The Chat Thread

[Geo Dude]

Well, if one is to refer to the Old Testament, which the "traditional marriage" crowd is fond of doing, polygamy should be fine...

On a slightly more serious note I do find it very funny that the gay rights advocate was pushed into making a "they're icky, we're not" type of argument.  That's what happens when you try to fight one battle at a time, I suppose.  (Perhaps I'm cynical, but I doubt that advocate truly felt that polygamy was wrong.)

[ibanezmonster]

Arguments have already been published in favor of legalizing polygamy.  Really, once the previously special status assigned heterosexual marriage is removed, there really are no arguments against polygamy, provided everyone involved is a consenting adult*, and, presumably, not blood related.  It could even be argued that same gender blood relatives should be allowed to marry.  Aside from the rather high "ick" factor in such an arrangement, what would the rationale be for discriminating against such individuals, again assuming only consenting adults are involved?  One could argue against marriage of blood related opposite sex couples on public health grounds, in addition to the very high "ick" factor.

One of my favorite experiences in the gay marriage debate was watching a political talk show where a gay marriage supporter was put in the position of trying to explain why gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry, but not polygamists.  He ended up basically using an Us vs. Them type argument; gays and lesbians who want to get married in a traditional (??) two person arrangement are not like those people, you see.


* The "equality" arguments I've read – not all parties are equal in such an arrangement – are bosh.  As the author for Slate points out, parties to a marriage are party to a contract, and if a party is able to sign a contract, they have the same protections under law as other parties to the contract.  Think of marriage as an LLC.  Perhaps a good compromise arrangement comes from the unlikely source of Moammar Gadhafi, who apparently allowed polygamy, but only if the first wife approved of additional wives.  Polygamy rates dropped after the "law" was put in place.  Of course, a less sexist law would be needed in the US.

Oh, that would be just wonderful. Imagine all of the women in town married to 3 different guys, meanwhile the rest of the guys, um... have to resort to making them cheat on their husbands? Polygamy sounds fair and wonderful. 

[Todd]

Oh, that would be just wonderful. Imagine all of the women in town married to 3 different guys, meanwhile the rest of the guys, um... have to resort to making them cheat on their husbands? Polygamy sounds fair and wonderful.

It very well could be for some people.  Why should government proscribe it?  The inability of some people to get laid, and infidelity, are not a compelling arguments against polygamy, at least in Western countries.

[ibanezmonster]

It very well could be for some people.  Why should government proscribe it?  The inability of some people to get laid, and infidelity, are not a compelling arguments against polygamy, at least in Western countries.

Why not? You'd think that in a society that works towards equal opportunity for people, marriage would be no exception. You know that rich people would have a ton of wives.

[Todd]

You know that rich people would have a ton of wives.

I do not know that.  Current trends indicate the opposite might occur: marriage is more common, and divorce less likely, among higher income, better educated households.  Perhaps you might attempt to argue that billionaires would be polygamists.  There are only a few hundred of them, so that's socially irrelevant.  Perhaps your threshold would be $100 million?  $10 million?  There aren't huge numbers of those men, as implied in your response.  Historical evidence in the US shows that polygamy has primarily been practiced by religious minorities.  Anti-polygamy laws are, in fact and practice, a form of religious discrimination.  There is no historical evidence, nor any contemporary evidence that I am aware of, that indicates that polygamy would become widespread.  Can you share some insights as to your sources that indicate otherwise?

Also, can you please elaborate on how the government should engage in actions that achieve "equal opportunity" in marriage?  What is that, exactly?

[Parsifal]

Oh, that would be just wonderful. Imagine all of the women in town married to 3 different guys, meanwhile the rest of the guys, um... have to resort to making them cheat on their husbands? Polygamy sounds fair and wonderful. 

Huh?  If every woman in town married three different men each man would be married to an average of three women.  Wouldn't that give each man three times more opportunities to get married? 

[ibanezmonster]

Huh?  If every woman in town married three different men each man would be married to an average of three women.  Wouldn't that give each man three times more opportunities to get married?

Okay, this isn't the easiest idea to word... If three men in the town were married to all of the women in the town (but did not share the wives), then there would be no women left for any other men in the town.

I do not know that.  Current trends indicate the opposite might occur: marriage is more common, and divorce less likely, among higher income, better educated households.  Perhaps you might attempt to argue that billionaires would be polygamists.  There are only a few hundred of them, so that's socially irrelevant.  Perhaps your threshold would be $100 million?  $10 million?  There aren't huge numbers of those men, as implied in your response.  Historical evidence in the US shows that polygamy has primarily been practiced by religious minorities.  Anti-polygamy laws are, in fact and practice, a form of religious discrimination.  There is no historical evidence, nor any contemporary evidence that I am aware of, that indicates that polygamy would become widespread.  Can you share some insights as to your sources that indicate otherwise?

Is the bold a miswording or agreeing on what I just said?
There are enough high income men that would want to marry several wives, which would make it really ridiculous for men not making a certain amount of money (I'm thinking $100,000 a year). I'll be high income eventually, but I know that having four wives isn't fair to the next guy who is trying to work his way up, income-wise.

Also, can you please elaborate on how the government should engage in actions that achieve "equal opportunity" in marriage?  What is that, exactly?

How it is now is fine.

[Todd]

Is the bold a miswording or agreeing on what I just said?

No, I worded my sentence precisely.  Your argument that wealthy men - and you meant men - would marry many women is not supported by current trends, or by historical evidence. 

The rest of your argument is bizarre, to say the least.  First, what evidence do you have that "enough" high income men would want several wives.  Just saying so is not evidence; it is wishful thinking.  Second, how is $100K/year a particularly high income, especially with multiple wives, and presumably multiple children?  I can't imagine a programmer in the Bay Area earning $100K being able to wow three ladies into marriage.  Also, your response is more than just a little sexist.  Women today only want sugar daddies, right, so they'll latch on to the first six figure earner they meet?  Or maybe the second. 

How it is now is fine.

How do current marriage laws promote "equal opportunity" in marriage, and what is that?

[Parsifal]

Okay, this isn't the easiest idea to word... If three men in the town were married to all of the women in the town (but did not share the wives), then there would be no women left for any other men in the town.

Huh?  In a typical town of 100,000 people, there would be three men with 50,000 wifes each, and 49,997 unmarried men?  That's your scenario?

[CaughtintheGaze]

No, I worded my sentence precisely.  Your argument that wealthy men - and you meant men - would marry many women is not supported by current trends, or by historical evidence. 

The rest of your argument is bizarre, to say the least.  First, what evidence do you have that "enough" high income men would want several wives.  Just saying so is not evidence; it is wishful thinking.  Second, how is $100K/year a particularly high income, especially with multiple wives, and presumably multiple children?  I can't imagine a programmer in the Bay Area earning $100K being able to wow three ladies into marriage.  Also, your response is more than just a little sexist.  Women today only want sugar daddies, right, so they'll latch on to the first six figure earner they meet?  Or maybe the second. 




How do current marriage laws promote "equal opportunity" in marriage, and what is that?

lol @ responding to little Rush/Jones seriously. Always love your posts though, Todd. Always so thought out and well-reasoned.

[ibanezmonster]

No, I worded my sentence precisely.  Your argument that wealthy men - and you meant men - would marry many women is not supported by current trends, or by historical evidence. 

You mean marry and divorce and remarry? Or marry many wives in a polygamic fashion (is there even data on that)?
The former is probably not even comparable to the later. I'd like to see the data on the later, if there is any.

The rest of your argument is bizarre, to say the least.  First, what evidence do you have that "enough" high income men would want several wives.  Just saying so is not evidence; it is wishful thinking.  Second, how is $100K/year a particularly high income, especially with multiple wives, and presumably multiple children?  I can't imagine a programmer in the Bay Area earning $100K being able to wow three ladies into marriage.  Also, your response is more than just a little sexist.  Women today only want sugar daddies, right, so they'll latch on to the first six figure earner they meet?  Or maybe the second. 

Umm... idk, don't you think most guys would want a harem if they could have one?

You could probably do pretty good, money-wise, with $100,000 a year, if you use your money wisely and invest wisely, as well. That's over ten times my current income, and the guys I know make the same (or less) than I do.

The few girls I know are quite poor and often have kids, so it wouldn't be unreasonable to think they want a sugar daddy, rather than the poor guys I am around (at least for marriage). How else would they get out of their stressful lives of working and raising a kid (if they are unable to go to school)?

The real obstacle would be consent from each of the wives to marry the new wife. There probably wouldn't be enough bisexual women around, so it probably wouldn't be a big problem, unless the men demanded to only marry women who would accept other women in their marriage. But the only way to find out about this would be for the country to try out polygamy first.

How do current marriage laws promote "equal opportunity" in marriage, and what is that?

One to one. Close enough to equal opportunity.

[Parsifal]

You mean marry and divorce and remarry? Or marry many wives in a polygamic fashion (is there even data on that)?
The former is probably not even comparable to the later. I'd like to see the data on the later, if there is any.


Umm... idk, don't you think most guys would want a harem if they could have one?

You could probably do pretty good, money-wise, with $100,000 a year, if you use your money wisely and invest wisely, as well. That's over ten times my current income, and the guys I know make the same (or less) than I do.

The few girls I know are quite poor and often have kids, so it wouldn't be unreasonable to think they want a sugar daddy, rather than the poor guys I am around (at least for marriage). How else would they get out of their stressful lives of working and raising a kid (if they are unable to go to school)?

The real obstacle would be consent from each of the wives to marry the new wife. There probably wouldn't be enough bisexual women around, so it probably wouldn't be a big problem, unless the men demanded to only marry women who would accept other women in their marriage. But the only way to find out about this would be for the country to try out polygamy first.

One to one. Close enough to equal opportunity.

I read things like this and I become terrified for the future of this country.

[Todd]

You mean marry and divorce and remarry? Or marry many wives in a polygamic fashion (is there even data on that)?

No.  It is actually simple.  Higher income, better educated households marry at higher rates, and experience fewer divorces.  The trend (re)-started in the 1980s, if memory serves.

Umm... idk, don't you think most guys would want a harem if they could have one?

No.

You could probably do pretty good, money-wise, with $100,000 a year, if you use your money wisely and invest wisely, as well. That's over ten times my current income, and the guys I know make the same (or less) than I do.

The few girls I know are quite poor and often have kids, so it wouldn't be unreasonable to think they want a sugar daddy, rather than the poor guys I am around (at least for marriage). How else would they get out of their stressful lives of working and raising a kid (if they are unable to go to school)?

I see.

The real obstacle would be consent from each of the wives to marry the new wife. There probably wouldn't be enough bisexual women around, so it probably wouldn't be a big problem, unless the men demanded to only marry women who would accept other women in their marriage.

You are truly a ladies' man.

But the only way to find out about this would be for the country to try out polygamy first.

Um, polygamy used to be legal in the US.

[Sammy]

The few girls I know are quite poor and often have kids, so it wouldn't be unreasonable to think they want a sugar daddy, rather than the poor guys I am around (at least for marriage).

You always seem to have a low opinion of females.  Maybe you're the type of guy who wants a sugar mommy.

[Geo Dude]

Always love your posts though, Todd. Always so thought out and well-reasoned.

I second this.  BTW, this argument seems to have shades of the previous prostitution debate, I.e., are men entitled to sex?

[ibanezmonster]

lol @ responding to little Rush/Jones seriously. Always love your posts though, Todd. Always so thought out and well-reasoned.

Rush Limbaugh? You're losing your troll skills.

No.  It is actually simple.  Higher income, better educated households marry at higher rates, and experience fewer divorces.  The trend (re)-started in the 1980s, if memory serves.

I still don't see how this is disagreeing with what I wrote. You're saying that people at higher incomes marry at higher rates. So a rich man will marry at a higher rate. And this higher rate will not lead them to marrying multiple women?

No.

Really? Have you ever watched a hip hop or rap video?

Um, polygamy used to be legal in the US.

But are there stats on this?

You always seem to have a low opinion of females.  Maybe you're the type of guy who wants a sugar mommy.

No, I don't care how much money they make.
It has nothing to do with my opinion. It seems to be common knowledge that women are more gold-diggers than men are. I don't hate women. I'm just disappointed at this aspect, although at the same time I can understand.

I can't seem to find polls of Americans, but when it comes to the Japanese (which I doubt are much different than we are), there are quite a few surveys aimed at women. Here's one:
http://en.rocketnews24.com/2013/01/28/for-richer-or-poorer-what-japanese-women-really-think-about-money-and-marriage/

Quick image:



marriage shirts:
http://images.google.com/search?num=10&hl=en&safe=off&site=&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1234&bih=683&q=marriage+shirts&btnG=Search+by+image&oq=marriage+shirts&gs_l=img.3..0l10.325.535.0.972.4.2.0.0.0.0.235.319.1j0j1.2.0...0.0...1ac.1.tgv5pv9rRTQ

[Parsifal]

I still don't see how this is disagreeing with what I wrote. You're saying that people at higher incomes marry at higher rates. So a rich man will marry at a higher rate. And this higher rate will not lead them to marrying multiple women?

That may be the single most idiotic thing I have seen posted on this forum.  Men who get married and stay married are not seeking a harem, they are seeking a life partner and making it work.

It has nothing to do with my opinion. It seems to be common knowledge that women are more gold-diggers than men are. I don't hate women. I'm just disappointed at this aspect, although at the same time I can understand.

I hope that no woman makes the disasterous mistake of thinking she could have a relationship with you.  You are a hopeless degenerate, in the most profound sense of the word.  It frightens me that our culture is producing people like you.

[ibanezmonster]

That may be the single most idiotic thing I have seen posted on this forum.  Men who get married and stay married are not seeking a harem, they are seeking a life partner and making it work.

One can also be faithful to a harem, so that seems a bit of a murky point.

I hope that no woman makes the disasterous mistake of thinking she could have a relationship with you.  You are a hopeless degenerate, in the most profound sense of the word.  It frightens me that our culture is producing people like you.

And what does spiteful ad hominem have to do with debating my point...?
What exactly are you angry at, again?

[Parsifal]

And what does spiteful ad hominem have to do with debating my point...?
What exactly are you angry at, again?

I'm sorry, I was going to edit and remove the nasty phrasology.   But your attitude towards women is very unhealthy and you will never have a healthy relationship with a woman until you fix that.  I'm not angry, to be honest, I am very concerned for your mental health.

[Todd]

I still don't see how this is disagreeing with what I wrote. You're saying that people at higher incomes marry at higher rates. So a rich man will marry at a higher rate. And this higher rate will not lead them to marrying multiple women?

One can also be faithful to a harem, so that seems a bit of a murky point.

Really? Have you ever watched a hip hop or rap video?

These really are profoundly stupid responses.