Libertas-Mors
Active member
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2013
- Messages
- 370
- Reaction score
- 74
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
I say yes. I see no reason why they shouldn't be able to.
I say yes. I see no reason why they shouldn't be able to.
I say yes. I see no reason why they shouldn't be able to.
I say yes. I see no reason why they shouldn't be able to.
I say no. There has been no large scale, or even moderately scaled, polygamous society that hasn't revolved around sexism, control, subjugation, and repression. If it could ever prove itself restrained to the rights and liberties of the individual, it can be considered.
In our society, if all parties enter into the arrangement voluntarily, why should it not be legal? Sexism, control, subjugation, and repression happen regularly in marriages between two people currently.
I say no. There has been no large scale, or even moderately scaled, polygamous society that hasn't revolved around sexism, control, subjugation, and repression. If it could ever prove itself restrained to the rights and liberties of the individual, it can be considered.
I don't see why not, if all are consenting adults.
Sure. Polygamy is more stable then monogamy.I say yes. I see no reason why they shouldn't be able to.
I say yes. I see no reason why they shouldn't be able to.
I say yes. I see no reason why they shouldn't be able to.
David Friedman, economist and Steve Sailer, journalist have argued that polygamy tends to benefit most women and disadvantage most men, under the assumption that most men and women do not practice it. The idea is firstly that many women would prefer half or one third of someone especially appealing to being the single spouse of someone that does not provide as much economic utility to them. Secondly, that the remaining women have a better market for finding a spouse themselves. Say that 20% of women are married to 10% of men, that leaves 90% of men to compete over the remaining 80% of women. Friedman uses this viewpoint to argue in favor of legalizing polygamy, while Sailer uses it to argue against legalizing it
As long as everyone involved is a consenting adult (this would exclude, e.g., cultural coercion (I'm looking at you Mormons)), I do not give a ****.
Oh, why the hell not? We're on the edge of that slippery slope now . . . let's just get it over with.
How am I harmed if your cat and parakeet marry?That's what I say, Maggie. Now my cat and parakeet wanna get married. So I said...what the hell, go for it. Guess we'll have some paracats running or skipping, or...kinda flying around the house.
How am I harmed if your cat and parakeet marry?
As far as I know, Mormons don't coerce anyone into polygamous relationships. I know a fair number of Mormons, all of them in monogamous marriages, but of the polygamous marriage practicioners that I've seen, they don't appear to be coerced or urged in any manner.
If gays should be allowed to marry, I can see absolutely no reason why polygamists should not have the same right.
By all means, don't start drawing arbitrary lines in the sand now!
I say no. There has been no large scale, or even moderately scaled, polygamous society that hasn't revolved around sexism, control, subjugation, and repression. If it could ever prove itself restrained to the rights and liberties of the individual, it can be considered.