Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: roo_ster on February 14, 2015, 01:04:36 AM
-
http://www.unz.com/isteve/how-will-the-polygamy-camel-get-its-nose-in-the-tent/
How Will the Polygamy Camel Get Its Nose in the Tent?
There has been discussion for years of how polygamy might follow gay marriage, although that seems like an overly literal interpretation of what’s been going on: gay marriage isn’t really about marriage, so World War G has given less momentum to plural marriage than it’s given to World War T.
Various vectors have been proposed for how polygamy would become lawful in America:
- Fundamentalist Mormons almost certainly won’t be the entry point for obvious reasons...
- Arab Muslims are a better possibility. You wouldn’t want to be Islamophobic, now would you?...
- African immigrants have long struck me as the most likely candidates. They are Africans and they are immigrants...How can some straight white man dare tell a strong, beautiful black woman she can’t join her twelve sister brides in marriage to a Big Man?...
But, today’s news got me thinking about a wholly different dimension than religion/ethnicity, one with a very strong track record recently...
Oregon gets America’s first openly bisexual governor as Oregon’s embattled John Kitzhaber Resigns over scandal involving fiancee’s consulting contracts
- Look at this poor bisexual woman, the new governor, who is discriminated against by law from gay-marrying a woman, just because she’s already married to a man. That’s bigoted prejudice against bisexuals.
Clearly, Oregon’s marriage law is on the wrong side of history.
These days, I count nothing out. The more absurd, the likelier it seems.
-
I don't know how I would have perceived this issue, if gayzor marridge hadn't been an issue first.
I feel government's place is really only to recognize marriages,* for logistical purposes. I honestly don't know if government should just duly record polygamous marriages; or say, "No, sorry, we don't recognize that here in America. Do what you want, but we won't have anything to do with it."
We now labor under the curious notion that we must pretend that our nation does not have a particular culture. We must make everyone feel right at home, even when their moral beliefs, or religious practices, or lifestyle choices are repugnant to ours. I think perhaps it is time to just be honest with ourselves, and admit that practicing Muslims cannot live alongside practicing Christians, alongside practicing Social Justice Warriors, without a lot of feelings being hurt. Laws are the product of cultures, and someone's always going to feel put upon.
* That is, actual marriages, involving both sexes.
-
Although I cant articulate why, I tend to think polygamy is far far more reasonable than gay "marriage".
-
Although I cant articulate why, I tend to think polygamy is far far more reasonable than gay "marriage".
I've long felt the same.
-
I don't really see anything wrong with plural marriage, and I've yet to hear an argument against it that made any sense.
-
Just to poke at an apparent bias, aren't you guys neglecting polyandry? =D
In the animal world such things seem clearly sorted out by the resources and the critters' ability to exploit them (economics.)
-
Just to poke at an apparent bias, aren't you guys neglecting polyandry? =D
I am not. Which is why I purposely said "plural marriage" and not "polygamy".
-
I am not. Which is why I purposely said "plural marriage" and not "polygamy".
What is the difference? Perhaps you were thinking of polygyny, and not polygamy.
Although I cant articulate why, I tend to think polygamy is far far more reasonable than gay "marriage".
Um, because it usually involves more than one sex? Because it is has a long history of being considered a form of marriage?
-
I don't really see anything wrong with plural marriage, and I've yet to hear an argument against it that made any sense.
Sexual/gender imbalance is probably the main one.
There's already the problem of the "lost boys" from the FLDS communities, exiled over made-up pretenses to maintain the gender balance in favor of the elder males in the community.
I can't say what the impact of polygamy in the Middle East is on their FUBAR cultural situation, but I doubt it helps any. A surplus of unmarryable males is usually never a good thing in a historical context.
Then again, the gender disparity in China, and possibly India from infanticide and sex-selective abortion is far larger than what could be created by polygamy in the upper classes of the Islamic Middle East. And India's rape problem notwithstanding, they are both keeping a lid on it for now. OTOH, the psychological burden of a big gender disparity in a culture with 1:1 marriage may be less, than suffering it in a country where you could look next door at Abdul's five wives, while you can't get even one.
That said, my gut reaction is that long term, at least in nominal Western Civ. American circles, the government's power to intrude and prevent or oppose plural marriages, polygamous, polyandrous, or merely polyamorous is probably yet another case of the cure being worse than the disease long-term.
-
To me it isn't just the "Lost Boys", but the issues I have read about where young women are married off to the older males with little choice in matter. I think it sets up conditions that easy for the unethical to exploit.
I guess there is some Mormon history there too that I don't like, but I'll will leave that alone.
-
To me it isn't just the "Lost Boys", but the issues I have read about where young women are married off to the older males with little choice in matter. I think it sets up conditions that easy for the unethical to exploit.
I guess there is some Mormon history there too that I don't like, but I'll will leave that alone.
I think that's a big part of why polygamy is still considered more icky than homosexual relationships, at least in large part. It's the image. Mention polygamists to most people and they either think of weirdos/child abusers/maybe the occasional cult, or bigamy.
Culture mainly has stripped away a lot of the bad stereotypes of gay folk.
Who knows, maybe in a few years we'll start to see a lot of the same conversations with polygamy as we have with homosexuality. Now that we've swung open that door I doubt it'll take nearly as long as the build up for same sex marriages. It'll also make for some interesting debates. Both from the aspect of why we are redefining marriage to homosexuals but not extending it to polygamists, as well as theological arguments IMO.
-
I don't really see anything wrong with plural marriage, and I've yet to hear an argument against it that made any sense.
What that man said.
-
Legalized polygamy won't suddenly make it legal to force underage girls into marriage. And the fundies are already doing that anyway.
And before anyone makes the welfare argument, they already abuse that, too.
Oooh what about LEGAL GAYZOR POLYGAMY!!!! OH NOES THE CULTURE!!!
-
I don't see any problem with it being legalized (raise your hands if that surprises you, so we know who hasn't been paying attention). And the arguement of "young girls forced to marry" is a red herring
Still think government out of the marriage business is the best possible course
-
I think that's a big part of why polygamy is still considered more icky than homosexual relationships, at least in large part. It's the image. Mention polygamists to most people and they either think of weirdos/child abusers/maybe the occasional cult, or bigamy.
I rather doubt polygamy has a worse image problem than homosexuality; but if it does, I'll wager it's due to being perceived as misogynistic.
-
I always considered more than one wife misandry and sometimes think one wife is too
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
I rather doubt polygamy has a worse image problem than homosexuality; but if it does, I'll wager it's due to being perceived as misogynistic.
If not then you haven't been paying attention.
-
lupinus:
I think fistful's observation was true up until the last ten years or so of constant queer propagandizing. And by "up to the last ten years or so," I mean for thousands of years. Polygamy has been practiced in many cultures throughout human history, to include Jewish and Muslim cultures. Gay pseudo-marriage, not so much (except as a joke). Heck, even Roman Emperors couldn't make it stick and the emperor who tried it was quickly murdered by his guardsmen.
The OP referred to the likeliest means polygamy might be legalized:
1. As a follow-on to the gay pseudo-marriage push.
OR
2. As a sop to duh-versity and pandering to muslim and african polygamists.
I think the latter more likely, as World War G is getting mired in World War T and not making the headway expected. And the cultural vandals responsible for WWG have shown they really don't give a damn how women are abused as long as the abusers are dark-skinned enough.
-
I for one welcome our gay polygamous overlords.
-
If not then you haven't been paying attention.
It's just that I've never heard anyone say, "That guy is such a polygamist."
-
It's just that I've never heard anyone say, "That guy is such a polygamist."
Nope. But then most have probably never run into an actual polygamist either, at least not one who was open about it.