If polyamory is next, then polygamy isn't far behind

[Skylar]

There hasn't been in the last 40 years that I've been playing John Appleseed...

Utility is usually what forces gender roles, social norms, relationship standards.

In a technologically primitive agrarian society without birth control, firm gender roles make sense. Women are more or less constantly pregnant, can feed their children with their bodies and have less physical strength and endurance. It makes sense to put women into a caregiver role and men in a hunter/gatherer or farm worker role. And so it was almost universally so.

But in a technologically advanced society with birth control...firm gender roles make less sense. As a backhoe can be run equally effectively by a man or a woman. Women only have children when they want to and are no longer constantly pregnant. And technologically advanced societies tend to be more risk averse and compliance rewarding. Both of which women tend to do. So in a level playing field they tend to flourish.

Ergo, gender roles break down.

Firm gender identity roles, sexual taboos, relationship standards, even military standards tend to go the same way. Upheld to the extent that they are useful. And abandoned when they aren't.

The problem is societies where gender roles are breaking down are also failing to reproduce themselves.

Reproduction itself is often driven by necessity. If infant mortality is high, lifespans short and human muscle the primary source of labor.....having large numbers of children make sense. But if infant mortality is low, life spans long and technology makes human muscle less important.....having large numbers of children makes less sense.

Utility is the driver in most cases.

We seem to be taking the good stuff of equality and ignoring the repercussions of not meeting population replacement numbers while doing it.

Its the diminishing utility that is driving most of these changes. The reduction in gender roles is a product, not a cause.

We aren't talking families with 7 or 8 kids, the problem is the best educated among us, and the people that support the whole concept of equality aren't the ones reproducing in sufficient numbers to maintain population, never mind about expanding it.

Combine smaller families with less people actually having kids, and you run into a situation where you either have to accept a shrinking population (Japan) or make it up with immigration.

And what if those immigrants aren't on board with gender equality?

There hasn't been in the last 40 years that I've been playing John Appleseed...

Utility is usually what forces gender roles, social norms, relationship standards.

In a technologically primitive agrarian society without birth control, firm gender roles make sense. Women are more or less constantly pregnant, can feed their children with their bodies and have less physical strength and endurance. It makes sense to put women into a caregiver role and men in a hunter/gatherer or farm worker role. And so it was almost universally so.

But in a technologically advanced society with birth control...firm gender roles make less sense. As a backhoe can be run equally effectively by a man or a woman. Women only have children when they want to and are no longer constantly pregnant. And technologically advanced societies tend to be more risk averse and compliance rewarding. Both of which women tend to do. So in a level playing field they tend to flourish.

Ergo, gender roles break down.

Firm gender identity roles, sexual taboos, relationship standards, even military standards tend to go the same way. Upheld to the extent that they are useful. And abandoned when they aren't.

The problem is societies where gender roles are breaking down are also failing to reproduce themselves.

Reproduction itself is often driven by necessity. If infant mortality is high, lifespans short and human muscle the primary source of labor.....having large numbers of children make sense. But if infant mortality is low, life spans long and technology makes human muscle less important.....having large numbers of children makes less sense.

Utility is the driver in most cases.

We seem to be taking the good stuff of equality and ignoring the repercussions of not meeting population replacement numbers while doing it.

Its the diminishing utility that is driving most of these changes. The reduction in gender roles is a product, not a cause.

We aren't talking families with 7 or 8 kids, the problem is the best educated among us, and the people that support the whole concept of equality aren't the ones reproducing in sufficient numbers to maintain population, never mind about expanding it.

Combine smaller families with less people actually having kids, and you run into a situation where you either have to accept a shrinking population (Japan) or make it up with immigration.

And what if those immigrants aren't on board with gender equality?

I've felt for many years the near future is likely to be more conservative around the world.
The white European population is shrinking, certainly the liberal population is. The same thing on this continent.
The replacements will be much less progressive.

Then why are self proclaimed liberals at an all time high. While self proclaimed conservatives are 2 points off an all time low?

 

[Skylar]

They do. You live in fantasy land where everyone sings kumbaya.

No, I just interact with them on a daily basis. And they're American. Culturally and otherwise.

Most children of immigrants don't have time to 'carefully preserve their culture'. They're working 2 and 3 jobs to eat. And its the lack of time to study English that isolates the parents. Their kids aren't isolated as they generally have native fluency. So their world is far, far larger.

San Francisco? I don't believe a word of it.

It really doesn't matter what you believe. What is, is.

 

[LuckyDuck01!]

I don't see a problem with polygamy, as long as all parties are consenting adults that are well aware as to what they are getting into.
Christians may be the majority and don't like it, but this nation isn't made up of only Christians.
Personally, I'd consider more than one spouse to be a headache, but if others don't mind the headache, they should go for it.

 

[charwin95]

They do. You live in fantasy land where everyone sings kumbaya.

No, I just interact with them on a daily basis. And they're American. Culturally and otherwise.

Most children of immigrants don't have time to 'carefully preserve their culture'. They're working 2 and 3 jobs to eat. And its the lack of time to study English that isolates the parents. Their kids aren't isolated as they generally have native fluency. So their world is far, far larger.

Really? Have you been to Orange County, Ca, San Francisco, Seattle counties?

How do Asian students get to the top of the class? | GreatKids

 

[Pop23]

Then the future isn't polygamy but nothing. No marriage and no permanent relationships. At least until people start disgusting themselves. We have had permissive societies before. Many times. Then it changes.

I disagree. The future is likely more choices. And among them will be marriage. It will likely be a pretty popular choice as well.

Marriage as a financial tool, I agree, but as much else, I do not.

 

[Katzndogz]

Polygamous relationships should be limited to the childless.

 

[Katzndogz]

Is Marriage an Outdated Institution? - Articles - William Berry, MS, CAP

Marriage will return someday.

 

[Muhammed]

I wish polygamy were legal here. It would have saved me a lot of taxes

 

[martybegan]

The problem is societies where gender roles are breaking down are also failing to reproduce themselves.

Reproduction itself is often driven by necessity. If infant mortality is high, lifespans short and human muscle the primary source of labor.....having large numbers of children make sense. But if infant mortality is low, life spans long and technology makes human muscle less important.....having large numbers of children makes less sense.

Utility is the driver in most cases.

We seem to be taking the good stuff of equality and ignoring the repercussions of not meeting population replacement numbers while doing it.

Its the diminishing utility that is driving most of these changes. The reduction in gender roles is a product, not a cause.

We aren't talking families with 7 or 8 kids, the problem is the best educated among us, and the people that support the whole concept of equality aren't the ones reproducing in sufficient numbers to maintain population, never mind about expanding it.

Its not conceptions about 'equality' that drive fewer children. You're placing causation in the wrong place. Its the utility of having children. The utility is vastly diminished over what it was in a technologically primitive society with high infant mortality, and short lives.

With lower utility comes lower reproduction. Equality ideals, reductions in marriages, reductions in gender roles, etc.....these are all symptoms of the reduction in utility.

Well people better figure out that the utility is in continuing concepts and beliefs on a certain way of life, or all the "symptoms" go away when less enlightened immigrants make up more and more of the population.

All and all our immigrants are top shelf. Of all the immigrant populations in the world.

Not all of them. The ones that come over on tourist visas and then overstay? usually. The ones flooding in from texas? Not so much.

 

[martybegan]

Do the migrants share the same goals and views of the original residents?

Replacing people through migration and keeping the society you started with (or close enough not to matter) only works if you assimilate them as they come in.

Is that happening?

Life is change. American culture is always changing.

Not the type of change Europe is going to see.

America is far better at assimilating immigrants and getting them to go along with the base concepts of american democracy and society.

America has better quality immigrants, in my opinion.

The question is how long can we keep the assimilation process up?

Assimilation without change to the US? We've never managed that. Nor would we want to.

its not about no change, its about maintaining the baseline of what makes the US the US.

Of course, progressives have been trying to change that for decades, so we have in house issues as well.

 

[Katzndogz]

Muslims practice polygamy as a way to rapidly increase their numbers. If white men practiced polygamy to increase the number of whites, it would never be legal.

 

[rightwinger]

I don't see a problem with polygamy, as long as all parties are consenting adults that are well aware as to what they are getting into.
Christians may be the majority and don't like it, but this nation isn't made up of only Christians.
Personally, I'd consider more than one spouse to be a headache, but if others don't mind the headache, they should go for it.

I never understood how it harms society

If they are consenting adults, who really cares?

I could never do it, doesn't mean I should stop others from doing it

 

[Moonglow]

The kids of immigrants are legally Americans. Culturally they remain whatever their parents are. Families take pains to make sure that their children don't lose their cultural identity. If families can afford it, they periodically send children home for a booster. The times have changed.

I still speak the languages of my ancestors, so what? You don't like German or Gaelic?

 

[Moonglow]

Muslims practice polygamy as a way to rapidly increase their numbers. If white men practiced polygamy to increase the number of whites, it would never be legal.

Yes it is, but it's a form of polygamy with divorce included..

 

[Silhouette]

Open relationships probably sound awesome, but all the added jealousies, the shared loyalties, and the opportunity for heart break leads me to think its not something for everyone.

I know there are swinger communities out there, but those are groups of people who commit to a lifestyle, not two people deciding to bang other people, or bring another person into their bedroom from time to time.

You can't pass judgment based on what you think is going to happen. If polyamorists want to marry, then they may already legally marry in states where it has been decriminalized. So says the reasoning of Obergefell. Remember, if one sexual orientation gets special unwritten 'rights" from the Constitution, they all do. That's how the 14th works..

 

[rightwinger]

Open relationships probably sound awesome, but all the added jealousies, the shared loyalties, and the opportunity for heart break leads me to think its not something for everyone.

I know there are swinger communities out there, but those are groups of people who commit to a lifestyle, not two people deciding to bang other people, or bring another person into their bedroom from time to time.

You can't pass judgment based on what you think is going to happen. If polyamorists want to marry, then they may already legally marry in states where it has been decriminalized. So says the reasoning of Obergefell. Remember, if one sexual orientation gets special unwritten 'rights" from the Constitution, they all do. That's how the 14th works..

But...but....What about the children's rights?

 

[Katzndogz]

Now that we have same sex marriage, there is no reason why a man cannot marry several men who then become the husbands of one another as well as the husbands of the wives married to the original wife. Naturally, each wife and each husband can take wives and husbands of their own.

 

[Silhouette]

But...but....What about the children's rights?

My point was, idiot, that NEITHER "gay marriage" nor polygamy marriage should be legal if states object to it. Behaviors can't have "rights" because if they do, other behaviors can't be arbitrarily excluded. Once you isolate behaviors away from majority rejection, you can't play favorites.

This is the flaw of the premise of Obergefell. Race does not equal behaviors.

 

[rightwinger]

But...but....What about the children's rights?

My point was, idiot, that NEITHER "gay marriage" nor polygamy marriage should be legal if states object to it. Behaviors can't have "rights" because if they do, other behaviors can't be arbitrarily excluded. Once you isolate behaviors away from majority rejection, you can't play favorites.

This is the flaw of the premise of Obergefell. Race does not equal behaviors.

But...but...<sob>.....what about the children?

Don't they have a right to two mommies?

 

[Katzndogz]

Or 30 mommies.

You know how Democrats say it takes a village? Here's the village.