A case for polygamy

[Ray From Cleveland]

Polygamy leads to the exploitation of women, and invariably to pedophilia.

I know a lot of polyamorous couples. Most of the ones over 40 are either bisexual women and a man or are a woman with more than one man.

Polyamory is different from legalized polygamy. Apples and oranges.

The only difference is the marriage license. Fewer people are getting married now. Apparently people can live a good life without a gov't license or gov't approval of their relationship.

It's also much less of a threat to their own financial security. No golden cord for the woman to pull, and collect her cash, and prizes. The days of the game show marriage are nearing their end.

Marriage is for women. Men don't benefit in any way from the institution. More and more men are learning that lesson.

Correct. In most relationships I've ever been in, if it doesn't eventually lead to marriage, then the woman leaves and finds somebody of marriage material.

 

[DGS49]

FWIW, the same rationale that brought about the phenomenon of "gay marriage" could force the States to recognize multiple marriages. How can government legislate who can love each other? Answer: It can't and shouldn't.

 

[whitehall]

Why would Gates, Buffet and Zuckerberg's offspring be more valuable than anyone else's? This sounds like some kind of Nazi fantasy.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Your reasoning is lacking logic, but by the same token there is no reason that polygamy should be illegal. It is just one more reason why the government should not be involved in marriage at all.

Actually not, marriage and government are one in the same; marriage is contract law enacted by state lawmakers and administered by state courts.

And polygamy is merely living together, lawful in all 50 states; bigamy is illegal, and appropriately so .

Bigamy means having two wives. Polygamy means having two or more. That's the only difference.

That is sort of what I thought, but it seems they are different...but I am not sure it is a difference with a real meaning

Difference Between Polygamy and Bigamy | Difference Between

 

[bripat9643]

I know a lot of polyamorous couples. Most of the ones over 40 are either bisexual women and a man or are a woman with more than one man.

Polyamory is different from legalized polygamy. Apples and oranges.

The only difference is the marriage license. Fewer people are getting married now. Apparently people can live a good life without a gov't license or gov't approval of their relationship.

It's also much less of a threat to their own financial security. No golden cord for the woman to pull, and collect her cash, and prizes. The days of the game show marriage are nearing their end.

Marriage is for women. Men don't benefit in any way from the institution. More and more men are learning that lesson.

Non sequitur - it's a relationship, and given that many "successful men" are married, and consider the relationship or union an "end in and of itself", not a means to an end, I'd beg to differ.

If you're talking about marriage legislation, that's something different entirely than the actual relationship. Please explain your logic.

What does it matter what some idiots believe? When you look at it coldly and rationally, men receive no benefit from the institution, and in fact they incur huge liabilities. Every man who has been divorced can tell you that.

The laws that government the relationship are all that matters. If you ignore those, then what is even the point? You can live together without being married, but women seldom go along with that.

 

[g5000]

FWIW, the same rationale that brought about the phenomenon of "gay marriage" could force the States to recognize multiple marriages. How can government legislate who can love each other? Answer: It can't and shouldn't.

Wrong.

The legal standard is you must show a societal harm from such marriages. See Loving v. Virginia. That is the ruling which outlawed bans against interracial marriages.

Not coincidentally, the same arguments being used today to justify not legalizing gay marriage were used against interracial marriage, including the use of the bible as a shield for the bigots' hatred.

Now, as I have explained in my earlier posts, every polygamous society devolves into pedophilia. So right there you have the failure of your "slippery slope" argument.

 

[Questioner]

Polyamory is different from legalized polygamy. Apples and oranges.

The only difference is the marriage license. Fewer people are getting married now. Apparently people can live a good life without a gov't license or gov't approval of their relationship.

It's also much less of a threat to their own financial security. No golden cord for the woman to pull, and collect her cash, and prizes. The days of the game show marriage are nearing their end.

Marriage is for women. Men don't benefit in any way from the institution. More and more men are learning that lesson.

Non sequitur - it's a relationship, and given that many "successful men" are married, and consider the relationship or union an "end in and of itself", not a means to an end, I'd beg to differ.

If you're talking about marriage legislation, that's something different entirely than the actual relationship. Please explain your logic.

What does it matter what some idiots believe?

When you look at it coldly and rationally, men receive no benefit from the institution, and in fact they incur huge liabilities.

Coldness and rationality are for nerds and ugly people.

Every man who has been divorced can tell you that.

I'm sorry about their low status on the evolutionary hierarchy, and that the woman coldly and rationally found a better deal.

The laws that government the relationship are all that matters. If you ignore those, then what is even the point? You can live together without being married, but women seldom go along with that.

Some people have a wedding but forgo the legal arrangement.

So no, you're conflating the legal arrangement with the marriage, union, intimacy itself. If a woman wouldn't be with a man unless he would have it officialized, then he could decline to be with her, it should be as simple as negotiating an arrangement which the couple is satisfied with, but apparently basic negotiation and social skills are a foreign concept to some couples... sigh..

 

[bripat9643]

The only difference is the marriage license. Fewer people are getting married now. Apparently people can live a good life without a gov't license or gov't approval of their relationship.

It's also much less of a threat to their own financial security. No golden cord for the woman to pull, and collect her cash, and prizes. The days of the game show marriage are nearing their end.

Marriage is for women. Men don't benefit in any way from the institution. More and more men are learning that lesson.

Non sequitur - it's a relationship, and given that many "successful men" are married, and consider the relationship or union an "end in and of itself", not a means to an end, I'd beg to differ.

If you're talking about marriage legislation, that's something different entirely than the actual relationship. Please explain your logic.

What does it matter what some idiots believe?

When you look at it coldly and rationally, men receive no benefit from the institution, and in fact they incur huge liabilities.

Coldness and rationality are for nerds and ugly people.

Every man who has been divorced can tell you that.

I'm sorry about their low status on the evolutionary hierarchy, and that the woman found a coldly and rationally found a better deal.

The laws that government the relationship are all that matters. If you ignore those, then what is even the point? You can live together without being married, but women seldom go along with that.

Some people have a wedding but forgo the legal arrangement.

So no, you're conflating the legal arrangement with the marriage, union, intimacy itself. If a woman wouldn't be with a man unless he would have it officialized, then he could decline to be with her, it should be as simple as negotiating an arrangement which the couple is satisfied with.

The legal arrangement is all that matters. Otherwise, you're just shaking up. If the man can leave anytime he wants, is that a marriage? I certainly wouldn't call it that.

We all know it's not as simple as you pretend.

 

[WinterBorn]

We are not a polygamous society. Not even close.

A handful of anecdotes about polyamorus throuples, or whatever, does not make a polygamous society.

Every polygamous society devolves into pedophilia. Every last one.

It is much more common than you think.

from: Who Really Practices Polyamory?
"It’s estimated that 4 to 5 percent of people living in the United States are polyamorous — or participating in other forms of open relationships — and 20 percent of people have at least attempted some kind of ethical non-monogamy at some point in their lives. Still, it’s remained unclear who exactly these people are and what drives them to forgo traditional relationship structures." (the 4 to 5 percent came from On the Margins: Considering Diversity among Consensually Non-Monogamous Relationships | Rubin | Journal für Psychologie )

As a society we may not be polyamorous, but it happens more than you think. FYI, 5% of our population comes to 16 million people.

I probably personally know 150 people who are or have been in poly relationships, and not one has shown any proclivity for pedophilia.

from: How Many Polyamorists Are There in the U.S.?
"In an email interaction, Kelly Cookson summarized his results for me: “It appears that sexually non-monogamous couples in the United States number in the millions."

Consensual non-monogamy is far more common than you assume.

 

[bripat9643]

We are not a polygamous society. Not even close.

A handful of anecdotes about polyamourus throuples, or whatever, does not make a polygamous society.

Every polygamous society devolves into pedophilia. Every last one.

The Jews were into pedophilia? They were a polygamous society in biblical times.

Many Moslem nations allow polygamy.

 

[Vastator]

The only difference is the marriage license. Fewer people are getting married now. Apparently people can live a good life without a gov't license or gov't approval of their relationship.

It's also much less of a threat to their own financial security. No golden cord for the woman to pull, and collect her cash, and prizes. The days of the game show marriage are nearing their end.

Marriage is for women. Men don't benefit in any way from the institution. More and more men are learning that lesson.

Non sequitur - it's a relationship, and given that many "successful men" are married, and consider the relationship or union an "end in and of itself", not a means to an end, I'd beg to differ.

If you're talking about marriage legislation, that's something different entirely than the actual relationship. Please explain your logic.

What does it matter what some idiots believe?

When you look at it coldly and rationally, men receive no benefit from the institution, and in fact they incur huge liabilities.

Coldness and rationality are for nerds and ugly people.

Every man who has been divorced can tell you that.

I'm sorry about their low status on the evolutionary hierarchy, and that the woman coldly and rationally found a better deal.

The laws that government the relationship are all that matters. If you ignore those, then what is even the point? You can live together without being married, but women seldom go along with that.

Some people have a wedding but forgo the legal arrangement.

So no, you're conflating the legal arrangement with the marriage, union, intimacy itself. If a woman wouldn't be with a man unless he would have it officialized, then he could decline to be with her, it should be as simple as negotiating an arrangement which the couple is satisfied with, but apparently basic negotiation and social skills are a foreign concept to some couples... sigh..

Women are always looking for the next "better deal", marriage or not. As 80 per cent of divorces filed by women can attest to. But it sure is nice to have half of your former spouses assets in hand to fund her pursuit of the next Mr Right Now...

 

[bripat9643]

It's also much less of a threat to their own financial security. No golden cord for the woman to pull, and collect her cash, and prizes. The days of the game show marriage are nearing their end.

Marriage is for women. Men don't benefit in any way from the institution. More and more men are learning that lesson.

Non sequitur - it's a relationship, and given that many "successful men" are married, and consider the relationship or union an "end in and of itself", not a means to an end, I'd beg to differ.

If you're talking about marriage legislation, that's something different entirely than the actual relationship. Please explain your logic.

What does it matter what some idiots believe?

When you look at it coldly and rationally, men receive no benefit from the institution, and in fact they incur huge liabilities.

Coldness and rationality are for nerds and ugly people.

Every man who has been divorced can tell you that.

I'm sorry about their low status on the evolutionary hierarchy, and that the woman coldly and rationally found a better deal.

The laws that government the relationship are all that matters. If you ignore those, then what is even the point? You can live together without being married, but women seldom go along with that.

Some people have a wedding but forgo the legal arrangement.

So no, you're conflating the legal arrangement with the marriage, union, intimacy itself. If a woman wouldn't be with a man unless he would have it officialized, then he could decline to be with her, it should be as simple as negotiating an arrangement which the couple is satisfied with, but apparently basic negotiation and social skills are a foreign concept to some couples... sigh..

Women are always looking for the next "better deal", marriage or not. As 80 per cent of divorces filed by women can attest to. But it sure is nice to have half of your former spouses assets in hand to fund her pursuit of the next Mr Right Now...

I believe your theory is correct, but how do 80% of divorces attest to it?

 

[Correll]

Hypothetically, if polygamy was legalized, this would mean that the top 1% of of males (e.x. Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Mark Zuckerberg) could marry multiple women, and potentially father more children.

This might help to reduce poverty and low education, by encouraging women not to marry "average men", but compete to marry the top 1% of men. (It might also encourage "average men" to become more personally productive, knowing that their wife could leave them for a better option, such as Warren Buffet).

What would be the concerns in regards to this?

(Of course, I don't expect this to actually happen, but hypothetically speaking...)

Or those men, finding they are competing against fucking BILL GATES, might become despondent, and then dangerously violent.

 

[Vastator]

Marriage is for women. Men don't benefit in any way from the institution. More and more men are learning that lesson.

Non sequitur - it's a relationship, and given that many "successful men" are married, and consider the relationship or union an "end in and of itself", not a means to an end, I'd beg to differ.

If you're talking about marriage legislation, that's something different entirely than the actual relationship. Please explain your logic.

What does it matter what some idiots believe?

When you look at it coldly and rationally, men receive no benefit from the institution, and in fact they incur huge liabilities.

Coldness and rationality are for nerds and ugly people.

Every man who has been divorced can tell you that.

I'm sorry about their low status on the evolutionary hierarchy, and that the woman coldly and rationally found a better deal.

The laws that government the relationship are all that matters. If you ignore those, then what is even the point? You can live together without being married, but women seldom go along with that.

Some people have a wedding but forgo the legal arrangement.

So no, you're conflating the legal arrangement with the marriage, union, intimacy itself. If a woman wouldn't be with a man unless he would have it officialized, then he could decline to be with her, it should be as simple as negotiating an arrangement which the couple is satisfied with, but apparently basic negotiation and social skills are a foreign concept to some couples... sigh..

Women are always looking for the next "better deal", marriage or not. As 80 per cent of divorces filed by women can attest to. But it sure is nice to have half of your former spouses assets in hand to fund her pursuit of the next Mr Right Now...

I believe your theory is correct, but how do 80% of divorces attest to it?

Simple. Women overwhelmingly choose to cut and run with half of their former spouses shit. They seldom stay single if they can help it. If that's not a testament to the reality of things; nothing is.

 

[Questioner]

Marriage is for women. Men don't benefit in any way from the institution. More and more men are learning that lesson.

Non sequitur - it's a relationship, and given that many "successful men" are married, and consider the relationship or union an "end in and of itself", not a means to an end, I'd beg to differ.

If you're talking about marriage legislation, that's something different entirely than the actual relationship. Please explain your logic.

What does it matter what some idiots believe?

When you look at it coldly and rationally, men receive no benefit from the institution, and in fact they incur huge liabilities.

Coldness and rationality are for nerds and ugly people.

Every man who has been divorced can tell you that.

I'm sorry about their low status on the evolutionary hierarchy, and that the woman coldly and rationally found a better deal.

The laws that government the relationship are all that matters. If you ignore those, then what is even the point? You can live together without being married, but women seldom go along with that.

Some people have a wedding but forgo the legal arrangement.

So no, you're conflating the legal arrangement with the marriage, union, intimacy itself. If a woman wouldn't be with a man unless he would have it officialized, then he could decline to be with her, it should be as simple as negotiating an arrangement which the couple is satisfied with, but apparently basic negotiation and social skills are a foreign concept to some couples... sigh..

Women are always looking for the next "better deal", marriage or not. As 80 per cent of divorces filed by women can attest to. But it sure is nice to have half of your former spouses assets in hand to fund her pursuit of the next Mr Right Now...

I believe your theory is correct, but how do 80% of divorces attest to it?

Coldly and rationally, speaking, the only reasons a woman should be with a man are:

1. He has good genes ("He's hot")

2. He makes good money ("He's a provider")

3. He's both at once ("He's Mr. Right)

So in the event a woman is married to a provider who's romantically unappealing, it would be in her rational interest to have a love affair on the side with a man who is tall, dark and handsome, hoping to sire kids with him, even though he's financially unstable.

Or vice versa, a woman in a relationship with a tall, dark and handsome stranger, should find a guy who's a boring provider to live with, and maybe give him sex once a year on his birthday, while hoping to sire the kids with the tall, dark and handsome stranger.

Unless a woman is married to a man who'se both at once, then there's no cold or rational reason for her or her offspring to stay "faithful" to either or - having a "little bit of both" is her best option.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

We are not a polygamous society. Not even close.

A handful of anecdotes about polyamourus throuples, or whatever, does not make a polygamous society.

Every polygamous society devolves into pedophilia. Every last one.

The Jews were into pedophilia? They were a polygamous society in biblical times.

Many Moslem nations allow polygamy.

Do they also practice pedophilia? According to G5000 they go hand in hand.

 

[Correll]

Non sequitur - it's a relationship, and given that many "successful men" are married, and consider the relationship or union an "end in and of itself", not a means to an end, I'd beg to differ.

If you're talking about marriage legislation, that's something different entirely than the actual relationship. Please explain your logic.

What does it matter what some idiots believe?

When you look at it coldly and rationally, men receive no benefit from the institution, and in fact they incur huge liabilities.

Coldness and rationality are for nerds and ugly people.

Every man who has been divorced can tell you that.

I'm sorry about their low status on the evolutionary hierarchy, and that the woman coldly and rationally found a better deal.

The laws that government the relationship are all that matters. If you ignore those, then what is even the point? You can live together without being married, but women seldom go along with that.

Some people have a wedding but forgo the legal arrangement.

So no, you're conflating the legal arrangement with the marriage, union, intimacy itself. If a woman wouldn't be with a man unless he would have it officialized, then he could decline to be with her, it should be as simple as negotiating an arrangement which the couple is satisfied with, but apparently basic negotiation and social skills are a foreign concept to some couples... sigh..

Women are always looking for the next "better deal", marriage or not. As 80 per cent of divorces filed by women can attest to. But it sure is nice to have half of your former spouses assets in hand to fund her pursuit of the next Mr Right Now...

I believe your theory is correct, but how do 80% of divorces attest to it?

Coldly and rationally, speaking, the only reasons a woman should be with a man are:

1. He has good genes ("He's hot")

2. He makes good money ("He's a provider")

3. He's both at once ("He's Mr. Right)

So in the event a woman is married to a provider who's romantically unappealing, it would be in her rational interest to have a love affair on the side with a man who is tall, dark and handsome, hoping to sire kids with him, even though he's financially unstable.

Or vice versa, a woman in a relationship with a tall, dark and handsome stranger, should find a guy who's a boring provider to live with, and maybe give him sex once a year on his birthday, while hoping to sire the kids with the tall, dark and handsome stranger.

Unless a woman is married to a man who'se both at once, then there's no cold or rational reason for her or her offspring to stay "faithful" to either or - having a "little bit of both" is her best option.

Other than the benefits of a stable family life for her and/or the children.

 

[g5000]

We are not a polygamous society. Not even close.

A handful of anecdotes about polyamourus throuples, or whatever, does not make a polygamous society.

Every polygamous society devolves into pedophilia. Every last one.

The Jews were into pedophilia? They were a polygamous society in biblical times.

Many Moslem nations allow polygamy.

Do they also practice pedophilia? According to G5000 they go hand in hand.

I'm sure bripat would be happy to tell you about Mohommed's 9 year old wife.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Non sequitur - it's a relationship, and given that many "successful men" are married, and consider the relationship or union an "end in and of itself", not a means to an end, I'd beg to differ.

If you're talking about marriage legislation, that's something different entirely than the actual relationship. Please explain your logic.

What does it matter what some idiots believe?

When you look at it coldly and rationally, men receive no benefit from the institution, and in fact they incur huge liabilities.

Coldness and rationality are for nerds and ugly people.

Every man who has been divorced can tell you that.

I'm sorry about their low status on the evolutionary hierarchy, and that the woman coldly and rationally found a better deal.

The laws that government the relationship are all that matters. If you ignore those, then what is even the point? You can live together without being married, but women seldom go along with that.

Some people have a wedding but forgo the legal arrangement.

So no, you're conflating the legal arrangement with the marriage, union, intimacy itself. If a woman wouldn't be with a man unless he would have it officialized, then he could decline to be with her, it should be as simple as negotiating an arrangement which the couple is satisfied with, but apparently basic negotiation and social skills are a foreign concept to some couples... sigh..

Women are always looking for the next "better deal", marriage or not. As 80 per cent of divorces filed by women can attest to. But it sure is nice to have half of your former spouses assets in hand to fund her pursuit of the next Mr Right Now...

I believe your theory is correct, but how do 80% of divorces attest to it?

Simple. Women overwhelmingly choose to cut and run with half of their former spouses shit. They seldom stay single if they can help it. If that's not a testament to the reality of things; nothing is.

Women initiate divorces more because men cheat more. It is pretty simple.

 

[g5000]

The Highest Authority in Sunni Islam Just Declared an End to Child Marriage in Africa

The total number of women married in childhood will likely reach 950 million by 2030.