So, if marriage to one woman at a time is bad, how about poly-marriage?

[IGMOW (I Go My Own Way)Participant 2572]

I had predicted this happen. The moment homosexual marriage became law of the land in America, what would follow is poly-marriage, where a man would have multiple women (or a woman had multiple men):

http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2015/09/01/sister-wives-clan-uses-u-s-same-sex-marriage-ruling-in-polygamy-case/

So, this is coming. After that is going to end up being multi-marriage, with multiple men and women together in one group marriage.

Anyone have a take on the dynamics this will cause and your thoughts?

"I am my own thang. Any questions?" - Davis S Pumpkins.

[RoyDalParticipant]

Marriages to multiple wives has withstood the test of time. It has been practiced by many cultures, or at least by the nobility and rulers, throughout the ages up to the present. So far it has not worked out any worse than the one wife system as far as I can tell.

I think Western Civilization has bigger problems than who may marry whom. I think our divorce rate and all the ongoing male bashing is a symptom, not a cause, of our decline and fall.

I didn’t know there was a TV show about it. I should get out more.

Society asks MGTOWs: Why are you not making more tax-slaves?

[Cipher HighwindParticipant 1144]

[Anonymous 1]

IGMOW (I Go My Own Way) wrote:

I had predicted this happen. The moment homosexual marriage became law of the land in America, what would follow is poly-marriage, where a man would have multiple women (or a woman had multiple men):

Wait, wait, wait.

Are you saying that the right of people sign a contract before the state should be restrained to straight men/women? Why is that you make it sound that estabilshing that people from different sexual orientation from straight people having the same rights as us is a bad thing? Nobody, as far as I can tell, is banning straight marriage, or forcing men to marry other men. If anything, gay marriage did more for men’s rights than the MRAs ever did, since it shook one of the “pillars” of the TradCons: the sancticty of straight marriage.

It is a bad decision all the same, but hey, I think gay men should have the right to do the same bad choices as straight men.

Besides, you sound like what destroyed marriage for men was the allowance of gay marriage (or that the legalization of polygami would do the same for that mater). Are you forgetting the rates of DIVORCE, before gay marriage was legal? Or the proportion of divorce initiated by WOMEN? Or the fact that women are more promiscuos and have more opportunities to be so than men? Women want to cuck outside the marriage. They are the ones doing paternity fraud and using men as tools.

It was not “gay marriage”, neither was poligami, that ruined marriage for men. It was women. Women’s lack of empathy for men’s needs. Women’s obsession for resources at the expenses of men’s life. Women’s lack of appreciation for a men’s loyalty. No matter how many laws are passed, in the end, the decision of a woman to ruin a men’s life is her responsability alone. Women have agency, and are responsible for their agency. Not the goverment, not the law, not men and certainly not GAY MEN.

So, because of that I welcome gay marriage, and let poly-marriage be next! Why anyone would marry multiple women when one alone can lead you to a early grave is beyond me, but to each its own.

I will go my own way.

Cheers.

[sidecarParticipant 35842]

IGMOW (I Go My Own Way) wrote:

Anyone have a take on the dynamics this will cause and your thoughts?

Polygamous marriage isn’t really the issue. Polygamous divorce is. It’s all about his property.

[MochaParticipant 90]

Build a time machine, go back the year 1850.

[ScandinavianParticipant 590]

Well, if the anglo-countries followed our nordic way of divorce it wouldn’t be a problem as to shifting property; what you brought into marriage you take with you when you leave, what you buy together (no matter who payed for it) gets split in half, and no allimony.
Despite that we have a great resistance against polygamy here, and I don’t see any logical reason for it being so. In my youth I had two girlfriends at once and that didn’t work any worse than any monogamous relationship I ever had, so why not allow it for marriage… Not that I would get married anyways, but IF I would consider it I wouldn’t be bothered by being three in it. On the contrary; I believe it would take alot of the nagging out of a relationship if you are more to share listening to the whining.

[FrankOneParticipant 1435]

Let’s get the State out of the marriage ‘business’. Then, men and women can enter whatever relationships THEY please, voluntarily, WITH or WITHOUT contractual agreements. Allow the State to enforce the contracts, no more, no less. It’s called radical individualism — the opposite of Statism — a philosophy that applies to a wide range of issues.

If an African or a Muslim wants to have 3 wives, I could care less. If dominatrix wants to have 6 ‘men’ in her stable, it’s no skin of my ass. It’s called freedom. If a man or woman wants to engage in prostitution, keep the State out of it.

I don’t see anything wrong with gays adopting children, either. Gay men typically have high disposable income and are highly educated. I’d expect them to do a better job raising Johnny than single mums in the inner city collecting government bennies.

To me, the debate about gay marriage diverts attention away from more serious issues like deficit spending and infrastructure. It’s just a continuous battle between liberals and tradcons. The debate is eliminated by getting the State out of marriage so we can focus on what are more pressing issues, another benefit.

Oh, and let’s stop giving special benefits and penalties to individuals based upon their martial status.

I don’t think gay marriage has had any effect on heteros and little effect on homosexuals. The participation rate is vanishingly small. It sure as hell isn’t going to change anyone’s sexual orientation.

Sidecar: Yes, it is all about the property. Historically, polygamous marriage has been several women to a rich man. It then leads to no women for poor men if widely adopted. Sometimes people argue against it on grounds it would destabilize society (lots of single men), but Men can get sex and lots of it outside marriage in the Western world, so I think that’s unlikely. Does anybody think that it would be that widely practiced? And don’t we already see the same phenomena of 80% of women wanting the 20% of men that are the wealthiest? I don’t think anybody would do it, except some fundamentalist Mormons and some immigrants from the Middle East and Africa. They just live with the women now, outside legal marriage.

[Jon the Ex-SquidParticipant 298]

Yeah the major hurdle for polygamy marriage is distribution of wealth/resources and children when the marriage ends. If the government wasn’t involved (to make a marriage legal), then this would’ve already happened.

I do wonder though, in the case of palimony, what happens when a group of 3+ who have lived together for years breaks up? Here’s what Slate postulates:

State laws do not provide for polygamous divorce, and, because most American polygamists live in insular religious communities, few cases addressing this issue have reached the courts. Judges have a few options. They can treat separating polygamists as unmarried cohabitants rather than spouses. (Common law marriage wouldn’t be an option, because it’s prohibited when one or more partner is already married.) That rules out alimony, but palimony—a division of the assets that a couple shared during their nonmarriage—might be available. It’s tricky to formulate a fair distribution in such cases, though, because the wives who remain in the marriage also have claims to the property. Alternatively, the judge could refuse to grant palimony altogether—in effect, treating the couple as less than cohabitants—to avoid legitimizing the illegal polygamous relationship.

Child support is another challenging issue. Many states calculate child support using simple tables based on the parents’ income and how many other children they support. Polygamous men, however, frequently have dozens of children by several different women—far more than the charts can handle. In such cases, the judge typically errs on the side of the divorcing, custodial mother, refusing to give the polygamist father full credit for his enormous brood.

In short, poly-marriage would be just as bad a deal for any man involved, or for the highest earner, as standard (straight or gay) couple-marriage. The family courts are broken. Lawyers would make bank though.

[uchibenkeiParticipant 7965]

i don’t care what consenting adults do as long as they’re not hurting anybody. the only way plural marriage works is if it’s a harem and the man is clearly in charge. in other words, it’ll never work in the west.

I bathe in the tears of single moms.

[LazParticipant 44]

If living with just one woman is already hellish enough for you, I can’t understand why you would even musing about living with a bunch of them.

[rebelandboltmanParticipant 640]

It would seem to me that a polygamous marriage would be incredibly expensive, more dramatic, and astronomically decrease the husband’s life expectancy. Think about it. 5 wives, 5 children, long hours, or working everyday with no time off, bills out of the ying yang. Too overwhelming, if you ask me. But, to each their own, as they say.

[ScandinavianParticipant 590]

rebelandboltman wrote:

It would seem to me that a polygamous marriage would be incredibly expensive, more dramatic, and astronomically decrease the husband’s life expectancy. Think about it. 5 wives, 5 children, long hours, or working everyday with no time off, bills out of the ying yang. Too overwhelming, if you ask me. But, to each their own, as they say.

Turn that around; 5 husbands and one wife; you would only have to listen to her 1/5 days, doing more fun things the rest of the time?

[IGMOW (I Go My Own Way)Participant 2572]

I see poly-marriages are going to require prenuptuals.

"I am my own thang. Any questions?" - Davis S Pumpkins.

[heads-upParticipant 320]

Frankone said

FrankOne wrote:

I don’t see anything wrong with gays adopting children, either. Gay men typically have high disposable income and are highly educated. I’d expect them to do a better job raising Johnny than single mums in the inner city collecting government bennies.

I’m not sure about the first sentence but when followed by the third its very interesting indeed .

FrankOne wrote:

The participation rate is vanishingly small.

thats interesting too considering how much media time is spent on it.

[FrankOneParticipant 1435]

heads-up: Yes, the media spends a disproportionate amount of time on gay marriage to push an agenda. When I say ‘vanishingly small’, I mean, the ratio of gay couples that consider themselves ‘married’ (i.e. in a husband-wife type relations~~~) to hetero couples is about 0.8% or 1 in 120 per Census data: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/22/census-gay-marriages-numb_n_294322.html — I have nothing against gays getting married (though I don’t think the State should be involved in defining marriage aside from some sort of age of consent), but it isn’t a common living arrangement.

Also, I should have expanded my statement about gays adopting: I don’t think the State should support welfare mums, if they can’t provide support it would be better to place the kids in orphanages, put them up for adoption, etc. The State shouldn’t encourage irresponsibility by providing free housing and monthly payments to those that don’t work. Obviously, most of those wanting to adopt will be hetero couples (it’s just the numbers, there are far more of them!) — but I see no issues with a single person who can afford the child OR gay couples adopting.

[ThermonuclearAutomaticWeaponParticipant 80]

Yep. That’s bad too. Given that polygamy is the natural human way will make it 10x worse.

[Puffin StuffParticipant 24979]

Poly-marriage is like playing Russian roulette with two bullets in the gun.

#icethemout; Remember Thomas Ball. He died for your children.

[GrumpyParticipant]

Maybe I just have tunnel vision.
Marriage of any type just doesn’t work for me. If a man can find the magic formula to make it work, Kudo’s to him.
I am of the opinion that it has gotten progressively harder to make a woman in a relationship content (they can never be happy apparently). I couldn’t imagine the effort required to attempt to placate multiple women at once. I have seen women who have no vested interest in each other tear fathers, sons, and husbands to shreds to ensure one of them got what they wanted. As well as mothers and daughters ganging up on fathers and husbands to get their demands met.
I see no peace for a man who has multiple wives to support. If they are all in the same household, I would hazard a guess that everything would be fine for a short time, until the women synchronized their pheromones, and battle plans. Then they would naturally start jockeying for supremacy in the pecking order, destabilize the established control mechanisms (marital agreements), and cooperate with each other as much as required to establish and maintain control over the “husband”. When the women become dissatisfied with the arrangements, they will ALL attempt to garner the most resources for themselves individually, regardless of the amount of resources available.
Now multiply that by however many households he would have to support if they don’t maintain a single household together.
Regardless, when (not if) the multi-marriages fail, if it will probably be;
a. A man and multiple wives = standard divorce procedures times X wives (he pays/loses all assets)
b. A woman with multiple husbands = She will either walk away without responsibility or consequence. Or x amount of former husbands will pay for her to live at a level she was accustomed to with x amount of incomes.
c. Everyone acts like grown ups and walks away. I wouldn’t bet on this option.

As long as I am not forced to financially support any marriage/relationship/divorce through taxes etc, I pretty much don’t care what other people do.

There was a time in my life when I gave a fuck. Now you have to pay ME for it

[FrankOneParticipant 1435]

heads-up wrote:

Frankone said

FrankOne wrote:

I don’t see anything wrong with gays adopting children, either. Gay men typically have high disposable income and are highly educated. I’d expect them to do a better job raising Johnny than single mums in the inner city collecting government bennies.

I’m not sure about the first sentence but when followed by the third its very interesting indeed .

FrankOne wrote:

The participation rate is vanishingly small.

thats interesting too considering how much media time is spent on it.

The media spends time on it to promote an agenda, and it gets people’s attention because tradcons hate it and liberals love it. As for numbers, if you ratio the numbers, about 0.8% of couples considering themselves living in a husband-wife relationship, gays to straights, it’s about 1 gay to 120 straight couples in the US, per http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/22/census-gay-marriages-numb_n_294322.html per US census figures. So that’s what I meant by ‘vanishingly small’.

Also, I should have clarified, I don’t think non-working single mums should be subsidized period, I’d rather see the kids put in orphanages or adopted if the mother is unfit. Unfit = not working, having kids she can’t support. I don’t think adoption should be biased one way or another for gay couples vs straight couples.

[Author]

Posts