The case for polygamy

[Meezer]

-​

Discussing the Supreme Court’s decision on gay marriage recently, Sen. Rand Paul joked about bestiality. This was unwise. If Paul wanted to make the slippery slope argument, the case for polygamy is much more compelling — and realistic.This is not some straw man argument.

As BuzzFeed’s McKay Coppins pointed out, polygamists are, in fact, celebrating the court’s decision. And they have every reason to do so. After all, why shouldn’t marriage equality apply to them, too?

The arguments are essentially the same. For example, Sen. Al Franken recently issued a statement saying, “Our country is starting to understand that it’s not about what a family looks like: it’s about their love and commitment to one another.”


Polygamists couldn’t agree more.


I mean, who are we to say that two or three or even four consenting adults — who want to make a lifelong commitment to love one another — shouldn’t be allowed to do so?


What’s magical about the number two?

In fact, you could argue that there is an even better argument for polygamy than for same sex marriage. For one thing, there’s a long tradition (just look at the heroes of the Old Testament.) It’s also intimately tied to religious practice, which means that by prohibiting polygamy, we might also be undermining the “free exercise thereof.”


Why should we impose our values on others?


Now, you might say that there is historical evidence to support the fact that polygamy is bad for women and children. This is sophistry. The truth is that right now about half of all marriages end in divorce, and lots of kids are already struggling, so it’s not like traditional marriage is a panacea.



Besides, nobody is forcing you to be a polygamist. This is a choice.


There are practical reasons, too. It’s harder and harder these days to make ends meet. As a man, I can only imagine how much more efficient it would be to have one wife in the workforce and another wife at home with the kids. This would be much better for the children than shipping them off to some nursery school. And having three parents is a lot better than having just one … or none.


So I think we should embrace this new world. This seems like a win/win/win if you ask me.

Article printed from The Daily Caller: The Daily Caller

URL to article: The case for polygamy | The Daily Caller​

​

 

[deal me in]

I'm so confused, is OP supporting polygamy or against it? I think the pro-polygamy arguments in the OP are compelling and I'm all for allowing it. I can't think of a good argument against it although, I'm pretty sure I'm going to be reading some bad ones in the near future.

 

[Redtbird]

My neighbor and I were talking last night about the ruling on gay marriages, and he brought up the subject of polygamy. I couldn't remember when the laws against it began, or the reasons for the law.

I did say, one bad thing about a man having, say, three wives, means he would have three mothers-in-law!

However, the new ruling could open the door for debate on the legality of a person having multiple spouses.

 

[Hoosierkav]

Agreed--the box has been opened.

Since the argument, further, is that marriage is not relevant to procreation (they argue), why can't someone marry his sister? Or his brother? Or parent?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

While it's not necessarily a bad thing to challenge tradition and orthidoxy, not all such old traditions are right/just/workable-- on the other hand many of new fangled replacements are not any better. It seems our society is intent on chucking aside all traditions that they believe infringes on "their rights". We'll see but some people are dead set on learning the hard way. I just hope my kids and grandkids don't have to suffer through the learning curve.

 

[Mgderf]

So I think we should embrace this new world. This seems like a win/win/win if you ask me.

Someone special in mind?

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

More than one wife?! Are you crazy?! One ain't enough?

Knock yourself out buddy. Not this kid.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

The case for polygamy in the OT was that it was the beginning of civilization and there were not very many people around. It is eaiser to increase your population quickly when there are several females to every male since he can impregnate multiple women at the same time.

There were so few people that many of the OT heroes married their sisters (Abraham and Sara) or their first cousin (Jacob and Leah/Racheal).

Nowadays the world as a whole is boardering on overpopulation and threatening our natural resources in many places so it does not make as much sense-even though our primitive male brain would have us think otherwise. Anyone ever have a threesome fantasy?

 

[Hotdoger]

All perv all the time is where we are at.

How can a libertarian not be joyful ?

 

[4sarge]

More than one wife?! Are you crazy?! One ain't enough?

Knock yourself out buddy. Not this kid.

 

[KLB]

More than one wife?! Are you crazy?! One ain't enough?

Knock yourself out buddy. Not this kid.

This!

OMG, what a nightmare.

 

[Sfrandolph]

The only good part of gay marriage is population control. Of course a rise in HIV cases may be on the horizon.

 

[mayor al]

A couple of comments related to the OP.

1. A large percentage of children are being raised in single-parent homes, without the support of the second parent. In most cases this means no male roll-model to assist in the development of the child.

2. In U S History the largest case-study dealing with polygamy is that of the Mormon Church. Claiming Divine approval, they maintained the practice until the1890's, when it was officially (in church law) banned to conform with Federal Law passed earlier, that would allow Utah to be admitted to the Union as a State. Although the Church bans the practice, there are many splinter groups who have continued the practice over the years and do make headlines now and then as the media digs for a 'newsworthy' story. Historically, one of the arguments given by the leadership of the church FOR the practice, was to provide support for the single women, widows etc who were joining the church in large nembers in its early years, and needed financial support and a stable 'homelife'. Would that not ring-true in today's "It Takes a Village" concept of government intervention in the family??

I agree with the thinking of the OP as to the direction that the rules regarding multiple partners in Marriage is heading. In the current legal trend, a multi-partner marriage is totally within the framework of what the Courts seem to be deciding.

In a sense with liberal divorce laws currently in effect, we already practice a form of polygamy now. It should be labeled "SEQUENTIAL- POLYGAMY". That's multiple marriages, but only one at a time!! I can testify that the current laws certainly make that an expensive situation.

 

[KLB]

The only good part of gay marriage is population control. Of course a rise in HIV cases may be on the horizon.

Huh? Gays committing to a partner in marriage is going to cause an increase in cases of AIDS?

 

[ghuns]

All perv all the time is where we are at.

How can a libertarian not be joyful ?

Yeah, cause you know all libertarians are pervs.

Speakin of pervs, Hotdoger? Hmmm, how'd you come by that name?

 

[BigMatt]

Polygamy is a victimless crime.

 

[ghuns]

Polygamy is a victimless crime.

Unless you are the husband.

 

[BigMatt]

Unless you are the husband.

Touche -

 

[Bunnykid68]

Wow, the thought of having more than one disappointed woman in an evening.............

 

[traderdan]

Polygamy exists in cultures that see men as leaders...VERY little chance of the proliferation of true polygamy in the U.S.