You hear the argument frequently that when gay marriage is declared a self-evident civil right, then how, in principle, can three fundamentalist Mormons or three Arabs be denied their rights to be married, too?
Easy -- They are fundamentalist Mormons.
Look, principles don't have anything to do with it. It's a popularity contest. Gays are popular and Mormons aren't. Gays are powerful nationally, Mormons powerful mostly regionally. Polygamous fundamentalist Mormons are extremely unpopular and not very powerful, so nobody is going to do anything for them.
Okay, but can Arabs be denied their rights?
Not so easy, but it can still be done: After all, they are Arabs. Arabs have their proponents, but they also have their detractors.
Ultimately, though, polgyamy has a secret weapon: polygamous immigrant Africans.
So, eventually, the question will become: Can blacks be denied their rights? What with America's dark history of racist brutality and all?
Now that is exactly the kind of question that America ultimately gives in on.
Posts
165 comments:
Right, and this may also be why Islam becomes popular. The polygnous African social and sexual environment is profoundly toxic for most non-Africans. With the increasing Africanization of society, Islam provides some defense from this toxicity by conceding limited polygamy while otherwise promoting a very strict sexual code.
"Islam provides some defense"
Interesting.
The polygamists might not know their secret weapon yet, but I do. Three mysterious bars that people can use as their facebook profile to show that they're not h8ers.
Everyone will be so worried about being left out of the latest thing that it will sweep the world in a day and become a fundamental human right.
You've missed out the second rung of the 'victim' hierarchy, namely women.
Basically women take a dim view of polygamy, and for that reason lefties will always hold their nose at it. But, as the totem-pole is a strict procedural hierarchy (like the army), blacks - and here's the key other non-whites, Britain has millions and millions of pakistanis, for example - will always pull rank on women in the final settlement. So if enough non-whites kick up a ruckus, the politicians will give in even though the other gilded children, women, will be aggrieved, that can be accomodated, so long as it's not white men who are not 'oppressing'.
Hence in the UK 'muslim areas' (Tower Hamlets, Leytonstone) have already popped-up in which women ae harrassed for not veiling up and gays are bashed.Nary a squeak from the left, and marxist former mayor Ken Livingstone wants London to be a 'Beacon for Islam'.
You might think all the above a nasty, hateful comedy exaggerration. It is not, the lefties with their sub-menatode brains REALLY DO think like that.
"Islam provides some defense"
There used to be someone who would sweep into these discussions with an explanation of how Islam is an ESS that can't be messed with.
Steve, what do you say to the people who counter your line of reasoning with the argument:
"Invoking the slippery slop to argue against gay marriage could have been employed to argue against interracial marriage; and interracial marriage is clearly a human right. "
Well, they have a point...
A big, bearded, bible bashing rustic Mormon acting like a brood-stud with a harem of 'captive' bonnet wearing, gowned wives is a very, very big and easy hate target for white women who feel a horrible sense of undermining and phallic dominance. It reminds them of ramapging farmyard bulls and, frankly, frightens them. Hence in the west, it's the ultimate taboo, and as women have started throgh power structures, rest assured every possible effort will be made to eradicate it.
But also rest assured if the 'victim' victim's' ie non-whites practise it the feministas will hold their sharp tongues and permit it. You see at no costs may the white man be allowed to behave 'bull-like' - castration is the ultimate destination for *him*, but the 'ethnics' are permitted to be 'cocks-of-the-walk'.
If you don't believe me, go to Sweden.
How bad could it be? After all, Barack Obama, Sr. was a polygamist and his son is the greatest president since FDR.
When the muslims will reach 'critical mass' in the US Steve?
People should not forget that access to government benefits like Social Security is the end point of polygamy. Polygamy will also help homosexuals because all of the gays who are working in the theater, fashion, or publishing where they are independent contractors could marry the same government or university employee and qualify for great medical benefits and social security benefits.
How bad could it be? After all, Barack Obama, Sr. was a polygamist and his son is the greatest president since FDR.
Im saddened to think such racism is still tolerated, after all its 2013.
His son is the greatest president ever. *sigh* *Rolls eyes*
We live in a cultural moment in which -- overwhelmingly -- people are encouraged to "experiment" with sexual and romantic relationships. Except of course with kids.
Given this climate, on what grounds could ploygamy reasonably be viewed as a violation of the law. I suspect it's not prosecuted because prosecutros realize that it's a law likely to be overturned.
From one website:
When was the last anti-polygamy prosecution?
About 1953, the state of Arizona National Guard raided a polygamist colony called Short Creek on the Utah/Arizona border, and separated the kids from their mothers, and threw the men in jail. The people of the nation were so outraged by it, that there have not been polygamy prosecutions since. (Unless you want to consider Waco to be an anti-polygamist raid.) So while polygamy is not legal, the laws against it are not enforced.
I think information says a lot about the fragility of laws against polygamy:
When was the last anti-polygamy prosecution?
About 1953, the state of Arizona National Guard raided a polygamist colony called Short Creek on the Utah/Arizona border, and separated the kids from their mothers, and threw the men in jail. The people of the nation were so outraged by it, that there have not been polygamy prosecutions since. (Unless you want to consider Waco to be an anti-polygamist raid.) So while polygamy is not legal, the laws against it are not enforced.
We already have polygamy in black America. The actors are polygamous, they just don't get married.
Former boxing champ Evander Holyfield has sired over 15 children. Many average black men have numerous children with multiple women. The state has not sanctioned their unions as in a marriage, but the state and taxpayer are certainly paying for the results of the whole situation.
Steve Sailer wrote: "Islam provides some defense".
I live in a mostly low income suburb east of Paris. Arab immigrants have been superseded numerically by black African immigrants in the last two or three decades. I noticed that since then, more and more Arab girls wear hejabs, which in my opinion is a way of saying: "Hands off everyone, I am not available and my brothers can protect me." I guess that their parents want to protect their daughters' virtue.
Similarly, Arab young men often wear Islamic garb (beards, white robes) which is a way of saying: "I belong to the most dangerous gang in the world." The guys who wear Islamic garb don't have to be big and muscular to deter thugs.
The local mosque seems to be patronized mostly by young men. It looks like it is the center of their social and cultural life, in a neighborhood which is plagued by unemployment.
The Blacks are into hoodies and gangsta rapper stuff. There are many Arab shop owners (both butchers, the pharmacist, etc), but not a single Black one. There are Asian shop owners (Pakistani and Chinese) too. There isn't a single French butcher left in the whole town, they are all Muslims now.
I noticed that in French low income suburbs, the Arabs and the Asians create parallel societies which seem to be fairly functional, with their own shops, worship centres (mosques or temples). The Blacks seldom do. Some sociologists have noticed the emergence of an Arab elite of shop owners and professionals in those neighborhoods.
Those neighborhoods remind me of Mauritius, where my wife hails from: definitely Third World. And, as in the US, East Asians are more or less lumped together with the Whites. My Eurasian children have always been considered as Whites, and consider themselves Whites. One generation ago, they would have been les Chinois. They utterly despise delinquents of Third World descent.
Anyone acquainted with the Bible knows that marriage has always been defined as a union between a man and a woman and a woman and a woman. Take King Solomon, for instance. Or King David. Nearly all the Hebrew patriarchs were polygamists. I'm surprised so-called ultra-Orthodox Jews haven't followed in that hallowed tradition.
"Islam provides some defense"
Interesting.
Think about it, Steve. Say you're a young, white, working class man in debauched, atomized, social democratic Britain. You're taught all your life how untalented, inherently bigoted and unnecessary you are. ALL your institutions pile on with this message, including your civilization's own Church of England.
Islam gives you a rigid behavioral code, status, community, a sense of higher purpose and a long list of global conflicts to channel your violent impulses. What's not to like?
Football (soccer) provides a good proxy for all this, but spectator sports are expensive and vicarious. Islam is the real thing, and any poor schlep can do it!
Liberal society's radical experiment in importing large numbers of non-liberal peoples could turn out very differently than intended.
If we could cave in on same-sex marriage, which would have been laughed off as a sick joke less than 20 years ago, we can cave in on anything if the right people decide we're going to. Here's something that gets mentioned now and then in political circles and then laughed off as silly and impractical: slavery reparations. If the MSM turns its focus on that, we'll have it officially (instead of the unofficial transfers of money that we already have for that purpose) enshrined into law and a cabinet position to run it within a decade. Or it could be something completely different.
Incidentally, if "gay marriage" were about doing what gays want, the next thing would be lowering (or eliminating) the age of consent. In fact, that would have happened first, since most gays actually want that far more than they want to be married. But since the point wasn't making gays happy, but was tearing down traditional institutions, we'll probably see something else.
Think of a traditional institution of Western Civ, that has a religious foundation or aspects, that's more engaged in by whites than non-whites, that's more popular in fly-over country than in the coastal cities, and you'll have a pretty good candidate for the next attack. If I had to guess, I'd say they might make a strong push (stronger than ever before) on taking away guns. But it could be something none of us would expect.
People don't like Mormons only because people don't know Mormons. To overcome this H8ful ignorance Mormons should produce some YouTube commercials where old people and little children use a lot of profanity and adopt a gangsta scowl.
Okay, so we can affirm or deny the legal recognition of 3 things:
(1) Marriage between two people of opposite sexes
(2) Marriage between two people of the same sex
(3) Marriage between more than two people
There are 2^3 possible ways to answer here, which makes 8.
Now, I can see that 2 should imply 1. And that 3 should imply 1. And 3 does not imply 2. We can also take the position that marriage should not have legal status. These are all reasonably consistent positions, making allowance for disposition.
So we could write each set of positions as a triple, with a one in the first position meaning a yes on the first issue, a zero in the second meaning a no on the second, and so on.
Consistent:(0,0,0) (1,0,0) (1,1,0) (1,0,1) (1,1,1)
Inconsistent: (0,1,0) (0,0,1) (0,1,1)
Anyways, I mean to ask why does gay marriage imply polygamy? I can understand that there's a slippery slope, that our permissive society is moving in that direction. But really, I don't think it's inconsistent to endorse gay marriage but not polygamy.
With welfare, EBT, section 8, and WIC "empowering" baby mamas in what is basically serial polygamy, the lifestyle already gets a form of state sanction.
Obama is the greatest president since FDR...
I work for a government welfare agency in a county government building in NJ. In the cafeteria a local high school was invited to display a student 'art' presentation presumably honoring black history month - although the 'artwork' is still proudly on display.
Among the puerile finger paint quality portraits of heroic black slaves and other great black heroes are several pictures of Dear Leader Obama. Not a single person has batted an eyelash about our current hack politician president being portrayed as an immortal icon of 'the struggle'.
Obama is no FDR (or any mere president). He already inhabits the pantheon of MLK, Mandela, Malcolm X, Idi Amin, etc.
They didn't give him a Nobel prize for nothing.
"We say that the dangerous criminal is the educated criminal. We say that the most dangerous criminal now is the entirely lawless modern philosopher. Compared to him, burglars and bigamists are essentially moral men; my heart goes out to them. They accept the essential ideal of man; they merely seek it wrongly. Thieves respect property. They merely wish the property to become their property that they may more perfectly respect it. But philosophers dislike property as property; they wish to destroy the very idea of personal possession. Bigamists respect marriage, or they would not go through the highly ceremonial and even ritualistic formality of bigamy. But philosophers despise marriage as marriage. Murderers respect human life; they merely wish to attain a greater fulness of human life in themselves by the sacrifice of what seems to them to be lesser lives. But philosophers hate life itself, their own as much as other people's."
Basically, if society is not allowed discretion to decide which relationships qualify for marriage and which do not, there is no logical reason to exclude polygamists from the right to marry. Financially interdependent? Yep. Able to produce offspring? Yep. In love? Yep.
This is why we have the right to deny gays the right to marry. It isn't discrimination, it's discretion, in the same way that thousands of other government programs, like social security, place limits on the eligibility of their recipients. Am I being discriminated against because I'm 30+ years too young to qualify for social security? What if I die when I'm 64 and get nothing?
On the other hand, what will save marriage will be the piling up of evidence that children born outside of marriage have all sorts of problems and cause all sorts of problems. Someone will eventually say, hey, I've got an idea, we need an institution where male/female pairs take on obligations to each other, their children, and society, to prevent the problems that result from the production of children. What a great idea!
How would divorce, tax, pension and estate and estate law work under a poly marriage? The Gays claim they will use the same laws and precedents as are currently in use, which is probably true.
I think if you want to throw a monkey wrench into the works, have the GAO study the effect on taxes and benefits that gay marriage equality will have. This is the unspoken issue.
It's not polygamy that will eventually be legalized because there will be objections that it favors males at the expense of women. What will be legalized eventually is group marriage between some arbitrary number of people. Maybe at first it will be limited to 5 people maximum. The genders of the people will be irrelevant.
As you all probably noticed, most current progressives get indignant when you tell them that the next step is polygamy or group marriage. They vehemently deny that it's the next step. On what basis though ?
Surely it's only their personal preferences that aren't yet adjusted to the next step in sexual liberation. Group marriage will be it.
Steve is right to mention african immigrants. The vast majority of muslims don't actually practice polygamy even though it's allowed by islam. The only people who take full advantage of islamic polygamy are sahelian west-africans.
The leftists who are for gay marriage today but who will find group marriage abhorent will be shamed and their support for the previous wave of liberation will be dismissed.
Re : pakis and polygamy.
I believe that it's traditionaly very rare among them. What could happen though is that pakis could paradoxically modernize their islam and adop salafist views inspired by the culture of saudi arabia itself. Polygamy is most common in muslim africa, but the 2nd hot spot, relatively, is the arabian peninsula. So adopting a pseudo saudi arabian identity could lead pakis to be more polygamous.
In order for polygamists to be freed from our restrictive and unjust society and legal system they must become an established "victim" group. Women worked for over 100 years to get there; Negros also. Homosexuals have been establishing their victimhood for decades and it is still a work in progress. Polygamy has already been rejected in the USA. I think it is more likely to just exist in Muslem communities and ignored by the rest of society.
But who does polygamy stick it to? Christians? The elites already get to torment them in other ways: you've got faith in schools, faith in public, gay everything, abortion, throwing everything Christians hate on TV, overblowing the Catholic church's sex abuse... there's a ton of easy clubs to beat Christianity with.
Keep in mind that however much it might enrage Christians, feminists might be a little uncomfortable with polygamy as well. The tears of the Christian are sweet, but are they balanced in this case by the shrieks of the feminist?
There are simply easier ways than polygamy for the elites and their foot soldiers to express their disdain for Christianity.
How bad could it be? After all, Barack Obama, Sr. was a polygamist and his son is the greatest president since FDR.
So is Obama's half-brother.
I think this isn't designed give homosexuals more rights- it is being done to allow the divorce industry access to homosexual relationships. They are still churning out tons of lawyers in this country, and lawyers run the government.
So the reason I doubt polygamy is going to be legalized is that there are too many parties with a claim on the wealth. It is hard to take a man for all he's worth if there are four other wives right there saying the one initiating the divorce is a liar and that they need their husband's money to be going to their children instead of this shameless hussy.
Nah, they'll stick to tearing apart couples. I've run across enough older, richer homosexuals with younger, more attractive partners to know how it will go down in the courts. The younger ones will play the wronged 'wife' and the lawyers will gladly fleece the 'husband.'
I think you are right about the popularity contest part, but I'm not sure polygamous Africans are going to win it. Someone will remind the American left about the widespread practice of female genital mutilation in Africa, and they will put it together that polygamy isn't the practice of liberated, free-love, Burning Man attendees, but of primitive, patriarchal societies (although they probably won't admit this to themselves, because that would be too judgmental), and so they won't so much as oppose polygamy as withhold their support, which will be good enough to derail the whole thing, at least for a time.
That's my guess, anyway.
This is a classic case of Diversity V. Feminism. Diversity eventually wins. See Swedish rape statistics for confirmation. Polygamy will happen in spite of Mormons.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/oreilly-and-megyn-kelly-agree-gays-have-more-compelling-argument-opponents-just-thump-the-bible/
hump-the-butt beating thump-the-bible.
no, gays don't have a more compelling argument. they just have more means at their disposal to compel their argument down out throats.
why are all the cons coming out for 'gay marriage' now at once?
I think there was an agreement among big shots some time ago to do a media blitz and shout-out for 'gay marriage' all at once so that the conservative masses will just to go along.
when all the big names are calling for 'gay marriage' all at once, what can the con masses do?
the people cannot lead themselves.
this caving into 'gay marriage' is so cowardly. the attitude "well it's gonna happen anyway, so we might as well accept it"
is like saying "well, communism is gonna take over the world, so it makes no sense to resist it."
But it is true that the Christian Right has de-intellectualized American conservatism to such extent that its arguments on many issues are little more than Bible thumping.
Why support Israel? God loves Jews.
Why oppose abortion? God loves fetuses.
Why oppose 'gay marriage'?
God hates gays.
Why attack evolution?
God created people.
Why lower taxes?
God makes the faithful rich.
From social Darwinism to spirtual Darwinism by people who reject scientific Darwinism.
Etc.
First anonymous is essentially right. Polygamy is generally bad for a society. Arab society before Mohammed was *very* polygamous. By saying that a man could have 4 wives provided he could support them, he was *limiting* Arab polygamy.
When the battle for plural marriage starts, expect to see human-interest stories on polyamorists in the Bay Area, Portland, etc., often featuring a woman with two "husbands". Also note that the "tradition" argument will NOT work, as polygamous marriage is *more* traditional than monogamous marriage, and has plenty of support in the Bible - the only men enjoined to have only one wife are bishops.
Here's an honest question from a conservative, and it will look like I am baiting my fellow isteve folks: What is the long-term downside to redefining marriage any which-way? Powerful instincts and traditions that favor men and women pairing up will surely prevail, no?
Let's consider potential threats of alternative marriage systems:
• Gay marriage: Worst-case scenario, gays adopt children and tell them gay marriage is okay. But I don't imagine future generations having lare numbers of these kids, and even if they did, they didn't inherit a gay suite of traits.
• Polygamy: high-achieving Arabs and african men produce large numbers of offspring, while low-achieving men from these backgrounds produce no offspring. Net net, these immigrent groups will have fewer kids because even a high-achieving African man isn't going to be able to support 40 children in America (after all, if he begins to take welfare and live in a slum, he won't be high-achieving and his wives will leave him). Fringe Mormons become a little more numerous.
On the other hand, legalizing alterative marriage would make for plenty of individual ugly abuse-filled situations. When most Americans have these Daily Mail-type stories in mind, they will be driven towards choosing traditional marriage for themselves. Since we believe the alternative marriage experiment will fail spectacularly, why not just our political opponents run it? After all, this issue isn't like illegal immigration, in which spectacular failure results in replacing voters like us with voters very different from us.
"You've missed out the second rung of the 'victim' hierarchy, namely women.
Basically women take a dim view of polygamy, and for that reason lefties will always hold their nose at it."
But neo-polygam will allow woman to marry multiple men too.
And there is 'poly-gay-marriage'.
Yes, noble and articulate African polygamists can be one part of the campaign and the other part can be hipsters of some sort. Make polygamy, fun, silly, hip n'sassy and you can get the iPad, Starbuck's demographic to start chirping and tweeting about how they "don't know what the big deal is!!" Ie: "My Mom was all, like, 'okayyyy?' but now she's, like 'why not??'. My Dad is still, like 'whatever!' but I think he's starting to get it. My friends are totally jealous that I have two guys buying me stuff for Valentines Day. Wish me luck everybody!!!!".
It was interesting to see Andrew Sullivan take an argument from the MRA handbook in a recent debate with Douglas Wilson on gay marriage, when he said that polygamy would lead to some men taking multiple wives (obviously) while other men would be left with no women at all.
Of course he gave no argument as to how poly marriage advocates are in any way different from SSM advocates from a civil rights perspective.
As a liberal (when exactly will people stop describing him as a conservative?) it's his prerogative to argue from principle one second, and from practicality/emotion the next without acknowledging the shift.
Dogs are popular, pigs are not.
Ultimately, though, polgyamy has a secret weapon: polygamous immigrant Africans.
Africans with multiple wives have their marriages recognised when they gte to the UK.
Polygamy is the next cultural frontier. Years from now people will look at the current gay marriage brouhaha with nostalgia. For years the media have put before us white faces when dealing with the subject of polygamy, mostly renegade Mormons and those practicing 'alternative lifestyles', all the while gliding over the reality that polygamy is legal and practiced by many millions in the third world. As we get more immigrants then at some point the issue will come up more forcefully and they'll become bolder and press the issue. It's already being practiced by some Muslims living here but they keep mum about it. The other wives are often on welfare as single mothers; if living with the others they're described as relatives (which they actually might be due to cousin marriage) who are staying there since rent is so high, etc. The African variety appears to be looser in that they don't limit themselves to just the official wives but have unofficial ones as well as long as they can swing it. Don't expect lefty female libbers to present any barrier to this, they'll just roll over. Although we've been treated to polygamy-cult horror stories it's probable that most women in it will defend it. After all, it's the women themselves who actually carry out the act of female circumcision, otherwise known as FGM (female genital mutilation). Forty years from now people will want their gays back and will talk about the good old days when life was less complicated.
Interesting point, but I'm not convinced. The liberals I know support gay marriage primarily because they feel that not allowing it is unfair to gays as individuals. I.e., they feel it is unfair that there is something individual straight people can have that individual gay people cannot: that being a state sanctioned relationship with another individual whom they love. Forbidding polygamy does not cross this line, because it is forbidden to all individuals -- gay, straight, African, or whatever. I don't think a group rights argument in favor of polygamy would get nearly so much traction. The important thing is that gay and straight individuals must have exactly the same set of options, or else it's just not fair!!!
And in fact, whenever I would bring up the polygamy argument against gay marriage the reaction was always the same -- distaste for a social arrangement which appeared to them to have very clear social drawbacks, drawbacks which totally justified outlawing the practice.
It seems to me that a lot of women would be fine with being the second wife of an alpha instead of the first wife of a beta. It was beta males in the West who outlawed polygamy so that they could have a stake in society.
And now Sullivan is saying that SSM opponents using images of people of colour on their websites is "racial dog whistling".
http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/03/27/noms-racial-dog-whistle/
Though of course he doesn't explain who the whistle is supposed to be alerting, and to what.
Also, for a laugh, check out Dave Weigel's Slate blog for his awkward but truthful reporting of the makeup of the anti-SSM crowd outside the supreme court yesterday, in which he noted that they were mostly hispanic.
There used to be someone who would sweep into these discussions with an explanation of how Islam is an ESS that can't be messed with.
I think no less than Derbyshire said something along the lines (greatly paraphrasing!) that Islam is a dog collar for low IQ societies. Likewise, for as horribly degrading as polygamy is to a civilization, it would probably be an improvement over what goes on in the slums now.
If feminists have argued that slut pride is pro-woman, how can we think they'll shirk from polygamy?
Polygamy enables first wives to have fulfilling careers and children without worrying about childcare or adulterous husbands.
Polygamous households cut down on resource consumption and are environmentally friendly.
beautifully succinct article!
polygamists point out that we others are simply serial polygamists. since polygamy/polygany is an aspect of religious belief, the government should be more hands-off about it (or let states decide, etc.) panjoomby
Fully privatize the concept of marriage and people will stop expecting the state to legitimize their various n+1 relationships.
Polygamy is legally distinguishable because it is a kind of conduct, whereas homosexuality is (allegedly) an inherent part of a person, i.e. it is not a choice to act a certain way.
The next frontier for rights is for transexuals.
Polygamy is not going to be men thumbing their noses at feminists. It will be a few alpha males screwing over the vast majority of lesser men. It will suck for men, not for women. Women have historically been fine with living in a harem situation. Polygamy will just result in a large number of undersexed young men. In the past, we had wars in which these men got killed off. Now either they will have to be hooked on drugs, porn or encouraged to commit suicide.
A stable civilization is built over thousands of years. But it takes just a few decades for the left to raze it to the ground.
If I remember correctly, one conservative justice voiced a minority opinion in Solomon v Texas that not allowing staes to set limits on sexual behavior would open the gates for, among other thiongs, the legalization of marriage between two men. Every liberalm pundit in the country laughed at the naivete of this slippery slope argument. And a year or two later the same pack was baying that what they once called an absurdity was a constitutionally protected right.
The war of the elites on marriage began when Ward Beecher was allowed to get away with adultery and divorce laws were first loosened for the convenience of the country's wealthy. Since then succesful attacks have continued unabated.
If this country and its culture once again embraced a rigorous view of the sanctity of marriage as a child-rearing institution and enforced this view legally, same sex marriage would disappear as an issue: What homosexual would lock himself into a monogamous, lifetime commitment to one aprtner?
'Polygamy' sounds bad. So, it will have to be changed to something like 'shared marriage'.
"Interesting point, but I'm not convinced. The liberals I know support gay marriage primarily because they feel that not allowing it is unfair to gays as individuals. I.e., they feel it is unfair that there is something individual straight people can have that individual gay people cannot: that being a state sanctioned relationship with another individual whom they love. Forbidding polygamy does not cross this line, because it is forbidden to all individuals -- gay, straight, African, or whatever. I don't think a group rights argument in favor of polygamy would get nearly so much traction."
But one can argue that traditional marriage is a form of polygamy too since it involves more than one person. So, since marriage gives the right to TWO people, why deny it to THREE or more people?
So, why allow poly-two-marriage but not poly-three-marriage?
Btw, gays are not banned from marriage. A gay man can still marry a woman according to real marriage rules. What gays wanna do is change the meaning of marriage. If gays can change the meaning, why forbid the same right to others, such as kinsexuals?
@Anonymous 3/27/13, 7:29 AM
"Gay marriage: Worst-case scenario, gays adopt children and tell them gay marriage is okay. But I don't imagine future generations having lare numbers of these kids, and even if they did, they didn't inherit a gay suite of traits"
This tends to be my view as well. It is interesting that so many people who believe genetics is the main determining factor for adult IQ abandon that notion when instead of IQ we consider sexual orientation. If non-abusive parenting has as little consequence on adult behavior and intelligence as research shows then I don't see why the same would not be true of sexual orientation. Personally, I'd prefer that marriage, straight or gay, not be part of state or federal law at all. Make this a non-issue.
" Polygamy: high-achieving Arabs and african men produce large numbers of offspring, while low-achieving men from these backgrounds produce no offspring."
Keep in mind that the apparent high-achieving reproducer effect you describe, if real, will be partially mitigated by the problems caused by having older fathers. Greg Cochran recently posted about this on his blog.
"Polygamy is the next cultural frontier."
Only if polygams have polymoney.
"Let's consider potential threats of alternative marriage systems:
• Gay marriage: Worst-case scenario, gays adopt children and tell them gay marriage is okay. But I don't imagine future generations having lare numbers of these kids, and even if they did, they didn't inherit a gay suite of traits."
In numerical terms, it won't amount to much. But the real issue is POWER and IMPLICATIONS. If a small group can change entire rules and laws just for its special privilege, it sets a terrible precedent of what the elites can do. It means they can just about get away with murder.
Jews already have this power. They can do anything over here and in Israel and get away with it. This is what happens when we allow special powers and privileges to a powerful elite group.
And there are implications. If something as solid as marriage can be perverted this way, it means there are no standards any more. It means illegals might as well be citizens, and yes, we are moving in that direction too.
Put it this way. Suppose only 5% of Americans believe in Creationism, and we so, we allow a science class that teaches creationism. We say, "so, what's the big deal? So, 5% of Americans will take dumb classes." But think of the implications. It means the truth of science has caved to something totally false.
There is no integrity or courage or dignity in such thing.
All rotten things have implications and spread its germs directly or indirectly by setting bad examples of what POWER can do.
I think this isn't designed give homosexuals more rights- it is being done to allow the divorce industry access to homosexual relationships. They are still churning out tons of lawyers in this country, and lawyers run the government.
So the reason I doubt polygamy is going to be legalized is that there are too many parties with a claim on the wealth. It is hard to take a man for all he's worth if there are four other wives right there saying the one initiating the divorce is a liar and that they need their husband's money to be going to their children instead of this shameless hussy.
Nah, they'll stick to tearing apart couples. I've run across enough older, richer homosexuals with younger, more attractive partners to know how it will go down in the courts. The younger ones will play the wronged 'wife' and the lawyers will gladly fleece the 'husband.'
Complex legal situations require more lawyers. How does that argue against your "it's all about giving more business to lawyers" angle?
The important thing is that gay and straight individuals must have exactly the same set of options, or else it's just not fair!!!
This is nonsense, of course; homos and normals have had exactly the same set of options for centuries, and it's just not fair and must be reworked.
Polygamy is already de facto recognised for Muslims by the UK welfare state.
To do otherwise would be racist.
I envy you your 2nd Amendment, you at least have a chance.
Decay Marriage.
Besides polygamy, what about other arrangements? How about incestuous relationships? Yuck but they're in love, right? Just get sterilized. Who's to judge?
How about a son marrying his elderly mother to get her on his benefits plan? That can be strictly non-sexual of course. This list can go on and on.
Frank C
Basically women take a dim view of polygamy...
Not according to Steven Pinker.
Polygamy allows women to move up the food chain -- If the super-rich marry multiple trophy wives, that creates a scarcity of women at the bottom of the desirability scale. The real losers in polygamy are the low-status males.
This gay man will now have to point out the profoundly obvious logical reason why gay marriage will NOT lead to polygamy.
The real human rights violation in gay marriage is sexism against individuals. Think about it. I can't marry my boyfriend, but a female can. The law gives a woman the right to marry my boyfriend, a right that I, as a man, don't have.
Since we generally agree that individuals should be treated identically under the law, it follows that same sex marriage should become legal.
Now, there is no general agreement that a married person should have identical rights to one person. Just because you can marry one person does not imply you can marry two people. So polygamy has no compelling rationale based on fairness.
Empirically, there are forty-nine countries that allow polygamy, eleven countries that allow gay marriage and zero that allow both. Based on the evidence, gay marriage seems to prevent legal polygamy.
As for why same sex marriage is the issue of the day, it's simple. Society has only recently let up on mercilessly persecuting us, and we're now in a position to ask to stop being shut out of important social institutions. No conspiracy theories required.
Here's something that gets mentioned now and then in political circles and then laughed off as silly and impractical: slavery reparations. If the MSM turns its focus on that, we'll have it officially . . .
Personally, I'm all for slavery reparations!
The way I see it, if those Southerners hadn't been too lazy to pick their own damn cotton, I wouldn't have to put up with blacks today.
I demand reparations from former slave owners for all the pain, suffering and financial distress they have put me through.
Yes indeed, plural marriage has a better case for it than gay marriage.
Homosexuality, being a curable disease, is really not much of a long term political-social issue. No matter what the truth of the cause of homosexuality, it does not result in procreation. Therefore it has no strong connection with traditional marriage. Gay marriage is just an argument by analogy. The thrust of the argument for gay marriage is just a tortured comparison with the black civil rights movement.
But polygamy has been standard marriage pattern in many cultures for millennia. Plural marriages in rural Utah seem to result in children - maybe at a greater rate than conventional marriages.
Gay marriage will be allowed in America but it will soon fade as an issue. Gay marriage is just a slogan to shout at a political rally. It is not a successful social institution.
I would favor gay marriage if I believed that it turned gay men away from their self destructive promiscuity. The male gay lifestyle causes a lot of misery among gays. The venereal disease rate is very high. There is much suffering and early death. But the evidence so far seems to be that gay men don't stay married very long and are not very faithful to their partners.
Marriage is a nearly universal custom because it has beneficial effects on society. Women and children are given a claim on the father's resources. Men are encouraged to form stable domestic living arrangements that are suitable for child rearing. Stable marriages are a foundation for stable societies.
The same is true for polygyny but it is not true for gay marriage. Lesbian unions are stable but that argues that they don't therefore need marriage. The energy in the gay marriage movement seems to come from the longing of middle aged gay men to be "normal". They want to have some of the boring but stable domestic happiness they see among heterosexuals.
They won't get it. Gay men are like normal men they are slaves to their nature. After they have succeeded in being 'married' as opposed to just being 'partners' it won't matter. Gay men will find themselves back where they started. They will never have the satisfactions of children and grandchildren. They will never quite fit in to normal society.
Savonarola used to soak gay men in tar, put them on posts and burn them as street lighting. All that sort of thing is gone now in non-Muslim countries but no amount of civil rights reforms will make a gay couple identical to a conventional couple. Gay men are not going to be fully happy and fulfilled. I'm sorry for them but that's the way it is.
The objections to polygamous marriage seem to be merely religious whereas the the problem with gay marriage are biological.
Albertosaurus
White populism isn't "popular" but non-White populism is. Gee, I wonder why.
A form of cultural convergence can be seen in FAR FROM HEAVEN and BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN. I saw the former and nearly puked. I still haven't seen the latter. I will see an intelligent and honest movie about gayness(C.R.A.Z.Y is a masterpiece), but I don't wanna see gay propaganda. WEDDING BANQUET was enough. Pukeville.
The 50s have been much maligned as wasps still used to rule America and set the standards of Americanism. So, then came the 60s that mocked everything about the 50s.
But we now live in an age when the new elites are Jews and gays--and educated wasps have been won over to the Jewish/gay globalist camp.
Now that they are on top, there is a kind of under-the-radar longing for the 50s. Why would the new elites want 60s style social tumult when today's targets of the uprising will be the globalist elites made up of Jews, gays, and the like at the top of the social ladder? So, they want the kind of stability, calmness, conformity, and elegance that prevailed in the 50s. They want the 50s with the 2000s values.
FAR FROM HEAVEN is filled with nostalgia for everything 50s but for the fact that gays were in the closet and blacks didn't have full rights. So, what many lib elites want is 50s without the old restrictions. They want gays to be the new Ozzie-and-Harrys.
Also, even though 50s was still a time when blacks didn't have full rights, they had better manners and more dignity. So, there is a nostalgia for that too. 60s have been much romanticized, but rampaging and rioting Negroes scared white liberals half-to-death, so much so that a whole bunch of them voted for Nixon and Reagan later. For a time, white libs used to promote black panthers and radical chic was in the air. But it all went badly. So, did communist movements around the world. The wild radical likes of Bill Ayers failed, the capitalist minded boomers like Steve Jobs and Steven Spielberg(both suburbanites) succeeded. And libs have been troubled by rap culture's attack on gays and Jews.
So, there is a 50s nostalgia. While things were less free for Negroes, Negroes had more dignity then. So, there is the nice Negro in FAR FROM HEAVEN as the ideal of what a negro should be, and Obama has been playing partly to the 50s image of the nice negro who be a family man and etc. And there are movies like HELP. Though HELP is supposed to be about 'bad things were back then', it is also a fantasy of how negroes used to be so nicer back then, and as such, its hidden fantasy seems to be 'gosh, I wish negroes would go back to being nice and unthreatening so we can love them with more liberal compassion.'
So, in a strange twilight zone sort of way, we are seeing the triumphant return of the 50s but redefined by urban Jews and gays.
So, it took 'gay marriage' and a haute-mulatto created by interracism to bring back the era that Pat Buchanan loves most.
We are living in some kind of Alice in Wonderland.
Now that Charles Murray is for 'gay marriage', maybe he should write
Cumming Together.
The liberals I know support gay marriage primarily because they feel that not allowing it is unfair to gays as individuals...
While the liberals I know support gay marriage simply because they know church-going conservatives don't approve of it.
I think you're right, but liberals are adept at unprincipled exceptions, and might maintain prohibitions on polygamy on the basis it is sexist. If the arguments for anal marriage really were principled then it should be the case that any marital arrangement anyone invents deserves legal recognition, the contractual terms being solely up to the parties.
Of course gays should be allowed to marry. Why should straight males be the only ones to suffer? Ah, marxist America,
I see them long hard times to come.
Why should conservatives be upset with Obama and 'gay marriage'? Don't conservatives say that there is nothing more important than making Jews happy? Well, Jews are so very happy with Obama and 'gay marriage'. So, conservatives should be rejoicing since Jews are very very happy to see Obama be president, gays rise, and conservatives fall and die.
If conservatism means pleasing Jews, and if what makes Jews most happy is the death of conservatism, then conservatives should embrace their own death as the most conservative thing since it will makes Jews so happy.
This is what happens when a political party's main affection is for the power that hates it most.
GOP might as well be Jonestown. Worship the Jews. Jews tell us to drink poison Kool Aid? Yay, let's do it cuz it will make Jews happy and there's nothing more conservative than making Jews happy.
"A big, bearded, bible bashing rustic Mormon acting like a brood-stud with a harem of 'captive' bonnet wearing, gowned wives is a very, very big and easy hate target for white women who feel a horrible sense of undermining and phallic dominance."
GTFO. The Amish are studs: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/09/amish-romance-novels-bonn_n_281396.html .
If you ask, obviously most Americans will claim to take a dim view of polygamy, but in practice there will be winners and losers in a polygamous system who profess one opinion while acting in accord with an opposite opinion derived from reaping substantial sexual marketplace rewards.
The winners will be:
alpha males
beta females
The losers will be:
alpha females
beta males
It's been theorized that in ancient times older wives of high-ranking men were the ones to most aggressively push for the institutionalization of monogamy, because polygamy opens up the threat of younger, prettier women horning in on the alpha husbands' resources that under a monogamous system would putatively be solely devoted to the lone older wives.
This sounds plausible, so there would likely be a huge first wave older upper class feminist backlash against polygamy that would drive wedges between feminism and other grievance groups of the equalist left. Leftoidism taken to its logical conclusion, misfits at each others' throats. Who could not savor this prospect?
I think polygamy is officially recognised in the UK as long as the marriages took place outside the UK. Where I lived in South London there were a lot of Somali women living on their own with lots of kids. They were all hijab wearers so they were not the usual single mum types, i.e. they weren't sleeping around. I believe the local authorities treated each wife as a separate family and housed them accordingly. Perhaps the husband spent a bit of time in each house or maybe he was given his own house. Whatever the arrangement I can assure you those kids were trouble with a capital t.
The next step isn't going after polygamy. It's lowering the age of consent. The argument will be made by those who like boys entering puberty or teens under 18. They'll make the case that there is no damage to a young gay male in having sexual relations with some older male--that there is no pregnancy risk and that themale sex drive at that young age is natural, which, of course,it is. Nambla and those who like twinks are very happy. Harry hays is smiling in hell.
If I remember my Roman history correctly, they didn't allow polygamy, but they eventually let people marry their goats. And then, when the non-goat partner died, the new caretaker of the old goat would be in court, trying to get the money from the former 'husbands' estate.
State licensed marriage is a business. It doesn't have anything to do with what is good for us, and everything to do with what will feather the lawyers' nests.
Polygamy: high-achieving Arabs and african men produce large numbers of offspring, while low-achieving men from these backgrounds produce no offspring. Net net, these immigrent groups will have fewer kids because even a high-achieving African man isn't going to be able to support 40 children in America (after all, if he begins to take welfare and live in a slum, he won't be high-achieving and his wives will leave him). Fringe Mormons become a little more numerous.
Wrong. African and Arabs whether rich or poor will partake in the benefits offered by Uncle Sam and will be subsidized by the tax payer to have as many kids as they want.
"Invoking the slippery slop to argue against gay marriage could have been employed to argue against interracial marriage; and interracial marriage is clearly a human right. "
Well, they have a point...?
Why would you even compare the two? There is no expectation that the natural course of events would inevitably lead a loving, committed, caring homosexual couple to produce multiple offspring.
Its like people are so used to just stringing words together that they think have meaning. Have you lost the ability to distinguish anything? Is everything and everyone just the same? I googled something like "words have no meaning" to try to find the postmodern term, but then I realized I didn't care enough to pretend like I knew it already.
But it's my human right to do whatever I feel like, whenever I feel like doing it, as long as it doesn't physically destroy the person standing next to me! (And even if it does destroy him, too. I mean, he might be a hater or something!)
Homosexuality and Libertarianism and modern "culture": Pathological narcissism at its worst. Link.
Here's another interesting article as well.
It used to be the case that marriage almost always resulted in children to be raised. Recently, even in heterosexual marriages, that's not nearly so common.
When children were nearly the rule it made sense to grant benefits to married individuals; it was in the interest of the state that children be raised well.
The state should get back to the rule that benefits go to those with children.
Marriage should result in no benefits from the state other than those that could be granted by private mutual contract.
Additional benefits such as health insurance from the spouse, lower tax rates, etc. should come about only after children are born. Benefits could continue after children become independent as a reward for having done the state a service. Like veterans' benefits.
The first, difficult, political step would be to strip benefits from married individuals who have never taken care of children. Perhaps that would not be necessary, existing married individuals could be grandfathered in.
I expect that as a result, even fewer gays would bother to get married.
Robert Hume
Gayness is so IN that even the much loathed J. Edgar Hoover was half-rehabilitated in a movie because he might have been gay.
We already have serial polygamy. There is nothing stopping men and women from having multiple spouses; they just cannot have them at the same time. Also, we already have polygamists amongst us. This is particularly true in England and Canada where there are more Muslim immigrants. The feminists get a little pissy because the men always bring their youngest wife with them.
Basically women take a dim view of polygamy
Not true, historically. As has been pointed out since George Bernard Shaw and many times on this blog, polygamous societies fall not because the women rebel against it, but because the vast sea of beta and omega males eventually get sick of being condemned to celibacy and revolt. As GBS said, any self-respecting woman would rather have a 33% or 25% share of a first-rate man than a 100% share of a third-rate loser, all other things being equal.
Think of a traditional institution of Western Civ, that has a religious foundation or aspects, that's more engaged in by whites than non-whites, that's more popular in fly-over country than in the coastal cities, and you'll have a pretty good candidate for the next attack. If I had to guess, I'd say they might make a strong push (stronger than ever before) on taking away guns. But it could be something none of us would expect.
1. Football. It's already started, via cumulative concussion lawsuits down the food chain (high schools), but they'll soon spread to colleges, and finally the NFL. Plus some sports pundits are already thinking out loud about a post-football US.
2. Religious-based education, via private/parochial schools or homeschooling. "Teaching kids to h8 is child abuse!"
3. The American Catholic hierarchy itself. Eventually the feds will make some tax status play to encourage some or most of the bishops to go schismatic. Oh, they'll claim to give nominal allegiance to Rome, but they'll be a de facto Episcopal wing. Think the traditionalists in 2013 who talk about "AmChurch" are paranoid? I'll bet the people who warned of gay marriage in 1993 sounded that way too.
4. The American historical narrative. Jefferson has already been thoroughly demonized, and they now are hard at work on Lincoln (aided by deluded DiLorenzoites from the right). Next will be George Washington, and before long the Mexican War will be seen in the same light as the Holocaust. By 2030, the feds will put out bids to have Mt. Rushmore re-carved, Stalin-style, to depict the four greatest Americans ever: Fredrick Douglass, MLK, Obama and Eleanor Roosevelt.
5. The DMCA will be employed in a way so as to air-brush most popular entertainment pre-1970 (movies, songs, television) out of public view, and thus eventually out of public memory. Again, already underway: look at how different the programming is for cable channels such as AMC (no more classic movies), A&E (no more high culture), History (no more linear history) than in their original incarnations.
Jeff: I think you are right about the popularity contest part, but I'm not sure polygamous Africans are going to win it. Someone will remind the American left about the widespread practice of female genital mutilation in Africa, and they will put it together that polygamy isn't the practice of liberated, free-love, Burning Man attendees, but of primitive, patriarchal societies (although they probably won't admit this to themselves, because that would be too judgmental), and so they won't so much as oppose polygamy as withhold their support, which will be good enough to derail the whole thing, at least for a time.
I think people are vastly overestimating the concern for consistency, and the intelligence, of these people. More important, you're assuming they have one iota of respect for concrete Western culture and values, beyond the handy Enlightenment abstractions that can be used as cudgels against Western societies. Or hell, one iota of respect for themselves. For example, a couple of years ago I saw Megan McArdle in the Atlantic pull out the "ignorant bigot" card against critics of FGM.
Vibrants trump women, and Westerners no longer have any visceral attachment to the (long monogamous) culture of their forefathers, let alone any conscious understanding of why it's monogamous. Throw into this mix the fact that western feminists, who ought to be leading the resistance, are a remarkably air-headed, groveling, and unprincipled lot. They'll fold. And they'll fold the first time a Muslim (any Muslim) puts forth a complaint of religious discrimination. But I'll grant that they'll stand firm against Mormons.
Homocrats and Homocracy.
You are reaching on this one I think. You can't offend the feminists, and they are most definitely not into the culture of a big man with his legal harem. I think you have mentioned in the past that that is one of the differences between the US and say, Mediterranean European countries like France. When it comes down the male preference for polygamy or the female desire for monogamy, in the Nordic or Nordic descended societies like the US and Canada the female view wins, and cries of racism are ignored on this issue unlike all the other issues.
"this caving into 'gay marriage' is so cowardly. the attitude "well it's gonna happen anyway, so we might as well accept it"
is like saying "well, communism is gonna take over the world, so it makes no sense to resist it.""
I just don't think gay marriage stands out as a terribly significant issue to the secular right, and I think it's being pushed at a time where the Evangelical right has fallen into heavy disfavor after the failures both of the Bush administration and the Romney campaign's insistence on sticking largely to the Protestant/neo-con script established by his immediate forebear (to say nothing of Palin's tragic entry into the McCain campaign).
So while secular-righties might prickle occasionally at gay marriage's having been fabricated out of whole-cloth through various forms of media manipulation, they cringe away from the argument because it seems like the only people who care enough to pursue it are those they've seen more than enough of in the last decade or so.
It's a popularity contest. Gays are popular and Mormons aren't.
Correction - gays are popular among the powers that be and Mormons aren't. The genera pubic votes against "gay marriage" every chance it gets, which is they they will no longer be allowed to vote on it.
The argument that should have been made against legalized homosexual marriage is this:legalized homosexual marriage is an incursion into and occupation of Heterosexual social and cultural space. And this policy of invading and occupying Heterosexaul social and cultural space is targeting the Boy Scouts. And it won't stop there. Then there will be the inevitable lawsuits against Conservative Christian Bakers who refuse to bake a wedding cake for two homosexual bikers named Sal and Buddy.
The yuk and disgust factor should be good enough of a reason to discriminate against homosexuals in the legalized marriage realm. And besides, there is already a legal precedent for doing this:polygamy,adult son and mother and many other bizarre combinations. The fact of the matter is, there is no legal basis for absolute equality, the very basis of the homosexuals argument, for legalizing homosexual marriage.
I have no doubt that the disgusting behavior of homosexuals will provoke a nasty backlash against homosexuals.
Anybody here suspicious that Admiral Mike Mullins is a homosexual?
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=632539163439821&set=a.456883731005366.123396.456740217686384&type=1&theater
New gay symbol or something.
What is it? Equal sign? Ham sandwich?
Anus bleeding from too much action?
There's something funny about gays. Some of them are so elegant, refined, gentle, and fussy about hygiene... yet they indulge in a very unclean form of 'sex'.
It sort of reminds me of rich folks who order foie gras at fancy restaurants. Such elegance and manners. Such sophistication and etiquette. But eating something made with horrible cruelty and ugliness.
That is all you need to do to advance your agenda. Simply frame it as a "civil rights" issue. Then you have reduced all dissent to mere "racism".
And then you have won.
"They vehemently deny that it's the next step. On what basis though ?" - Dirty, filthy numbersism.
Women LOVE LOVE LOVE polygamy, what woman would not like to share, say, Brad Pitt with Angelina? Most women would be delighted.
Joe Average, not so much. They're out in the cold. And that's why Muslim societies are so violence ridden and riddled with male distrust -- for one man to have four wives, three men must lose. You saw that with Mormons, who were viewed universally as threats until they ditched polygamy, and then became known for Donny and Marie.
Women will push for polygamy, and get it, just as America's finances collapse like a Cypriot bank, or Stockton, and the war of all against all begins.
As far as Islam goes, it is both hard and brittle. Hard in that the society has not really changed that much over 1,500 years, brittle in that Islam is not capable of making the compromises and accommodations that say, Japan and South Korea and the West have for technological advances and wealth. And technology plus money ... kills.
Media says DOMA is over. HOMO beats DOMA cuz elite power is with HOMO.
Steve
Google the story about the heterosexual San Diego Firemen who were ordered-on the threat of being dismissed by their butch looking lesbian Captain-to march in San Diego Gay Pride Parade. Read about what they were subjected to on the Parade Route. They sued and won. Captain's response"Oh well, everyone had a good time".
This is where it is all heading.
To the "analytic philosphers" here enamoured of contextless ahistorical second order logic:Context is everything. If you only knew how foolish you come across.
Just pay attention to how homosexuals debate the issue. Either there is an absolute right to equality or there isn't. If there isn't, then it is the yuk and disgust factor that is the underlying debating framework. It is somewhat humorous to see homosexuals defending legalized homosexual marriage and homosexual intrusion into the Boy Scouts on the basis of it being non-yuky and non-disgusting say like polygammy and adult-son mother marriage. Tell that to the 12-18 year old heterosexual Boyscouts who were hit on by both homosexual Boy Scout leaders..very big scandal-and homosexual Troop memebers. It is a Total War. It is not about microscopic legal reasoning.
"I'm surprised so-called ultra-Orthodox Jews haven't followed in that hallowed tradition."
I'm not. Polygamy means lots of men with no wives, and I would bet one of the selling points of staying in an Orthodox Jewish community for young men is being pretty much guaranteed a young (and often, judging from some of the local examples, quite attractive) wife. My sense is that many young men in these communities would do a lot worse in the dating market on their own.
"People should not forget that access to government benefits like Social Security is the end point of polygamy. Polygamy will also help homosexuals because all of the gays who are working in the theater, fashion, or publishing where they are independent contractors could marry the same government or university employee and qualify for great medical benefits and social security benefits."
Actually polygamy is now rampant in Europe. Not official polygamy but faith community polygamy. They are never married on the books (ie civil marriage), but they are married by an imam. In England, Sweden and France the government will give "single" mothers with a litter of civil law bastards her own apartment.
There is a north african dude in Paris with three families in three big apartments (3 wives, 24 kids) all paid for by the state. The welfare agencies KNOW this is going on and they STILL go along with it.
In Sweden there was a big raid of the Somali ghetto in which they found a couple hundred Somalis who were divorced but living with their ex.
They are following the Jewish example in Palestine: set up a shadow government, shadow schools, shadow courts shadow families until the time is ripe to revolt.
Of course the Jews also created jobs for Jews, and banks for Jews, and welfare agencies for Jews in Palestine as well. The Muslims dont need to do that in Europe since the honkey Europeans support them for free (and provide them with drunk little white girls to pork for free!).
Even in the USA the feminists look the other way. In The Twin Cities it is well known that 80-90% of Somali girls have their cl!ts chopped off, but the mandatory reporters are utterly silent: social workers, cops, teachers, doctors. They don't say a word. Liberals are already coopted.
It's already being practiced by some Muslims living here but they keep mum about it. The other wives are often on welfare as single mothers
That would seem like a strong reason for them NOT to want legalized polygamy. At least not unless the welfare laws are changed to allow multiple wives of one man to collect welfare as single mothers do now. Otherwise, a man with one wife and a bunch of single women living with them as her "cousins" has a lot to lose by marrying them all.
1. Football. It's already started,
2. Religious-based education
3. The American Catholic hierarchy itself.
4. The American historical narrative.
5. The DMCA will be employed in a way so as to air-brush most popular entertainment pre-1970
I like your list, and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
I'd put my money on #3 (which includes #2 as far as the parochial schools go), since I am one of those traditionalists who has been known to use the phrase "AmChurch" from time to time. Obama (or his handlers, more likely) has already done quite a bit to try to drive a wedge between the Church and her liberal apostates in the USA, by accepting Notre Dame's ridiculous honorary degree, bringing in some non-representative groups to back ObamaCare despite the abortion funding, and appointing lots of apostate Catholics to judicial and other positions. The Catholic Church is one of the few institutions that will still make any attempt to fight a significant portion of the full liberal wish-list, so it will have to be defeated or co-opted before they can really do whatever they want.
On #1, I think the NFL already signaled surrender with its pink ribbon campaign last year. It won't even put up a fight, but will do whatever the left says it must do to stay on TV and keep the billions coming in.
I suspect they will be shutting iSteve down soon.
"Take King Solomon, for instance. Or King David. Nearly all the Hebrew patriarchs were polygamists. I'm surprised so-called ultra-Orthodox Jews haven't followed in that hallowed tradition"
Jewish law is eternal. It still allows polygamy. About 1000 years ago a bull rabbi said that Polygamy, while still legal under Jewish law, would not be practiced since it really p!ssed off the white folks. He couldn't ban it since it was The Law handed down by Moses. But he could change the "entrance requirements." If you can get 100 rabbis to sign off on a second wife you can have one. That rule of convenience only lasted 250 years, so Jews now can take multiple wives. In fact a big shot LA Jew either wouldn't give his wife a divorce or she wouldn't accept it. He went out, bought off 100 rabbis (they come cheap in Israel!) and married a second wife. On the secular books he is only married to one woman. On the Jewish books he is married to two. If you are Jewish it just takes a little cash. Luke Ford has the details.
As a matter of fact, this dual bookkeeping system is common in the Jewish world. Guys get a secular divorce and then refuse to give a Jewish divorce. The wife is "agunah", a "chained woman". This is why the Jews are fighting for secular courts to uphold Jewish marriage contracts and enforce Jewish religious court decisions.
In Israel the Jewish courts will have you thrown in prison for years until you give your wife a "voluntary" divorce. Some guy recently escaped from religious imprisonment during transport to a religious court hearing. Big news. Made all the Jewish papers in Israel. They may have caught him by now and thrown him back in prison. "Voluntary" to Jews has a different meaning than it does in the West.
"I demand reparations from former slave owners for all the pain, suffering and financial distress they have put me through."
You want to have some fun? The next time you hear some hi-yalla black whine about reparations and the rape of black women by white slavemasters tell him he has real "daddy issues".
Tell him as much as you agree that his side of his slavemaster daddy's family got the short end of the stick you will be damned if you are going to give money to him or any other slavemaster's children, just because they figure they got cheated out of their fair share and their slavemaster daddy didn't love them as much.
Tell them how you great-grandfather screwed your side of the family but you aren't whining and begging for handouts.
Tell his he is just as greedy as his slavemaster daddy, wanting other folks to work for him for free. The apple don't fall far from the tree!
In the past life was all about obligations. You were obligated to serve God, family, king and country.
Now we have a system of rights. You can claim a right to this that and the other. This may not end well.
There used to be someone who would sweep into these discussions with an explanation of how Islam is an ESS that can't be messed with.
What's an "ESS"? Are we all supposed to be familiar with every abbreviation a commenter tosses out? Usually Urban Dictionary helps me, but this is what I get For "ESS":
"Empty Sack Syndrome: After a long day of "self dicipline" infront of a few porn DVD's, the bloke goes to have one last one before going to sleep. He is suffering from ESS if all he manages to conjure forth is a grunt and a wince."
Over at The New Yorker online it's wall-to-wall gay marriage. Surely, this is the most important moment in history since Moses carried the Federal Reserve bank down from Mount Rushmore, or whatever that was.
Really, you thought after Obama got re-elected they would get along without an obsession for a while, but nope, they are right back at it. Truly, one wonders with a shudder what comes next.
How many divisions does the secular right command?
"Polygamy allows women to move up the food chain -- If the super-rich marry multiple trophy wives, that creates a scarcity of women at the bottom of the desirability scale. The real losers in polygamy are the low-status males."
As someone once put it, "Most women would rather have a third of a millionaire than all of a janitor."
I never understood why it was illegal to begin with. It's eugenic.
I actually think the MSM and liberals are going to be very disappointed in the summer.
In the chance that Kennedy betrays the country again. Polygamy will have to be legalized. It at least has the sanction of a major religion.
On a side note. I wonder if this is why the Mormons have quietly dropped their opposition to gay marriage? If gays bust through the door the case for polygamy becomes stronger.
I never understood why it was illegal to begin with. It's eugenic.
It isn't "eugenic" in and of itself.
Harry -
ESS stands for "evolutionarily stable strategy."
Clearly that is not something we have right now in the West, for better or, probably, for worse.
In South Africa blacks who married according to tribal law could live polygamously, as the traditionaly do. Most progressive blacks chose to follow western law.
Whites were subject to Dutch-Roman law with its Christ-centric morality.
Since the end of Apartheid that's over the cliff. Now we have a polygamous Prime Minister. Somehow nobody in the western press noticed.
Anyway, the irony of all this is that women vote mostly liberal, that gay rights would not have become such an issue without female support, and yet they are going to get a raw deal under polygamy.
This gay man will now have to point out the profoundly obvious logical reason why gay marriage will NOT lead to polygamy.
The real human rights violation in gay marriage is sexism against individuals. Think about it. I can't marry my boyfriend, but a female can. The law gives a woman the right to marry my boyfriend, a right that I, as a man, don't have.
You can get married (i.e., bond legally with someone of the opposite sex). A female can, too. It's not sexism that marriage isn't what you want it to be.
Since we generally agree that individuals should be treated identically under the law, it follows that same sex marriage should become legal.
For the umpteenth time, you are being treated identically. That's not enough for you. You want to rewrite marriage so that it reflects your desires, just like polygamists, people who want to marry their horses, etc.
Now, there is no general agreement that a married person should have identical rights to one person. Just because you can marry one person does not imply you can marry two people. So polygamy has no compelling rationale based on fairness.
No, a polygamist only wants to marry one person. And then another, etc. But in each case, each marriage is between only two people. Who are you to stop two polygamists in love from marrying?
Empirically, there are forty-nine countries that allow polygamy, eleven countries that allow gay marriage and zero that allow both. Based on the evidence, gay marriage seems to prevent legal polygamy.
Lol, great logic there, love it.
As for why same sex marriage is the issue of the day, it's simple. Society has only recently let up on mercilessly persecuting us, and we're now in a position to ask to stop being shut out of important social institutions. No conspiracy theories required.
Great, another group that gets to persecute core America. Sorry, I know I'm not supposed to remember the lessons that history has taught us over and over again...
It isn't "eugenic" in and of itself.
In and of itself, it's probably dysgenic, on balance. Too destabilizing, what with all the angry males it creates. It's a recipe for revolution.
Nice picture of the Wachowskis today at Wired .
They look as if they are newly engaged or something.
They used to be frauteurs, but I have no idea what they are up to now. Time for a new, new word.
I hope their new show is good, but have low expectations.
"Steve, what do you say to the people who counter your line of reasoning with the argument:
"Invoking the slippery slop to argue against gay marriage could have been employed to argue against interracial marriage; and interracial marriage is clearly a human right. "
Well, they have a point..."
Perhaps more critically, we'll have to see how SCOTUS deals with it.
"What woman wouldn't want to share Brad Pitt with Angelina Jolie?"
Angelina Jolie, for one. And she pulls a lot more clout...
Seriously, women freak out enough over keeping their boyfriends from even LOOKING at another woman... how many of those would really be interested in sharing their husband?
If we could cave in on same-sex marriage, which would have been laughed off as a sick joke less than 20 years ago, we can cave in on anything if the right people decide we're going to.
Yes, you are right.
Moreover, Hans Christian Andersen told us that 175 years ago already. The Emperor's New Clothes was published in 1837.
What with all the homomania, shouldn't someone make a movie called A HARD GAY'S RIGHT or HELLO SUBMARINE.
Gays are now acting like Nazis. Their radical wing is called ass-ass.
You hear the argument frequently that when gay marriage is declared a self-evident civil right, then how, in principle, can three fundamentalist Mormons or three Arabs be denied their rights to be married, too?
There's a simple answer to this. Marriage, as defined and recognized by US law, is a contract between two people. Many of the provisions of that contract become meaningless if more than two people are involved. Before you can legalize polygamy, you'd have to rewrite the marriage contract.
Marriage between two gays--or indeed, between any two adult humans--doesn't change the provisions of the contract one bit. It just expands the right to enter into it.
Note that under today's laws, the marriage contract has nothing to do with sex. There are no longer any laws which punish sex outside of marriage. No one is required to have sex with their spouse; if your wife refuses and you force her, you can be charged with rape.
http://www.nationalenquirer.com/celebrity/world-exclusive-chelsea-clinton-adopting-african-baby
The new pet of the global rich.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=113759995484040&set=a.101760973350609.1073741827.100005501192620&type=1
Lol.
Interesting point, but I'm not convinced. The liberals I know support gay marriage primarily because they feel that not allowing it is unfair to gays as individuals. I.e., they feel it is unfair that there is something individual straight people can have that individual gay people cannot: that being a state sanctioned relationship with another individual whom they love. Forbidding polygamy does not cross this line, because it is forbidden to all individuals -- gay, straight, African, or whatever.
And, likewise, forbidding same-sex marriage doesn't cross this line "because it is forbidden to all individuals -- gay, straight, African, or whatever".
Miss Montana: "I would use my title to bring peace to all the people of the world...be they black, be they white, be they yellow, be they... whatever."
Since we generally agree that individuals should be treated identically under the law, it follows that same sex marriage should become legal.
Now, there is no general agreement that a married person should have identical rights to one person. Just because you can marry one person does not imply you can marry two people. So polygamy has no compelling rationale based on fairness.
That argument was pitiful. I have a wife (C). Another woman (H) wants to be my wife. Unless she is allowed to be my wife, she is not treated the same way C is treated.
The next step isn't going after polygamy. It's lowering the age of consent.
I doubt it. The last 20 yers have seen a concerted (and highly successful) push to raise the age of consent in the US.
In and of itself, it's probably dysgenic, on balance. Too destabilizing, what with all the angry males it creates. It's a recipe for revolution.
In modern times, sure, look at the middle east. In the past, they were made into eunuchs and slaves.
It isn't "eugenic" in and of itself.
Actually, it is. It's the collateral social consequences that can make it dysgenic.
That is all you need to do to advance your agenda. Simply frame it as a "civil rights" issue. Then you have reduced all dissent to mere "racism".
And then you have won.
Yes, if (and only if) you control the apparatus of public opinion formation.
Note that under today's laws, the marriage contract has nothing to do with sex. There are no longer any laws which punish sex outside of marriage. No one is required to have sex with their spouse; if your wife refuses and you force her, you can be charged with rape.
You're full of shit. "Spousal rape" is hardly universally reccognized, and to the extent it is recognized it's the result of the same destructive forces that seek to impose same-sex marriage on us. And the lack of laws that punish sex outside of marriage is due to the same forces.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/denmark/9317447/Gay-Danish-couples-win-right-to-marry-in-church.html
This is sick but also funny as hell. I mean you can't make this stuff up.
I think the big change happened when gay stuff was kid-ized. In the past, kids were shielded from such issues.
But then came books like HEATHER HAS TWO MOMMIES, so kids came to be spoonfed that stuff.
And then, there was the mass-cult of Harry Potter stories. Kids got hooked to them. It was like their bible. And then Rowling said some grand wise master in the story is a fruiter and kids at first didn't know how to react. But when some cheered, everyone felt the wave of
consensus and got swept up in the emotion like at a church meeting and cheered too and were instantly converted 'spiritually' to the gay faith--or else they'd be excommunicated from the holy potter community they love so dearly.
So, gay is like the new religion, the new sunday school. And harry potter has been about organization and consensus from day one.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-26/customers-flee-wal-mart-empty-shelves-for-target-costco.html
Actually, it is. It's the collateral social consequences that can make it dysgenic.
No, it isn't eugenic in and of itself. Why should it be?
@ Svigor
"For the umpteenth time, you are being treated identically."
No, I'm not. Your reasoning is faulty.
Does Julie have the right to marry Nate? Yes.
Does Chris have the right to marry Nate? No.
Since the right to marry Nate depends on the gender of the person involved, the law is sexist.
For example, suppose I lived somewhere with antihomonuptial legislation. As I am a man, any woman in that district has the right to marry me. (As well they should.) But any man in that district who wanted to marry me does not have that right. The women have a right which the men do not have. Likewise, if there was a nubile woman nearby, I (and any other man) would have the right to marry that woman. But any nearby woman would not have that right. The men have a right which women do not have. Sexist!
Anti-gay-marriage laws throw a very real legislative dividing line between two sets of people on the world, and say, "all marriages must cross this line". But any law which divides men from women is clearly sexist.
@ ben tillman
" Another woman (H) wants to be my wife. Unless she is allowed to be my wife, she is not treated the same way C is treated."
But with the second, third, etc marriages, a married person, in general, does not have the same set of rights as a single person. We're okay with that, and in a sense, that's the entire point of marriage. It's okay to discriminate under the law between people who are married and people who aren't married.
The next step isn't going after polygamy. It's lowering the age of consent.
If this were about doing what homosexuals want, that would be true. But it's not about that. They will be told that they've had their turn, and now it's time to shut up and get on board with whatever attack on traditional institutions is next.
Bisexuals should be allowed to marry the spouses they love: both of them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mg7VUk4DjIk
"People will think..."
"..What I tell them to think!"
It's like with Roman Polanski. A guy who drugged and anal-raped a young girl, but he's the darling of the Jewish-owned media, so most liberals on facebook say he should be forgiven and sympathized with.
Suppose Roman Polanski was some Catholic reactionary like Mel Gibson who'd drugged and raped a 12 yr old Jewish girl.
The whole world would be looking to capture him, and France would offer him no refuge. NY Times would run story after story about how he must be brought to justice, and most liberals would foam at the mouth like attack dogs.
Or consider how there was no outrage about killer Castro traveling around the world, but Pinochet was arrested in UK and almost shipped to Spain for trial.
Or, all those libs who got so riled up about South Africa but show not even the slightest pity for Palestinians.
People will think what they are told to think.
This is even truer of conservative dummies. American Jews have done so much damage to white interests, but most white conservatives listen to the likes of Mark Levin, Michael Savage, Limbaugh, Hannity, and etc, and think the core value of conservatism is singing Hosannas to the Jews. Jews made Obama possible, but so many conservatives think we should protect Jews from Obama!!!
Jews have to be laughing at conservative dummies. In a way, Jews have every right to feel this way. I mean people as dumb as most conservatives deserve no respect.
People will think what they are told to think. Dittheads.
Dittos Rush, dittos Rush.
Conservatives seem to think that if they're ever nicer and kinder to pushy and rude Jews, the Jewish heart will eventually melt and learn to love conservatives.
But this is like black guys in the past thinking they're gonna be respected by rednecks who call them n-word if they shuffle and ho-de-do some more. Instead, rednecks came to despise such blacks even more. They got used to blacks playing the slavish dummy and wanted blacks to remain in that mode forever.
Similar, Jews now see white conservatives as a bunch of ho-de-doing shufflers at their feet, and they want cons to stay on that slavish level.
When whites act like slaves before Jews, what makes them think Jews are gonna lower themselves to the level of whites and embrace them? NO, Jews are just gonna get used to lording over whites as masters, and they're gonna want to keep things that way.
Just listen to the likes of Wise and Bissinger. They love whipping whites with PC.
If whites in the past said, 'you blacks are so savage that you need to be our slaves in order to be civilized', Jews today say to whites, 'you whites are such innate nazi scum savages that you need to be our slaves and whipped ever so often to be reminded to be saved from your own sick savage white hearts.'
If this were about doing what homosexuals want, that would be true. But it's not about that. They will be told that they've had their turn, and now it's time to shut up and get on board with whatever attack on traditional institutions is next.
Yep. Classic Frankfurt School.
Destroy religion? Check!
Destroy patriotism? Check!
Destroy the family? Almost done!
The next step isn't going after polygamy. It's lowering the age of consent.
I guess we will be able to see if you are correct if and when the media starts to rehabilitate the image of NAMBLA
I've reward every comment start to finish, read every blog post I can read... I still can't seem to find an argument that will sway my opinion.
I just don't see why we should stop gays from marrying.
I have heard this argument from folks already, about polygamy, about incestuous marriage...
I think we are stretching here...
A bunch of straight people who don't want gays to get married-- I get it!!
But, I promise!! It is NOT contagious!!
I have had gay friends for 30 years and I have never caught it ONCE!!
And some if my gay friend couples who have been together for years and years faithfully would be a great example to set for what fidelity really means, for what vows, respect, and honor for one another should really look like.
I know I'm in the wrong place making this argument, and fully expect to have counter arguments to everything I write, but I can't stay silent...
In straight, I really think the escalation from gays marrying, to incestuous marriage is a fear tactic used to lump this into one big bucket instead of looking at it as what it is...
Yes, it can stop with gays. Putting gays in the same bucket as uncestuous relationships with children is a pretty wide net to cast. Yes, I am aware by reading thru this that most commenters believe this is deviant behavior.
I don't "go that way" either. But I also don't approve of infidelity, and I know if plenty if people that get away with fairly easy divorces after massive infidelity. Noone chopped any body parts off, or stoned them, or stopped them from marrying again...
Marriage is now just a mirage.
Gay style over straight substance.
Mao had his Red Guards.
It looks like Homao has lots of Pink Guards.
Same mania, same hysteria, same stupidity.
The gangbang of four.
How can kids not grow up as homomaniacs when they're bombarded with stuff like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAxGDJaF7Zk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsKO_r76kfQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrmGfZlvXTQ
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2247981/BBC-told-gay-presenters-characters-childrens-TV-familiarise-young-people-different-sexualities.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mv02zL8lZPU
I think maybe lot of gays are drawn to children's programming because gays love artificiality and bright colors, and children love cartoons and things that dazzle them.
Also, maybe gays are drawn to children's programming for the same reason they are drawn to women's fashion. Gay men feel woman-ish but cannot be women themselves, so they like to idealize the perfect woman via the artificiality of cosmetics and fashion.
Similarly, gays cannot have children like regular straight folks do, so maybe gays like to create a fantasy toyland where kids seem to be like magical beings playing with fairytale creatures.
But then, this goes back to Peter Pan whose sexuality was ambiguous--and always played by a woman onstage.
I wonder if VERTIGO beat out CITIZEN KANE because it is more gay-ish compared to the more masculine movie by Welles. Though Scotty in VERTIGO is not gay, his intense desire to re-create the woman of his dreams would likely appeal to a whole bunch of gay men who are so into fashion and bringing out the goddess within the woman.
And maybe that is why so many women are drawn to gays. Straight men see women as women. Gay men see women as goddesses, not to possess but to dress up in mythic garb. So, when a gay hair stylist makes a woman feel like she's a goddess--at least under his midas touch--, she feels very flattered.
It's like straight men take women as flesh, but gay men make women into fantasy. So many women are vain suckers.
It's like in the movie INCEPTION.
Gays cannot do conception as their form of 'sex' is weird to say the least, but they can do inception though mass culture and public education.
They culturally planted the seeds of homomania in the minds of young children from a young age. And, so the idea-seeds of homomania eventually sprouted and grew, and now, we have all these homomaniac kids who are all wild about gays as if homos are barney the dinosaur who wuvs them so very much.
It's like white kids can inceptionally be made to believe that a huge negro in jail is just an innocent guy loves little white mice.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzOGcTvoSUs
Inception of the Mind Snatchers.
American kids are to gays what Cubans are to El Comandante or North Koreans are to Dear Leader.
In a way, Obamamania is a similar kind of mind-sprouting among so many young white people whose minds have been sown with certain images and ideas. They'd been incepted with the cult of MLK, Kennedy, magic negro, and etc, and when they saw Obama the dear leader, all those wishfulment themes came together.
If the minds of white kids hadn't been thus incepted, they would have seen Obama as what he is: a vain pompous jerk.
And that's why Muslim societies are so violence ridden and riddled with male distrust -- for one man to have four wives, three men must lose.
Seemingly left out of the conversation is something that Steve has pointed out before that polygamy leads to 'women hoarding', inbreeding, and tribalism. No doubt some 'genius' polygamous will figure this out and do some sort of weird reverse-China thing where the boys are aborted in order to keep up an inflated women-men ratio.
"I've reward every comment start to finish, read every blog post I can read... I still can't seem to find an argument that will sway my opinion. I just don't see why we should stop gays from marrying.
"I have heard this argument from folks already, about polygamy, about incestuous marriage...
I have had gay friends for 30 years and I have never caught it ONCE!!"
In other words, you know we're right but you wanna be loved and appreciated by YOUR GAY FRIEND! THAT is more important to you.
Btw, if I were forced to choose between legalization of incest marriage or 'gay marriage', I would go with the former.
At least incest involves real sexuality and even saved the human species at times. There were times when only a small band of people survived and they multiplied and become a larger population via incest; though I'm an atheist, the story of Lot and his daughters was no fluke through human history.
So, as sickening as incest is, it did save humanity a bunch of time when small groups of folks faced extinction.
But gays? Sure, gays as individuals contributed greatly to arts and design, and I'm all for gays doing that stuff. But the core of marriage is sexuality and biology, and gay stuff just doesn't cut it.
But you wanna be loved by your gay friend. That is sooo important to you.
It's like a movie critic who's afraid to say a bad movie is a bad movie because the moviemaker is such a dear friend, and the friendship is more important than the truth. Cowardice.
It can be done and all too easily. Plant ideas in people's heads and make them think they came up with the idea on their own. People say "I'm for 'gay marriage", when, in fact, their minds have been planted with the idea of 'gay marriage'.
Dear "other anonymous"
I have made plenty of non-friends because I have an opinion. And my opinion has nothing to do with me wanting to be "liked" by my gay friends.
It is my opinion. And guess what? I still have it.
I don't think this makes me a coward.
Very many people who know exactly who I am and who want to fight with me know my views. And they are much stronger than the few day friends I have.
If I were a coward I would keep my mouth shut. But I don't. I speak my opinion.
I have never been the type to go with the "cool clique." Or sway to what is popular. I stay true to MY beliefs. And I don't especially to sway yours.
But at least I've shared mine without resorting to calling names...
""Invoking the slippery slop to argue against gay marriage could have been employed to argue against interracial marriage; and interracial marriage is clearly a human right. "
Why? Whites don't seem to have a right to free association in America.
"It was beta males in the West who outlawed polygamy so that they could have a stake in society."
You've been reading the Manosphere too much. You can just as well argue
"alphas" outlawed polygamy because all the "betas" were killing them.
No, I'm not. Your reasoning is faulty.
Nope. It's perfectly sound. You just don't like reality. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Men and women both have long held the right to enter into marriage, and homosexuals have never been denied their equal rights in this regard, at least not to my knowledge (I don't doubt you can dig up an exception, somewhere).
Since the right to marry Nate depends on the gender of the person involved, the law is sexist.
Nope. Marriage is what it is, and neither sex has ever been denied the right to marry.
People will think what they are told to think.
Yep. This is one of those "gosh reality is so much more boring, simple, and straightforward than my high-flying abstractions" things that even a lot of hard-nosed HBD-types seem to have no end of trouble accepting.
The average person is a political idiot, and democracy is a sham.
I just don't see why we should stop gays from marrying.
Me neither. Which is why we don't stop homosexuals from marrying, have never stopped homosexuals from marrying, and why I don't advocate stopping homosexuals from marrying.
What I oppose is changing marriage into something it isn't (and thus, destroying it in the process) to suit them. Let them come up with their own institution for pairing off homosexuals with one another, and come up with their own name for it, and then come up with their own churches in which to hold the ceremonies.
No doubt some 'genius' polygamous will figure this out and do some sort of weird reverse-China thing where the boys are aborted in order to keep up an inflated women-men ratio.
*Taps mike* Is this thing on? Sex-selection tech, not abortion. Oh wait, wrong thread (assuming G**gle didn't eat my comment).
I read somewhere about a study of Mormons which concluded that polygamy cut their birthrate, so it might not be all bad.
Though perhaps the results might not be replicable among welfare eating Somalis in some snow country.
Coming at the gay marriage issue from the perspective of someone who once was a libertarian and marginally in favor of gay marriage, I now believe it is a terrible idea.
Marriage's historical function has been socially sanctioning the union of a man and a woman who would then naturally go on to produce children together and raise the next generation of society. This definition of marriage is pretty simple, straightforward, aligns with the reality of how marriage has been practiced pretty much universally, even including wacky arrangements like father-daughter marriages, harems, arranged marriages, etc.
The working definition of marriage in the popular culture ethos, which has led to people feeling like it's a pressing issue for gay marriage is -- a union of people in love? I guess. But the state doesn't care if I love my brother (platonically), love my pets, love several girlfriends. The media has made this an argument about love, but marriage doesn't require love, it isn't about love. I guess this makes for a pretty effective propaganda technique but notice how no one ever really questions all the implicit assumptions built into this argument for so-called equality. It would be really nice if ANY contrary perspectives to the gay propaganda were ever aired publicly, but as far as I can tell it's just a constant, tireless barrage of pro-gay propaganda with a side of historical revisionism and demonizing people who hold the historically grounded perspective.
Check out Facebooks page for last nights episode of wife swap.A white polyanimous couple switched with a white christian couple that adopted a special needs child.
90% of the comments are super supported of the polyanimous couple and supr upset about the christian couple for making a judgement on there behaviour.Polyagomy might be recognized by next spring
"Marriage's historical function"
Yes. Marriage was a practical institution wrapped up in religion to reinforce it. The religious wrapping came second.
Primarily anti-Christian forces want to destroy traditional marriage because of the Christian wrapping and in the process are destroying a necessary practical institution.
"I never understood why it was illegal to begin with. It's eugenic."
It's not eugenic. Any benefit from increased male competition is outweighed by greater average paternal age.
One of the benefits Europeans got from adopting the Christian monogamous model was it helped make white people a little bit smarter.
Adopting the european model to fit in is also why Ashkenazi Jews are smarter than other Jews.
http://thebea.st/13G8XDc
"Moderate" means caving into the demands of the powers that be. Since liberals rule the roost and promote the gay agenda, 'moderates' among conservatives are those without a spine and just wanna go along. "Moderate" is a meaningless word. If one truly believes what he or she does--as leftist or rightist--, he or she should stand one's ground. To be 'moderate' means to compromise one's principles and just go with the winning side. It's a form of appeasement of the opportunistic and cowardly.
20 yrs ago, 'gay marriage' was a radical idea rejected by the great majority. If 'moderation' is so great, why didn't liberals just drop what was deemed 'extreme' and go along with the mainstream? But gays didn't choose moderation and kept pushing for it, and they gained the support of the ruling elites of this nation on Wall Street, Ivy League schools, and media. So, that is how they won. Whether one is for or against 'gay marriage', the side that eventually won refused to moderate and kept pushing and pushing. Those who choose to moderate keep losing little by little to the side that refuses to give an inch.
Why Jews and gays manage to win. They refuse to budge and moderate--'appeasement' is a dirty word to Jews--, but they demand that the other side 'moderate'.
When extremists force the mainstream to moderate, extremism becomes the new mainstream. So, something as crazy as 'gay marriage' became law of the land.
Conservatives are a bunch of Neville Chamberlains.
And on amnesty, illegals violate our laws and break in and demand affirmative action that favors them over native Americans, but Jews tell white conservatives to be 'moderate' and stop being so 'extreme'. And so many white conservatives play Neville Chamberlain again.
"polygamous societies fall not because the women rebel against it, but because the vast sea of beta and omega males eventually get sick of being condemned to celibacy and revolt. As GBS said, any self-respecting woman would rather have a 33% or 25% share of a first-rate man than a 100% share of a third-rate loser, all other things being equal."
Inevitably when the conversation turns to polygamy here it's always a bunch of pale white sex-starved betas obsessing about how polygamists will steal their women. A few sex-starved men isn't the biggest problem with polygamy. It may not even be in the top 5. We have a pretty even ratio of men to women in this country right now, yet there are still millions of sex-starved men around, but crime isn't that high because of it. As women got looser in the 60s, 70s and 80s, crime actually went up.
The real problem with polygamy is the kind of men who are favored: assholes. Look at Arab Muslims. They may be somewhat more ambitious than Europeans, due to genes that enabled their male ancestors to support multiple women. But they aren't smarter or prettier or kinder or more creative. They're mostly all a bunch of surly assholes. Basically they're all stereotypical alpha males, and yet they ain't the impressive.
The other big problem is social. Simply put, it is polygamy which enables the creation of vast clans in Arab countries, which leads to high rates of nepotism and a low trust society.
So yes, polygamy leads to massive social destruction, but not just because of a lot of horny men with no chance of getting a wife.
Our society has come so legalistic and so obsessed with sexual freedom and the government monopoly on violence that we've lost our ability to fight socially destructive behaviors. Americans in the 19th Century knew how to defend their culture from decay, and that often meant, yes, taking the law into their own hands.
>we've lost our ability to fight socially destructive behaviors<
"There is no such thing as society" - Margaret Thatcher, channeling Alissa Rosenbaum (The Virtue of Selfishness, New York: Signet, 1964, p. 103)
Polygamy is only possible if you combine it with unequal marriage rules. I think there should be rules that forbid sexual relations between Arab men and European women. European men of course are allowed sexual relations with Arab women. Children of European men and Arab women should be considered European.
Go To Columbus Ohio - Cleveland Avenue aka Little Mogadishu...
That Somali with his wife and her "sister"... That ain't her sister.
It is already in the Heartland.
Social Polygyny was practiced by most ethnic groups in the ancient world .Although in most countries polygyny is not legally recognized now many men have more than one wife or multiple partners(biological polygamy). Legalizing polygyny and regulating it is ultimately good for the society.Marriage laws should be based on ancient traditional laws and ground reality.But legalizing polygamy only for muslims should not be done at the expense of others but polygamy should be legalized for non-muslims.
Post a Comment