is not something you can shrug off.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Some specific cultural practices are morally inferior to others. I don't see what's problematic about that. Moral relativism is sh*t.

[Goldwater]

"social liberalism run amok" or whatever like Antonio is.

Is this another of the things you're never gonna leave down?

Yes, I get more passionate when I see self-proclaimed liberals take a functionally sexist and oppressive position under the guise of "muh freedum" that when a gazillionth conservative does so. That doesn't mean I think it's a bigger problem. It's just that I expect conservatives to have this kind of crappy view, because they're conservatives and sexism is one of their ideological pillars. My point is that we're better than this and should strive to remain better than this.

I like it when people who aren't me tell me what I believe and why I believe it.

[Antonio the Sixth]

"social liberalism run amok" or whatever like Antonio is.

Is this another of the things you're never gonna leave down?

Yes, I get more passionate when I see self-proclaimed liberals take a functionally sexist and oppressive position under the guise of "muh freedum" that when a gazillionth conservative does so. That doesn't mean I think it's a bigger problem. It's just that I expect conservatives to have this kind of crappy view, because they're conservatives and sexism is one of their ideological pillars. My point is that we're better than this and should strive to remain better than this.

I like it when people who aren't me tell me what I believe and why I believe it.

If that makes you feel better, you're not alone. Sexism has long been and still largely is the mainstream view almost everywhere in the world.

(seriously though, I'm generalizing for the sake of the argument but I know it's more complicated)

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I'm going to go Moderate Hero and say maybe, but society isn't ready for it.