Legalize polygamy

Post Reply New Topic

The western world is looking at a birth rate short fall. Legalizing polygamy would be an effective way of getting the birth rate up. It could also result in more stable marraiges and might even sweep lesbianism under the rug. What do you think?

I really don't have anything against any form of consentual adult relationship. Polyamory doesn't really offend me at all. Polygomy usually implies though that the man OWNS his wives, so it isn't really equal.

Except for Russia, I don't know of many countries in which that's a serious problem (low birth rate). In the US at least, and I would guess parts of Europe as well, it is offset by immigration. Besides, already men have a tough enough time finding women; you want to compound this competition for mates by allowing some men to amass harems? The problem with polygamy is as seen with the FLDS commune in Texas: it can lead to all kinds of exploitation (yes, I know traditional marriage can as well, but certainly not to the same extent) and causes all sorts of problems with the order of the family structure. That said, if all parties involved do agree to it, then it's none of my business if people get themselves involved in messy relationships. Anyways, I don't think Western females would condone such a situation in any circumstances.

1. Some people say we've got too many people already.
2. Banning contraception and instituting a deliberate policy of keeping all fertile females pregnant would also up the birth rate. Doesn't mean it's a good idea.
3. Why do you say they'd be more stable?
4. Why do lesbians need to be swept under a rug? Wouldn't they just munch on it anyway? ( Sorry. Couldn't resist. )

Actually europe has a negative birth rate
Low birth rates are always an indicator of a dying civilation.
A guy marries two women, everything after that is out site of mind and ceases to be a politcal issue

and the problems with flds are less to do with polygamy and more to do with it being a nutty cult.

there are mainstream lds and some protestsants that engage in the practise and it works out quite well

as for being more stable, less incetive for the man to cheat and there would be more of a likely
hood someone would be watching the kids

Source?

?????

And polygamy couldn't possibly be the source of said nuttiness?

Protestants? Really?

And I'm not sure that you can call someone 'mainstream' if they're doing something that could get them excommunicated.

Less incentive? You get a man used to having several women, used to variety, and then expect him to never like more variety than he already has, and that's *less* incentive?

You have heard of housewives, right? The ones that stay home all day and *watch the kids*. Why would having more wives increase the probability? And how could you increase the probability beyond 100%?

Sounds great in theory, but how can you get aspies to breed like bunnies, we're not that social under normal circumstances, and even some that have, that have managed to have a relationship, have trouble maintaining them, or even initiating a sexual one

I've just gotta know two things.

1. What in the world does polygamy have with doing away with lesbianism? (I'd think it would make it even easier to conceal, myself...)

2. Considering the fact that most AS males are less interested in sex than the average male and that most of the AS diagnoses are male, how about polyandry instead? Makes great sense to me...

Judith's two pfennings

It's not out of sight out of mind for the women in such a relationship, and I really doubt Western women would approve of being one of multiple wives.


Actually, the problem was the polygamy. That led to all kinds of conflict within the community. Humans are a naturally monogamous species, and when you introduce polygamy on a wide scale, it creates problems.


No there aren't. The LDS church will excommunicate you for that (and I know several practicing Mormons) and I highly doubt there are any mainstream Protestants who are engaged in polygamy. The only ones who would tend to belong to nutty sects that aren't quite Protestant anyways.

sources?

all the context clues point to overpopulation, not underpopulation.

don't forget legal anomalies that would have to be accounted for. new rules as far as marriage into citizenship. most likely also the tax code would need to be rewritten to take into account polygamist couples. and of course the mass exploitation that could take place with all of this in so far as giving the upper class an advantage with the potential to wed multiple partners.

He said Western world, which is the developed world, and Europe is noted for having a number of countries with negative population growth, while the countries with population growth in the "western world" usually have low population growth in general. A lot of the shortfall is more political than meaningful in another sense though, I think with all that you would already know though, his statement is understandable, as it is excluding almost explicitly the nations that are developing regardless of true geographic area.(West is a culture not a geography odd enough)

again...can you give me some sources that there's significant underpopulation or a trend towards a significant underpopulation?

It's in my econ book, for one thing. It's also in my psychology textbook. Don't ask me why it's in either book, but trust me (or rather, don't trust me, go find it yourself), 2 minutes of Google will find you sources that show several European countries (especially in Eastern Europe, most notably Russia) have low or negative population growth. Other parts of the developed world have significantly lower birth rates than the developing world.

eastern europe isn't the "western world".

True. Eastern Europe has this problem very severely. Many parts of the Western world have it to a lesser extent. Pointing out that Russia is not a "western" country does not refute the statistics showing decreased birth rates in a number of places, so stop nit-picking.