| Forum Index > General Forum |
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
On December 20 2011 21:16 hummingbird23 wrote: Polygamy does not allow for multiple husbands. Just wives. Why not? Why wouldn't we also make that legal if we legalized a man having more than one wife? You're also wrong: polygamy includes both polygyny (men with more than one wife) and polyandry (women with more than one husband). | ||
|
vetinari
Australia602 Posts
On December 20 2011 21:08 Whitewing wrote: No. First, you're assuming that legalizing polygamy is the same as it becoming ubiquitous. Just because it is legal does not mean everyone would be a member of such a family. History would suggest that I am right here, polygamy was legal in most societies in history and most families did not partake. Secondly, you're assuming that there would never be women with multiple husbands, which would be legal also. Thus, this entire point is invalid. There would be women with multiple husbands. But there would be much more men with multiple wives. | ||
|
hummingbird23
Norway359 Posts
On December 20 2011 21:18 Whitewing wrote: Why not? Why wouldn't we also make that legal if we legalized a man having more than one wife? You're also wrong: polygamy includes both polygyny (men with more than one wife) and polyandry (women with more than one husband). I stand corrected. | ||
|
rd
United States2586 Posts
On December 20 2011 20:07 blah_blah wrote:+ Show Spoiler + On December 20 2011 18:58 vetinari wrote: Blah_blah, why do you support the illegality of de jure polygamy when you clearly don't support making de facto polygamy illegal (no calls to put hugh hefner/cheating husbands/wives into prison). Cheating is not equivalent to polygamy. Moreover I have no doubt that such laws would be used disproportionately to punish women, minorities, and the poor. I think that the social stigma of cheating as well as the possibility of civil penalties is enough. On December 20 2011 19:09 Whitewing wrote: This position has been taken before in other areas to disastrous results. Temperance, for example. So what? Typical Western societies disallow a wide variety of behavior for obvious reasons. It's clear that the consequences of banning polygamy are not 'disastrous'. There is ample evidence of polygamist communities operating within Western societies (or, you know, simple logic) to conclude that women and children (and, as vetinari noted, young men as well) are mistreated and abused in polygamist societies. If polygamy were legal, many of these sects would not be breaking a single law and would be able to continue their abhorrent and destructive behavior indefinitely. Without fear of legal consequences other sects would probably spring up as well. The latter point is extrapolation, but the first is not -- communities like Bountiful would be able to operate freely. On December 20 2011 19:09 Whitewing wrote: The example in the OP is an example where everyone is consenting and doesn't seem to be forced. I agree, for what it's worth. The fact that there are instances of polygamy in which the parties involved all seem to be giving reasonably informed consent does not change my opinion in the slightest. On December 20 2011 19:19 Whitewing wrote:You're taking the route of "It might be abused, better ban it and let nobody do it." This whole argument about how some people make bad decisions or aren't always rational and therefore make bad mistakes that hurt them and society is fallacious, because if you extend it further with the exact same logic, you find that nearly everything should be illegal. This is a really dumb statement. I am effectively making the statement that 'A practice which causes much more harm than it does good should probably be illegal'. You apparently believe that 'if you extend it further with the exact same logic', you get that 'Any practice which causes any sort of harm should be illegal'. If you believe that this is a logical extension of my argument you may wish to review basic logic before continuing to participate in discussions such as these. It pretty much is a logical extension of that argument. You remove freedom by banning an act you say harms society. Do you agree alcohol should be banned as well? | ||
|
vetinari
Australia602 Posts
On December 20 2011 21:08 sulliwan wrote: The evidence disagrees with you. Polygamy has been legal for the vast majority of human history and studies have shown that monogamy has been the norm among most societies. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929710000339 for one such study. Not to mention that cohabitation is in fact not illegal RIGHT NOW, yet you don't have that many powerful men living with multiple women. (Note that this does not apply to the US, where unlawful cohabitation seems to in fact be illegal, where exactly the line is drawn regarding this, I have no idea, it seems it is actually illegal for a man and a woman to live together in certain states without being married. Having sex and not living together is however perfectly fine, go figure.). I think the matter of keeping polygamy illegal is more to do with keeping marriage and estate laws simple. Say for example you have a 60 year old woman, with 2 husbands, one has been her husband for 40 years, other for 5 years. The woman dies, how should her estate be distributed? Are her 2 husbands now married to eachother? There's just a whole lot of legislation you need to change in order to make it legal and fair to everyone and it is not widespread enough for that to be reasonable. Well, yes, monogamy has been the norm amongst societies, because a) only the high status (rich/powerful) men could have multiple wives/partners/concubines and b) monogamy increases the fitness of the society compared to polygamous ones. I mean, its been the norm for the men to go to war while the women were kept safe. For the same reason: it helps the group survive better. (monogamy increases the fitness of society, in that women in a monogamous relationship have more children on average than women in polygamous relationship . Population is power, when everyone has roughly the same technology.) The lack of powerful men cohabitating with multiple women (other than hefner :D), is a result of polygamy being greatly frowned upon. Cohabitating with multiple women is, after all, de facto polygamy. Only people who don't give a crap about society's opinion openly have polygamous relationships. Powerful men generally have to give a crap about society's opinion or they lose their power. In addition, of course, women are conditioned from young age to want monogamy. Often, they will settle for the illusion of monogamy. Its hard to maintain the illusion if you are having FFM threesomes. (Amusingly enough, de facto polygamy is extremely common in retirement villages. Since old women greatly outnumber old men, the women have to share. The requirement is that outward respectability is maintained. I was actually working at one today. Its a shame that society is now stratified by age rather than gender. You can learn so much more by spending time with older folks.) The logistics are not that hard. Divide evenly if the title holder dies intestate. Mind you, estate laws need fixing anyway. If you and your wife died in a car crash, and you had no children, your wife's family would get all joint assets. (VIC, Australia). Tip of the day: make sure you have a valid will. Then make sure again. | ||
|
blah_blah
346 Posts
On December 20 2011 21:08 Whitewing wrote:No. First, you're assuming that legalizing polygamy is the same as it becoming ubiquitous. Just because it is legal does not mean everyone would be a member of such a family. History would suggest that I am right here, polygamy was legal in most societies in history and most families did not partake. Secondly, you're assuming that there would never be women with multiple husbands, which would be legal also. Thus, this entire point is invalid. You appear to be conflating my argument with vetinari's (or just reading my posts poorly). I do not believe that legalization of polygamy would cause it to become a widespread practice; I am merely asserting that widespread practice of polygamy has obvious negative repercussions. The more relevant concern is the effect of legalization of polygamy on small communities that are already practicing polygamy illegally. Such communities would be free to subjugate and brainwash women, commit de facto sex abuse against young girls by marrying them off to old men (with the consent of their parents, of course), and exile their young men into the rest of society with no useful skills the day they reach the age of majority. Polygamy laws are essentially the only legal measure preventing such communities from forming and existing, and the only means by which such despicable individuals can be punished. | ||
|
sulliwan
85 Posts
On December 20 2011 21:48 blah_blah wrote: The more relevant concern is the effect of legalization of polygamy on small communities that are already practicing polygamy illegally. Such communities would be free to subjugate and brainwash women, commit de facto sex abuse against young girls by marrying them off to old men (with the consent of their parents, of course), and exile their young men into the rest of society with no useful skills the day they reach the age of majority. Polygamy laws are essentially the only legal measure preventing such communities from forming and existing, and the only means by which such despicable individuals can be punished. If polygamy laws are in fact the only legal measure in your country to prevent brainwashing and sexual abuse....well, I don't know what to say. | ||
|
blah_blah
346 Posts
On December 20 2011 21:43 Tyrant0 wrote:It pretty much is a logical extension of that argument. You remove freedom by banning an act you say harms society. Do you agree alcohol should be banned as well? You realize that literally hundreds, if not thousands, of acts are legally banned because they are deemed (rightly or wrongly) to, on balance, harm society right? Are you upset about all of them, or just polygamy? How about child pornography? Are you outraged by society's refusal to allow you to create or possess child pornography? I mean, it's like you haven't thoroughly read a single thing I've posted in this thread. Why don't you make the slightest effort to be a good poster and only post when you have something of minor intellectual value to contribute. | ||
|
blah_blah
346 Posts
On December 20 2011 22:07 sulliwan wrote: If polygamy laws are in fact the only legal measure in your country to prevent brainwashing and sexual abuse....well, I don't know what to say. I live in a country that has plenty of laws aimed at preventing sexual abuse of minors. These laws are particularly hamstrung when the communities exist in sparsely populated areas, when children are brought up to believe that acts constituting sexual abuse are not sexual abuse, when they live in fear of their elders and may be coerced into being uncooperative with authorities, and when their parents are complicit in the abuse. As for 'brainwashing', indoctrination of children is probably one of the most legally complex issues imaginable and there is very little (legally speaking) separating indoctrination in polygamist societies with indoctrination in typical conservative, religious societies. Consequently it is basically untouchable from a legal sense, short of comprehensive, smoking gun-type evidence that never could be obtained in practice. | ||
|
vetinari
Australia602 Posts
On December 20 2011 21:11 Whitewing wrote: People with little to lose are more likely to act in a manner harmful to society: More likely yes, definitely going to? No. People without wives and children have less to lose: Not necessarily. I disagree with this premise. Many people don't want wives or children, and there are plenty of poor families who have less than rich single men/women. In a society with widespread polygamy, many men will not have wives and children. Yes, but the same is true now, less than half of all eligible people in the U.S. are married now. in a society with widespread polygamy, many men will have less to lose. No, I don't agree, based upon my previous refutation. in a society with widespread polygamy, more men will act in a manner harmful to society. No, I don't agree. You are also ignoring the entire idea that a woman might have multiple husbands, which would also be legal. The argument isn't even valid even if you assume that all the premises are true. The conclusion is not guaranteed by the truth of the premises. You also ignore the concept that the net benefits of polygamy (freedom and liberty and all that, and other non-visible benefits, like potentially less STD through less cheating) might outweigh any negatives. Of course I'm ignoring the idea that women might have multiple husbands. I believe that men are polygamous by nature (want as many women as possible, above their mininum attractiveness standard), and that women want the best man they can get. These are, after all, the optimal mating strategy of each. Men have effectively infinite reproductive capacity. Female human reproductive capacity is extremely limited. Observed in all species of animal where the female bears the larger reproductive cost. (the exception is seahorses. Since males carry the fertilized eggs, the males are choosy, while the females distribute their eggs as widely as they can.) Men don't want to share a women, because that seriously fucks up his reproductive ability. Women don't mind sharing as much, because the cost of sharing a man is financial, not biological. (she loses access to a portion of his resources, but has full access to his genes.) I don't ignore the concept that there might be benefits to polygamy. I just don't think that any of the minor benefits that polygamy might bring outweights the very big downsides that I believe polygamy brings. (In addition, you could also lower STD rates by prosecuting adultery. I mean, adultery is a breach of the marriage contract, and if you breach any other contract, you do generally have to pay restitution/penalties.) About liberty: I don't consider liberty to be a good to be pursued at all costs. Sometimes the cost of liberty is too high. Always remember that Rational Man does not exist. I genuinely believe that giving people a constrained set of choices is better for society in the long run. The societies that give the wrong sets of choices or too much choice, will fail. Those who give the right set of choices will succeed, and quite possibly be happier*. *Consider women who want to be housewives and men who want housewives. The entry of women en masse into the fulltime workforce, has resulted in relatively lower wages (increased supply of labour -> decreased price of labour). Hence, the lower middle class, which once could live comfortably on a single wage, now requires two incomes to maintain a comparable standard of living, and is thus lower middle class women can no longer be housewives, and lower middle class men can no longer have housewives. Because choices aren't constrained by custom and law, economics forces different constraints, to the detriment of the middle class. (Incidently, america's middle class is fucked: consider that disposable income for the married couple with children with two children decreased over the 30 years to 2007, despite the fact that that couple now has two incomes!) The probability of bankruptcy/homelessness has also skyrocketed for that family, because losing one income due to injury/illness means you fall behind on the bills/mortgage. Thus, allow mass full time employment of women has resulted in lower happiness for large sections of the population. Ironically, the unhappiest people of all are single, childless women who work full time! Ah, I love economics. Maybe I should go back to university and study this shit more formally. Its not like I'm using my finance major for anything, lol. On the other hand, being a tradie is bloody good money here in Australia, and I get to choose the hours. | ||
|
rd
United States2586 Posts
On December 20 2011 22:07 blah_blah wrote: You realize that literally hundreds, if not thousands, of acts are legally banned because they are deemed (rightly or wrongly) to, on balance, harm society right? Are you upset about all of them, or just polygamy? How about child pornography? Are you outraged by society's refusal to allow you to create or possess child pornography? I mean, it's like you haven't thoroughly read a single thing I've posted in this thread. Why don't you make the slightest effort to be a good poster and only post when you have something of minor intellectual value to contribute. You're avoiding the question. Regardless, you're putting Polygamy into the same category as 'acts' that are often called crimes, which assumes Polygamy can't be practiced peacefully (i.e. it won't harm society). I'm not even sure why I have to restate that it's prone to abuse just like anything. So I'll ask you again. Why should alcohol, a product that can be used peacefully but prone to abuse, and kills WAY more people than Polygamy ever will, be legal? The only real difference between the two, for practicality of this argument is legality. Thanks for telling me about tendencies of societies to ban acts that harm it, by the way. I was literally just about to rob my neighbor. Try not to come off like a pompous douche. | ||
|
vetinari
Australia602 Posts
Legal idiocy of the day: actually, if you have two families who live on opposite sides of the border between two US states, where the age of consent is 16 in both state and if the two teens are both over the age of consent in those states but under 18, they have committed a federal crime, because they are crossing state lines to have sex with a person who would be considered under the age of consent in at least one US state. Anyway, the general assumption is while polygamy can be harmless to those involved, it usually isn't. Most alcohol drinking is usually harmless. Most people don't drink to excess, and there are laws against that too: public drunkenness is actually a crime in most places. Drunk and Disorderly Behaviour. Besides, banning alcohol was tried and it didn't work as intended. Banning polygamy has worked for millenia. | ||
|
Jamial
Denmark1289 Posts
| ||
|
blah_blah
346 Posts
On December 20 2011 22:28 Tyrant0 wrote:You're avoiding the question. No, I chose not to respond to it because it was a false equivocation. I have probably written over 1000 words at this point in this thread arguing why polygamy should be illegal, and how legalization of polygamy leads to numerous negative repercussions for certain individuals and for society as a whole. You haven't challenged anything I've written. Suppose that I believe that alcohol is categorically worse than polygamy. What does that change? Would the fact that alcohol is legal and worse for society than polygamy then imply that polygamy should be legal? Only a literal idiot would find that argument compelling, so I hope you do not. On the other hand, if alcohol is not categorically worse than polygamy than it's irrelevant to the present discussion anyways. In point of fact, there are many good reasons not to make alcohol illegal but none of them have the slightest relevance to this thread. | ||
|
rd
United States2586 Posts
On December 20 2011 22:52 vetinari wrote: They are called crimes because they are illegal, not because they are wrong. An 18yo and a 17yo having sex is not wrong, but it can still be a crime. Legal idiocy of the day: actually, if you have two families who live on opposite sides of the border between two US states, where the age of consent is 16 in both state and if the two teens are both over the age of consent in those states but under 18, they have committed a federal crime, because they are crossing state lines to have sex with a person who would be considered under the age of consent in at least one US state. Anyway, the general assumption is while polygamy can be harmless to those involved, it usually isn't. Most alcohol drinking is usually harmless. Most people don't drink to excess, and there are laws against that too: public drunkenness is actually a crime in most places. Drunk and Disorderly Behaviour. Besides, banning alcohol was tried and it didn't work as intended. Banning polygamy has worked for millenia. It's obvious that alcohol is for the most part, harmless, and accepted by society. The point I'm trying to make is that the generalization that "anything prone to abuse can be banned" is more than applicable to blah_blah's argument. Not only that, but the same is true in the case of alcohol, generally speaking. One has been accepted for thousands of years, the other is an extreme minority that is easy to ban. On December 20 2011 23:01 blah_blah wrote: No, I chose not to respond to it because it was a false equivocation. I have probably written over 1000 words at this point in this thread arguing why polygamy should be illegal, and how legalization of polygamy leads to numerous negative repercussions for certain individuals and for society as a whole. You haven't challenged anything I've written. Suppose that I believe that alcohol is categorically worse than polygamy. What does that change? Would the fact that alcohol is legal and worse for society than polygamy then imply that polygamy should be legal? Only a literal idiot would find that argument compelling, so I hope you do not. On the other hand, if alcohol is not categorically worse than polygamy than it's irrelevant to the present discussion anyways. In point of fact, there are many good reasons not to make alcohol illegal but none of them have the slightest relevance to this thread. No, it's fairly correct. Generalized, but correct. I've seen everything you've said about Polygamy, and I never said it couldn't be abused, not to the extent that anything else already is. Doesn't mean it can't be legal without laws to protect those involved either. + Show Spoiler + On December 20 2011 19:19 Whitewing wrote:You're taking the route of "It might be abused, better ban it and let nobody do it." This whole argument about how some people make bad decisions or aren't always rational and therefore make bad mistakes that hurt them and society is fallacious, because if you extend it further with the exact same logic, you find that nearly everything should be illegal. This is a really dumb statement. I am effectively making the statement that 'A practice which causes much more harm than it does good should probably be illegal'. You apparently believe that 'if you extend it further with the exact same logic', you get that 'Any practice which causes any sort of harm should be illegal'. If you believe that this is a logical extension of my argument you may wish to review basic logic before continuing to participate in discussions such as these. I've re-issued this point to you already. You dismiss it entirely on the grounds polygamy has no benefit to society, not even the freedom to practice it peacefully. So again, you've avoided the question. I'm not trying to draw the blatant comparison of 'alcohol is legal therefore polygamy should be,' rather that it's ultimately subjective and probably shouldn't be illegal in the first place. | ||
|
vetinari
Australia602 Posts
On December 20 2011 22:55 Jamial wrote: How is it Polygami if she's only a girlfriend? I thought it was being married to more than one woman, not "seeing" more than one woman ... or man for that matter. Under british and australian law, being in a de facto relationship (living as if married) is legally equivalent to being married. Hence being in multiple concurrent de facto relationships is legally equivant to being polygamously married. What I mean as legally equivalent: in everything except for the use of the honorific "Mrs" and the box you check on forms, you are treated by the government as if you were married, including, but not limited to: visitation rights, asset division upon break up, taxation, welfare. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
This is basically uncharted territory and it's more of a question of whether our society is mature enough to handle it. | ||
|
vetinari
Australia602 Posts
On December 20 2011 23:03 Tyrant0 wrote: It's obvious that alcohol is for the most part, harmless, and accepted by society. The point I'm trying to make is that the generalization that "anything prone to abuse can be banned" is more than applicable to blah_blah's argument. Not only that, but the same is true in the case Alcohol, generally speaking. One has been accepted for thousands of years, the other is an extreme minority that is easy to ban. Well, yeah. Blah_blah's point is that since polygamy is prone to abuse, and there are no downsides to banning it, it should stay banned. Its not like people aren't free to fuck whoever they want anyway (within reason). | ||
|
hummingbird23
Norway359 Posts
Are you sure your example of double income families is sound? Doubling the workforce doubles the amount of labour and increases the amount of goods produced. How is it possible that the entry of women into the workforce has caused DECREASED living standards? Something is not adding up in that evaluation of value transfers. Also, how in the hell do you propose that a single income family is MORE prone to bankruptcy/homelessness due to injury/illness than a double income family? Your claim of the nature of men and women rings false. I'm not convinced that population level generalisations of "oh women would rather share a few rich men" or "oh, men would rather have many women" holds much weight. Even the generalisations themselves are weak and waaaaaaaaaay overstretched from data that can be called preliminary at best. Why not look at the choices that people are making for themselves? There's no law preventing people from multihabitating in many places. If people want open relationships, they're free to pursue them and should be free to pursue them. | ||
|
dUTtrOACh
Canada2339 Posts
| ||
| ||
[ Submit Event ] |
|
|
|
RSL Revival
Maru vs Reynor
Cure vs TriGGeR
Map Test Tournament
The PondCast
RSL Revival
Zoun vs Classic
Korean StarCraft League
BSL Open LAN 2025 - War…
RSL Revival
BSL Open LAN 2025 - War…
RSL Revival
Online Event
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
