Political Crossfire Forums

[perdidochas]

ideal wrote: Quicksurf wrote: It becomes a problem when these very close-knit sub-cultures develop and people become disconnected with the real world. I can't speak for all polygamists, but it seems to me like these towns have their fair shares of problems. Thus, there should be no legal recognition for a polygamist family.

Have you considered the possibility that the problems may be a direct result of the fact that polygamist communities are forbidden?

Not really. The whole reason that polygamy is unstable, is the basic law of supply and demand. Due to human genetics, the sex ratio of male and female is about 1:1. If certain males are allowed to obtain more females, due to either abuse of power, or an increased amount of wealth, this leads to an oversupply of males. In the absence of a situation where male death is much higher than female death (such as what happened in the beginning of the LDS church, or following a major war), polygamy produces a bunch of poor, young males, with no prospects of getting a wife. This is a recipe for instability. It is why the polygamous Fundamentalist Mormon communities in southern Utah routinely kick out many of the teenaged boys (google "Lost Boys of Utah"). Don't give me the argument that polygamy doesn't have to be polygyny. There are no human cultures that have polyandry that doesn't involve brothers sharing a wife. It is against human (and mammal) nature for a male mammal to share in raising the offspring of an unrelated male. This is part of the reason why child abuse is much higher per capita with stepfathers than biological fathers.

[Selfish_Meme]

:lol:

against natural mammal law!

Can you show me a mammal apart from man that is not promiscuous?
http://www.students.emory.edu/HYBRIDVIGOR/issue1/mating.htm
Quote: The theory that monogamy originated from an equal partnership in "child-rearing" explains why only a small percentage (approximately three-percent) of mammals are monogamous (3). In mammals, females alone produce milk for the young. The percentage of primates that are monogamous is, however, considerably higheræperhaps as large as fifteen percent. Most other mammals practice either promiscuity or polygyny (4).

Quote: These same ratios are noted in butterflies, frogs, and many others. Based upon this criterion of relative testes' size, humans fall into the category of monogamous/polygynous (4).

Nothing natural about monogamy in humans, it is simply a refection of what works best at the time. With settler types it works, in larger societies who knows, we are in unexplored territory as far as the size of our societies is concerned.

[perdidochas]

Selfish_Meme wrote: :lol:

against natural mammal law!

Can you show me a mammal apart from man that is not promiscuous?
http://www.students.emory.edu/HYBRIDVIGOR/issue1/mating.htm
Quote: The theory that monogamy originated from an equal partnership in "child-rearing" explains why only a small percentage (approximately three-percent) of mammals are monogamous (3). In mammals, females alone produce milk for the young. The percentage of primates that are monogamous is, however, considerably higheræperhaps as large as fifteen percent. Most other mammals practice either promiscuity or polygyny (4).

Quote: These same ratios are noted in butterflies, frogs, and many others. Based upon this criterion of relative testes' size, humans fall into the category of monogamous/polygynous (4).

Nothing natural about monogamy in humans, it is simply a refection of what works best at the time. With settler types it works, in larger societies who knows, we are in unexplored territory as far as the size of our societies is concerned.


Monogamy is rare in mammals, but so is male parental care. In mammals where males do engage in parental care (as we do), almost all of the examples are monogamous.

Quote: Wright told Discovery News, "I suggest that male care may make social monogamy advantageous for males because, given the strength of the relationship between paternal den attendance and offspring survival, males that attempted to simultaneously divide care between the litters of two females may well rear fewer offspring than those that devoted all their care to one litter."



dsc.discovery.com/news/2006/05/11/foxdad_ani.html?category=animals&guid=20060511113008

I didn't say that monogamy was the natural way, by the way. My main point in natural mammalian law is that it is unheard of for a male mammal to invest parental care in offspring by another male. My main argument was why polyandry (one wife, multiple husbands) is rare.

Polygamy, namely polygyny, is natural. However, it is not a good thing for large scale human societies.

[inmylineofsight]

........

[Protostar]

Laws should exist to protect against the infringement of rights. I see no reason why two or more people should not be able to marry. Society will adapt as it always has. This idiotic argument of "thats the way its always been done" that social conservatives always use to support oppressive laws is completely backasswards and anti-progress. Personally, I oppose marriage because I see no point to it, but if a man wants to marry two or more women (who are of legal age) and put up with all the crap that marriage entails than that should be his (foolish) decision.

[Selfish_Meme]

perdidochas wrote:
Polygamy, namely polygyny, is natural. However, it is not a good thing for large scale human societies.
Its an opinion, but one that can't be supported because our current society is the biggest ever, and there is no historical basis of comparison. There are no rules that we can point to that show, oh you can't do that when your society reaches that size, because there has never been a society this size before.

[The Comrade]

Selfish_Meme wrote: perdidochas wrote:
Polygamy, namely polygyny, is natural. However, it is not a good thing for large scale human societies.
Its an opinion, but one that can't be supported because our current society is the biggest ever, and there is no historical basis of comparison. There are no rules that we can point to that show, oh you can't do that when your society reaches that size, because there has never been a society this size before.


i think one obvious problem with mass poligamy would be shallowing of the gene pool.


there's no real need of historical basis for that.

[inmylineofsight]

the only basis for comparison I can think of is past cultures and societys. Romans, egyptians, Jewish nations all at one point harbored mass poligimy. guess what each of those civilizations lasted thousands of years.

[Selfish_Meme]

Also people can't keep their bits to themselves and their partners anyway

[perdidochas]

Selfish_Meme wrote: perdidochas wrote:
Polygamy, namely polygyny, is natural. However, it is not a good thing for large scale human societies.
Its an opinion, but one that can't be supported because our current society is the biggest ever, and there is no historical basis of comparison. There are no rules that we can point to that show, oh you can't do that when your society reaches that size, because there has never been a society this size before.

It's a supported opinion. There are no societies known that have polyandry, besides the case of brother polyandry. Biologically (and evolutionarily) this makes sense. It is rare (in the animal kingdom) for males to be involved in parenthood at all. It is STUPID evolutionarily, for a man to help a woman raise offspring that are not his own. That is why child abuse is much higher with non-biological father boyfriends, and stepfathers, than it is with biological fathers. Look at social animals, such as the lion. When a lion male takes over a new pride, he kills all the cubs. Why? He doesn't want genes that aren't his own to succeed. Why would humankind, down deep, be any different. Polyandry just doesn't happen. Males won't put up with it. That is part of the reason for the "double standard." Now, I know a lot of people think that this stuff is all just arbitrary and based on old-fashioned traditions, etc. And you have your right to believe that delusion. However, it's wrong. Logically, polyandry (with non-related males) makes no sense evolutionarily. That is why it doesn't happen, not because the culture isn't big enough, etc.

[perdidochas]

inmylineofsight wrote: the only basis for comparison I can think of is past cultures and societys. Romans, egyptians, Jewish nations all at one point harbored mass poligimy. guess what each of those civilizations lasted thousands of years.

Yes, but those were polygyny, not polyandry. Also, those were nations involved in warfare, which changes things.

Also, polygamy was not practiced in Rome.

victorian.fortunecity.com/lion/373/roman/romarriage.html

[perdidochas]

Selfish_Meme wrote: Also people can't keep their bits to themselves and their partners anyway

That's a different matter. Monogamy (even in the animal world) is often associated with cheating. Cheating is a different matter than polygamy. Also, think about double standards here. When a married man is involved in cheating, it's viewed as more minor, than when a married woman is. Why? Biological.

[eynon]

The Comrade wrote: Selfish_Meme wrote: perdidochas wrote:
Polygamy, namely polygyny, is natural. However, it is not a good thing for large scale human societies.
Its an opinion, but one that can't be supported because our current society is the biggest ever, and there is no historical basis of comparison. There are no rules that we can point to that show, oh you can't do that when your society reaches that size, because there has never been a society this size before.


i think one obvious problem with mass poligamy would be shallowing of the gene pool.


there's no real need of historical basis for that.

even if it was legal it wouldn't be mass.......the vast majority of people would still do the 1 spouse thing.

[Perpetual Futility]

this has been said a million times but I will say it anyway. Its up the the individuals, IF they want to do it then they have all the right if theyre legal age. Who are we to stop them from doing something that they want. Its not hurting anyone.

[The Comrade]

wannabe wrote: The Comrade wrote: Selfish_Meme wrote: perdidochas wrote:
Polygamy, namely polygyny, is natural. However, it is not a good thing for large scale human societies.
Its an opinion, but one that can't be supported because our current society is the biggest ever, and there is no historical basis of comparison. There are no rules that we can point to that show, oh you can't do that when your society reaches that size, because there has never been a society this size before.


i think one obvious problem with mass poligamy would be shallowing of the gene pool.


there's no real need of historical basis for that.

even if it was legal it wouldn't be mass.......the vast majority of people would still do the 1 spouse thing.

it wouldn't be an immediate thing. it would take a couple of generations before it became widely accepted.

once it became a "norm" people would probably do it more often( imean why not? multiple wives AND it's legal?).

[The Comrade]

Perpetual Futility wrote: this has been said a million times but I will say it anyway. Its up the the individuals, IF they want to do it then they have all the right if theyre legal age. Who are we to stop them from doing something that they want. Its not hurting anyone.




a true role model. a saint amongst men even.

[Protostar]

The Comrade wrote: wannabe wrote: The Comrade wrote: Selfish_Meme wrote: perdidochas wrote:
Polygamy, namely polygyny, is natural. However, it is not a good thing for large scale human societies.
Its an opinion, but one that can't be supported because our current society is the biggest ever, and there is no historical basis of comparison. There are no rules that we can point to that show, oh you can't do that when your society reaches that size, because there has never been a society this size before.


i think one obvious problem with mass poligamy would be shallowing of the gene pool.


there's no real need of historical basis for that.

even if it was legal it wouldn't be mass.......the vast majority of people would still do the 1 spouse thing.

it wouldn't be an immediate thing. it would take a couple of generations before it became widely accepted.

once it became a "norm" people would probably do it more often( imean why not? multiple wives AND it's legal?).

Have you ever been married (I haven't)? The stress of putting up w/ one woman for extended amounts of time is excessive, can't even imagine what multiple long term partners would be like.

[perdidochas]

Protostar wrote: The Comrade wrote: wannabe wrote: The Comrade wrote: Selfish_Meme wrote: perdidochas wrote:
Polygamy, namely polygyny, is natural. However, it is not a good thing for large scale human societies.
Its an opinion, but one that can't be supported because our current society is the biggest ever, and there is no historical basis of comparison. There are no rules that we can point to that show, oh you can't do that when your society reaches that size, because there has never been a society this size before.


i think one obvious problem with mass poligamy would be shallowing of the gene pool.


there's no real need of historical basis for that.

even if it was legal it wouldn't be mass.......the vast majority of people would still do the 1 spouse thing.

it wouldn't be an immediate thing. it would take a couple of generations before it became widely accepted.

once it became a "norm" people would probably do it more often( imean why not? multiple wives AND it's legal?).

Have you ever been married (I haven't)? The stress of putting up w/ one woman for extended amounts of time is excessive, can't even imagine what multiple long term partners would be like.

I've been married almost ten years. Marriage, on the average, isn't particularly stressful to me. However, I have been in my house when my wife and other women have lived under the same roof for a few days at a time. That is stressful. I can't imagine living anywhere with more than one woman under a roof for long. I'm so glad that I only have sons.

[The Comrade]

Protostar wrote: Have you ever been married (I haven't)? The stress of putting up w/ one woman for extended amounts of time is excessive, can't even imagine what multiple long term partners would be like.


if you aven't been married how can you say what you did?

[Protostar]

The Comrade wrote: Protostar wrote: Have you ever been married (I haven't)? The stress of putting up w/ one woman for extended amounts of time is excessive, can't even imagine what multiple long term partners would be like.


if you aven't been married how can you say what you did?

I was speaking of other men's experiences. I would never put myself in such a horrible position like being married.