Personally, I'm in favor of marriage. The public declaration of fealty steers the focus of any marital problems onto resolution rather than dissolution. However, I don't think the question should be, "Should gay couples be allowed to marry?". It should be, "Why is the government involved, AT ALL, in how people wish to structure their households?".

We should be relying on government for assistance in enforcing contracts. But how these contracts are structured should be entirely up to the people involved. This, of course, includes people who wish to structure their households around participation by more than two individuals.

I guess there needs to be a set of default contracts (to protect children and establish ownership of chattels, etc.) which are deemed to be in effect when people share a household; but, other than that, the government should have no role. 

I know that polygamy facilitates some injustices that never occur in "traditional" marriages <joke>, but is polygamy sufficiently evil by its nature to require the government to ban it?

Views: 2261

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

In many ways, amongst others with mothers yelling at their sons, and the matriarchs sons growing up to hating their mothers and women in general.

You don't seem to have lived with very many people who grew up in Muslim societies or even talked to a Muslim. Most I met lack inside voices when they disagree, which is something I really notices since I'm a bit hearing impaired.

Then, by your opinion, what does count as a matriarch dominated society (as in the mother having power over psychologically influencing sons, specifically Oedipus dominated societies) and which societies would you deem as being such?

Opinion without evidence is just opinion. At least I presented my case, you have no clue what you are talking about. I presume I'll get lots of Wiki articles thrown back... heh :)

Again with the Strawman.

I said I didn't say that, I proved I didn't say that, and I offered you an example of a matriarch corresponding with a deeply rooted psychological aspect of men, a concept which you clearly don't understand:

In psychoanalytic theory, the term Oedipus complex denotes the emotions and ideas that the mind keeps in the unconscious, via dynamic repression, that concentrate upon a boy’s desire to sexually possess his mother, and kill his father.[1][2]

Lot more men stick to the third stage than women.

 

 

So I'm seeing your distinction about what is in modern terms effectively Polyamory and my conflation of polygamy and polygyny. I object to how it's historically played out as polygyny. But Polyamory doesn't affect me, so why would polygamy? It's a fair question for me to ask myself.

My concern would be protecting those that don't know better, or those that don't recognize the abuse. I had a friend once say that "He only gets angry because he loves me." How do we define the line between allowing the freedom and protecting those that can't protect themselves, or even to protect themselves? I'm really focused on patriarchal religious based abuse potential.  

Then you mentioned the kids. My parents divorced when I was four. I bonded with my father. The guy my mom dated for the next 6 years, I liked, but we didn't bond nor did I respect him. My step father was the best, but I didn't respect his discipline, nor did I recognize this when I was younger. So that leads me to ask for a reason why you think that kids of polygamy do better? Is it reasoned out, data, why do you feel this way? 

To those of you making the "Oh nos too many single men" argument. There's nothing keeping those men from joining any grouping in their vicinity. That's kind of the point. It means there is a nearly unlimited pool of potential partners around them of either gender… they just happen to also be involved with other people.

 

Generally you seem to be missing the point that a poly friendly society is a non-exclusive non-competitive society.

exactly!

 

both men and women are free to pursue relationships they desire without the imposition of guilt or sin and they have the ability to have a wider group of 'family' to raise the family... we must open our minds to these thoughts as this is our past!

"free to pursue"

You are not free to pursue instincts. The need for relationships is a natural urge the vast majority don't fight. It's the same as being free to pursue what you want to eat, but you are not free to choose not eating for particularly long time before you become desperate. Whether unsexed or unfed, violence increases substantially.

As for it being something women would be particularly interested in as the polygamist: Any evidence of this?

OMG are you clueless or what?

 

Yes, there is plenty of evidence for women being interested in a multi-partnership society.  The polyamorous community is primarily female-driven.  Almost all of the books written on the subject (in favor of) are written by women.  Female psychologists are the ones driving the studies currently being done.  Almost all the community leaders are female.  Nan Wise, Anita Wagner, Jenny Block, Tristan Taormino, Cunning Minx, Robyn Trask ... the list just goes on and on.

...Dossie Easton & Catherine Liszt, Deborah Anapol...

 

Awesome list of ladies, too.

"plenty of evidence"

Mythical amazons apart, exactly what constitutes 'plenty of evidence' to you? There is plenty of evidence that in a sexually oppressed society which has legalized prostitution, around women 25% of women will find that to be a pretty decent career opportunity. At least my 'plenty of evidence' can be cited and substantiated, though it may just not be completely true.

Exactly what is the percentage of female to male dominated polygamous relationships?

Then cite your evidence and substantiate it. A very short trip around google will bring up a wealth of information relating to the names Joreth gave you, as related to polyamory and the current state of research. Try it, if you dare.


On the other hand, you're not naming any names or linking to any studies, just pulling figures out of thin air, which you *claim* are supported by evidence, but producing no evidence. Which implies that you're blustering and trying to claim authority that you do not have. Quel surprise.

 

You're claim is that merely because you have no experience of it, the female-driven polyamorous community doesn't exist. By the same token, are you perhaps also a moon-landing denier? 

Currently travelling, but check out the book "Superfreakonomics" written by Levitt et al - I believe third chapter - for the sources for my claim. Note that the author is in fact a Chicago School economist (the school which has received a substantial amount of Nobel Memorial Prize in Econ the last 30ish years).

RSS

© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service