Legalize polygamy

Post Reply New Topic

Other than the implications for Social Security (problems caused by the fact that while it's fine in theory, the insistence on starting with the then-current generation of retirees, who had never paid into it, meant that SS had to become a Ponzi scheme), I fail to see why anyone should get worked up over falling birthrates. Seems to me that there are plenty of people on the planet already - until we're willing to spread out a bit and get offplanet, why increase the birthrate?

Assuming that polygyny (or even true polygamy) will increase the birthrate, however, would appear to have no basis, at least in any society in which the women involved have a political voice. I've seen various forms of polygamy in action - heck, I'm in a polyandrous "marriage" (only one partnership at a time is recognized by the state) - and I have yet to see a polygynous relationship in which more than one wife is pregnant at a time. In fact, in the polygynous group I know best, none of the ladies involved seem to want children at all!

Reasons such as...? Patrilineal inheritance is better, good, or even acceptable because...? What does it matter which child belongs to which, unless one is a eugenicist, trying to stop certain individuals from reproducing because of "undesirable" genes.


I don't see that as being a viable alternative to the nuclear family.[/quote]

There is much evidence suggesting that the nuclear family is no longer a viable alternative. Why wouldn't communal parenting be superior to an arbitrary preference to the biological parent, and indeed any blood relative. If there is an argument not tied to property rights, would like to see it.


Biological inheritance isn't a societal institution we can choose to do away with- as much as Stalin and T. Lysenko attempted to. It simply is, whether we choose to believe it or not.[/quote]

Neither of those people had the foggiest f--- of an idea what they were up to. Obviously a rephrasing is necessary. It is the institution, not the biological inheritance, that is being questioned. Of course genes pass from parent to child, that is science. That property and privilege of a child should be determined primarily by biology, and only secondarily by sociology, threatens the viability of a global human civilization. Why should the wealth of parents be handed to the child?

Heredity? Inheritance? Identity? Family?

These are some very good reasons.

Brave New World was just a story. Just a story.

white people =/= western civilization.
there are more than enough people on the planet. Rather than engaging in demographic warfare, we would do better to support family planning and education for all children, especially girls (birthrate being negatively correlated with women's literacy in the 3rd world, and family size being negatively correlated with economic status) around the world. Increasing stability around the world will mean less immigration for economic purposes, and those individuals who continue to move into the west will be more likely those who agree with western ideals and want to be a part of extant western culture.

As far as polygyny increasing the fertility rate, that's bull: the number of women remains constant, regardless of the number of men they are associated with, and population increase is dependent on the number of children per woman and the age at which she has them. Unless you want to turn women into nothing but baby machines - which doesn't take polygyny - you're not going to increase the population by changing the family structure. All you're going to do is reduce the genetic diversity by limiting the number of fathers of the next generation.

A communal child rearing.

It's not being married to more than one woman that produces babies, it's the act of getting them pregnant that does.

And you don't need marriage for that.

birth rates in the western world are falling because western women are choosing to have fewer children, on average. If you want western women to have more children, then you either need to take away their choice (not advised) or grant them incentives for having more children (gov't subsidized day care, for example).

These can all be handled in polygamous societies. The law need merely be adjusted.

All that ploy-marriages of any type would do is create social strife. There are close to 1:1 ratio of men to women in the west. You'd just end up like china where 30% of men will never marry because there are not enough females.

You wouldnt get any more babies. The poly-cultists have lots of kids because its a social status thing. Its not sustainable and they already eject men to allow favoured people to marry more than once.

For medical reasons, it is often useful to know someone's family history to determine what risks they may face, what treatments could be beneficial, etc. Also, yes, for cultural reasons it is better for people to know who their parents are. Bastard children whose fathers are unknown are shunned and looked down upon in every culture I have ever heard of. This reaction seems to be culturally universal, so there must be some basis to it. We are not chimpanzees (where the females have sex with every male so that no one is sure who fathered her children) and should not emulate them.

Who cares about birth rates? We have 7 BILLION people!! Enough already!! !
Consensual Polygamy should be legal (as long as everybody is treated nice and there's no violence involved, but that should be the case for ALL marriages), because it IS NOT THE GOVERNMENTS BUSINESS (unless, like I said before, there is violence involved or someone is forced into it).

Last edited by princessarachne on 19 Mar 2015, 8:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Let me think - NO!

No, and for reasons too many to list here.

edit

Ok, I'll list four.

a) Polygamy is the practice of one man having many wives. If we legalise it, we will then have to legalise the practice of one woman having many husbands, which I think is called 'polyandry'. After all, it would only be fair, would it not?
b) Marriage is, or at least was so far as the West goes, a binding contract that had possession at its core. That is, the wife was the property of the husband. I believe in some parts of the Near East this is still how it is viewed. Shouldn't we be pushing for the abolition of marriage as a (rather outdated) concept instead of going in the other direction and just making things worse?
c) Good reasons for allowing it are completely non-existent. Societies that do allow it (ex. the Mormons) are not the kind of societies we should be attempting to emulate. Cults often encourage this practice precisely because it allows the founder of the cult to indulge himself with the daughters of his membership. Such societies are almost always grossly unequal.
d) One needs to seriously question the mindset of a man who actually thinks it would be a dandy idea to have access to more than one wife. Such people usually turn out to be complete sleazebags (and misogynistic douchbags as well).

~Why does the world need more citizens of the western world? The world is grossly overpopulated today and thus we have been forced to create additional food using science that is being tested on us (gmo's - genetically modified organisms). Take a peek at this link showing population growth...http://www.census.gov/popclock/
~I feel insulted by your reference to sweeping lesbianism under the rug as if a woman is a lesbian because there are not enough men to go around. This is incorrect.
~There is nothing inherently stable about people sharing partners. Go out and recruit multiple wives and have at it if you have the means and the mentality. It exists in every society legally or illegally already. Some people require monogamy and some people want more. If you're honest, open, and accept that a woman may want multiple partners also, I don't find anything wrong with poly-any.