Legalize polygamy

Post Reply New Topic

we're discussing below replacement fertility levels...do we want at or above replacement? do we have the resources with other countries using up more and more resources?

Most countrys in Europe have a definate negative birth rate.
So the native populations are slowly dieing out over here.
Ofcourse in most of these countrys immigration and the high birthrate of non western immigrants keeps the numbers stable.
Most western European countrys are however reguardless of immigration looking at a drop in population within the next few years.
As far as i know Ireland has the fastest growing population in Europe.

There is a huge population boom going on in most Asian and African countrys.
So this gives great overpopulation problems there wich in turn causes slums.
In europe there is what is called a greying population and a shortage of workforce.
The reds think they can solve this with immigration, but if you look at the net effect of mass immigration it costs ALOT more than it helps.
Another result for getting your pension keeps being raised every few years.
In 10 years you wil have to be 70 to get your pension proberbly....

Other than the implications for Social Security (problems caused by the fact that while it's fine in theory, the insistence on starting with the then-current generation of retirees, who had never paid into it, meant that SS had to become a Ponzi scheme), I fail to see why anyone should get worked up over falling birthrates. Seems to me that there are plenty of people on the planet already - until we're willing to spread out a bit and get offplanet, why increase the birthrate?

Assuming that polygyny (or even true polygamy) will increase the birthrate, however, would appear to have no basis, at least in any society in which the women involved have a political voice. I've seen various forms of polygamy in action - heck, I'm in a polyandrous "marriage" (only one partnership at a time is recognized by the state) - and I have yet to see a polygynous relationship in which more than one wife is pregnant at a time. In fact, in the polygynous group I know best, none of the ladies involved seem to want children at all!

Reasons such as...? Patrilineal inheritance is better, good, or even acceptable because...? What does it matter which child belongs to which, unless one is a eugenicist, trying to stop certain individuals from reproducing because of "undesirable" genes.


I don't see that as being a viable alternative to the nuclear family.[/quote]

There is much evidence suggesting that the nuclear family is no longer a viable alternative. Why wouldn't communal parenting be superior to an arbitrary preference to the biological parent, and indeed any blood relative. If there is an argument not tied to property rights, would like to see it.


Biological inheritance isn't a societal institution we can choose to do away with- as much as Stalin and T. Lysenko attempted to. It simply is, whether we choose to believe it or not.[/quote]

Neither of those people had the foggiest f--- of an idea what they were up to. Obviously a rephrasing is necessary. It is the institution, not the biological inheritance, that is being questioned. Of course genes pass from parent to child, that is science. That property and privilege of a child should be determined primarily by biology, and only secondarily by sociology, threatens the viability of a global human civilization. Why should the wealth of parents be handed to the child?

Heredity? Inheritance? Identity? Family?

These are some very good reasons.

Brave New World was just a story. Just a story.

white people =/= western civilization.
there are more than enough people on the planet. Rather than engaging in demographic warfare, we would do better to support family planning and education for all children, especially girls (birthrate being negatively correlated with women's literacy in the 3rd world, and family size being negatively correlated with economic status) around the world. Increasing stability around the world will mean less immigration for economic purposes, and those individuals who continue to move into the west will be more likely those who agree with western ideals and want to be a part of extant western culture.

As far as polygyny increasing the fertility rate, that's bull: the number of women remains constant, regardless of the number of men they are associated with, and population increase is dependent on the number of children per woman and the age at which she has them. Unless you want to turn women into nothing but baby machines - which doesn't take polygyny - you're not going to increase the population by changing the family structure. All you're going to do is reduce the genetic diversity by limiting the number of fathers of the next generation.

A communal child rearing.

It's not being married to more than one woman that produces babies, it's the act of getting them pregnant that does.

And you don't need marriage for that.

birth rates in the western world are falling because western women are choosing to have fewer children, on average. If you want western women to have more children, then you either need to take away their choice (not advised) or grant them incentives for having more children (gov't subsidized day care, for example).

These can all be handled in polygamous societies. The law need merely be adjusted.

All that ploy-marriages of any type would do is create social strife. There are close to 1:1 ratio of men to women in the west. You'd just end up like china where 30% of men will never marry because there are not enough females.

You wouldnt get any more babies. The poly-cultists have lots of kids because its a social status thing. Its not sustainable and they already eject men to allow favoured people to marry more than once.

For medical reasons, it is often useful to know someone's family history to determine what risks they may face, what treatments could be beneficial, etc. Also, yes, for cultural reasons it is better for people to know who their parents are. Bastard children whose fathers are unknown are shunned and looked down upon in every culture I have ever heard of. This reaction seems to be culturally universal, so there must be some basis to it. We are not chimpanzees (where the females have sex with every male so that no one is sure who fathered her children) and should not emulate them.

Who cares about birth rates? We have 7 BILLION people!! Enough already!! !
Consensual Polygamy should be legal (as long as everybody is treated nice and there's no violence involved, but that should be the case for ALL marriages), because it IS NOT THE GOVERNMENTS BUSINESS (unless, like I said before, there is violence involved or someone is forced into it).

Last edited by princessarachne on 19 Mar 2015, 8:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Let me think - NO!

No, and for reasons too many to list here.

edit