Legalize Polyandry...
I am hearing more and more momentum to legalize gay marriage. Some Christians and Muslims even support it. The President has evolved and embraced it. If we are going to redefine marriage, why stop at gay marriage? Why not legalize polyandry?
One of the major justification of the traditional marriage is child rearing. However, with the advent of genetic testing, there is no confusion in parentage of a child any more. Moreover, more and more households are either single parent, or multiple parent (50% of marriages end up in divorce; and most of the people involved re-marry). It is not uncommon for a child to have a mother, father as well as step mother(s) and step father(s). I know a kid who has 6 parental units, through multiple marriages and divorces.
So, if gender is not an issue, and "serial marriage" is OK, then why not parallel marriage? Why can't one woman have multiple husbands? There are cultures around the world that have historically had examples of polyandry. Surely, we don't want to be intolerant to these communities? Feminist groups are often against polygamy - because they see it as some sort of abuse of women. But surely they would support polyandry?
What could be the harm in consenting adults participating in a polyandry marriage?
What say Ricochet women? Would you support it? Why? or Why not? How about the guys in favor of gay marriage? Is this going too far or not far enough? How about you traditionalists? If you can support divorce, (serial marriages), why not polyandry?
- Comment (263)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (7)
Comments:
Jul '11
Re: Legalize Polyandry...
1) Out of all those sheep you picked the ugliest one.2) OK, I'll have a turn but do I have to put my head in the fence?3) You know a good sheep will do that for you4) Chickens!5) Naaaaaaaaaaa.I for one can support a sheep / human liaison where if things get rough then you slaughter and eat your spouse while wearing slippers from her wool.
Re: Legalize Polyandry...
How could it be anything else? It is so obviously A Modest Proposal of sorts.
Jul '11
Re: Legalize Polyandry...
Goldgeller
I asked essentially the same questions you asked in my last paragraph, and I asked a question always asked by SSM supporters-- a good question-- how does one directly affect the the other.
My mistake - apologies.
However, the relationship is simple. The more I read about the arguments for SSM, the more I think it applies to more than just SSM. So also the arguments for "traditional" marriages.
When I first heard of the claims of injustice against SSM, I didn't reject on face value either the merits or the injustice inherent in the institution of marriage.
It is clear that people who enter a marriage enjoy legal privileges that others can't. Unlike the LGBT community, I am not looking for social change. Accept me or reject me as a "childish gibberish" (@Leporell & @Eric); but the reality is that there is an inherent disadvantage, in this country, legally to those who want to enter in a marriage not "sanctioned" by the state.
Why not? If Romney, as a Mormon, spoke of polygamy (whether or not he wants to have a second wife); he would be booed off stage. Why? How's that fair?
Jul '12
Re: Legalize Polyandry...
Must Ricochet degenerate to this?
I call on the editors to take some leadership here.
Re: Legalize Polyandry...
Eric Voegelin: Must Ricochet degenerate to this?
I call on the editors to take some leadership here. · 5 minutes ago
What's the problem here? Obviously this is a fun discussion for some (and not for others). I think that -- whether it's intentional or not -- the original poster is showing that redefining marriage has tremendous fundamental consequences and it's worth a discussion.
Some people reflexively view redefining marriage as a simple "broadening" of the marital institution. Others suggest that such redefinitions would fundamentally alter the nature of male-female relationships and damage the very bedrock of society.
As the cultural elites try to bully people -- by calling them bigots if they are disinclined to redefine marriage into any union of two or more people -- I think it's worth showing that such redefinitions might have long-standing impacts.
I assumed the original poster was trying to show the consequences of redefining marriage away from how it's been defined (fact is that polygamy or polyandry is so much less radical than same-sex marriage). Perhaps not. Either way, I think we can handle the discussion.
Mar '11
Re: Legalize Polyandry...
Exactly. I mean, really, folks. Can you not detect the sarcasm in Barkha's posting throughout this thread?
And, as funny as the thread is, I will say this: those who are bemoaning the subject have a point. There have been an awful lot of SSM threads of late....this seems to happen periodically in fits and starts on the site. But you know what? Each one of them, reliably, draws a lot of comments. Folks are talking about this, and seem to want to, an awful lot.....
It almost makes one want to suggest that we declare a temporary Ricochet "truce" on this social issue......
Mar '12
Re: Legalize Polyandry...
Barkha: What is the going age of consent among sheep?
No idea. However I did say sheep rather than lamb. Given the push by some in the homosexual community (NAMBLA or the North American Man Boy Love Association) for access to children, I guess this is an issue which needs to addressed as well.
Is there an age at which a lamb might serve as well as a sheep? Is there any restraint which should be maintained in the face of the sex drive?
Edited on August 7, 2012 at 5:40pmJul '11
Re: Legalize Polyandry...
I for one am having more fun than a lonely house wife at the mens 4x100 relay.
Feb '11
Re: Legalize Polyandry...
Crow's Nest
Exactly. I mean, really, folks. Can you not detect the sarcasm in Barkha's posting throughout this thread?
And, as funny as the thread is, .....
No, I didn't detect sarcasm or humor (aside from the sheep stuff). Why do you think so?
So what about it, Barkha? Is this satire or sincerity?
Jun '12
Re: Legalize Polyandry...
Well, obviously, as a committed Catholic, I have to vote no on polyandry. Settingthat objection aside for the sake of argument however, I would think that such an arrangement would not bode well for child rearing (cf. Regnerus' recent study). Additionally, women seem to have a difficult enough time finding a mate, woudn't this make it even more of a challenge for many more women?
Mar '12
Re: Legalize Polyandry...
I remember reading CS Lewis who , I believe, was a philologist. A philologist is someone who studies words and their meanings.
Lewis noted that gentleman originally meant " gentry," that is a property holding man of high social class. He noted that when it was stripped of its original meaning, it became either a compliment (well mannered, eg, how gentlemanly) or a slur (ill mannered, eg, you aren't a gentleman). The word had become meaningless from Lewis' point of view.
That is what is now occurring for the word marriage. It has a consistent meaning, that being of a husband and wife of opposing sexes which includes the possibility of having children. There is an older version which includes having more than one wife, but none that I am aware of outside of that definition. Note that a man with numerous wives still involves opposing sexes in a union that can include children.
If the definition of marriage is redefined outside of a male/female description, I would have to think it will join gentleman as a useless word, that is a word that is pretty much meaningless.
Oh brave new world
Jul '12
Re: Legalize Polyandry...
Barkha Herman: @Majestyk: I agree with you that there is room for abuse here. I knew of a 16 year old who was married to a considerably older gentleman by her father in exchange for money. These were White, Christian, Americans, not exotic in religion or locale.
Clearly I am opposed to child brides. I think we could institute a national marriage age - with or without parental consent. · 50 minutes ago
Edited 49 minutes ago
Uncorking this bottle is just opening our society to ever greater impingements of cultural relativism. Who's going to establish your magical "Legal Marriage Age," and who says that radicalized members of sects like the FLDS, various Islamists or other fringe groups won't be able to find some idiot judge who will gleefully agree to their premise that child-marriage is a legitimate part of their religious practices?
I don't want to invite that devil into the playpen. The costs would far outweigh the benefits to a few hedonistic members of society and their brainwashed progeny.
P.S. If this is a massive troll, then Bravo! If not... sigh.
Edited on August 7, 2012 at 6:05pmRe: Legalize Polyandry...
Ed G.
Crow's Nest
Exactly. I mean, really, folks. Can you not detect the sarcasm in Barkha's posting throughout this thread?
And, as funny as the thread is, .....
No, I didn't detect sarcasm or humor (aside from the sheep stuff). Why do you think so?
So what about it, Barkha? Is this satire or sincerity? · 14 minutes ago
She's committed to the gig thus far. She can't give it up now!
Jul '12
Re: Legalize Polyandry...
Mollie: Within the context, the topic of marriage is a serious one not a 'fun' one. Would the editors countenance a fun discussion over whether age of consent laws should be abolished?
Jul '11
Re: Legalize Polyandry...
Majestyk
I don't want to invite that devil into the playpen. The costs would far outweigh the benefits to a few hedonistic members of society and their brainwashed progeny. · 1 minute ago
So, it's OK to to find a father who is willing to force a child bride and a judge to go along with it so long as it's one man / one woman; but two men - that's the line?
Edited on August 7, 2012 at 6:08pmFeb '12
Re: Legalize Polyandry...
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
Eric Voegelin: Must Ricochet degenerate to this?
I call on the editors to take some leadership here. · 5 minutes ago
What's the problem here? Obviously this is a fun discussion for some (and not for others). I think that -- whether it's intentional or not -- the original poster is showing that redefining marriage has tremendous fundamental consequences and it's worth a discussion.
...I assumed the original poster was trying to show the consequences of redefining marriage away from how it's been defined (fact is that polygamy or polyandry is so much less radical than same-sex marriage). Perhaps not. Either way, I think we can handle the discussion. · 21 minutes ago
Some topics aren't worth our attention, especially when proposed so thoughtlessly. I initially thought it was satire, but Barkha made clear she's serious (see comment 68). Just because the Left wants to destroy yet another part of our civilization, do we have to debate first principles as if the Left has a point? What should we discuss next - whether contemporary feminist Caribbean novels are as good as those by Twain and Melville?
Jul '12
Re: Legalize Polyandry...
Barkha Herman
Majestyk
I don't want to invite that devil into the playpen. The costs would far outweigh the benefits to a few hedonistic members of society and their brainwashed progeny. · 1 minute ago
So, it's OK to to find a father who is willing to force a child bride and a judge to go along with it so long as it's one man / one woman; but two men - that's the line? · 0 minutes ago
Edited 0 minutes ago
I don't think I implied acceptance of your cited example either. If the marriage laws in a state allow a 16-yr old to consent to marriage, then a man and a woman can get married because they like to knit.
The underlying premise of the SSM proponents seems to be that if you can have sex with it you can marry it, because darn it, it's your right to love whomever you want whenever you want AND have the state sanction it - and if you don't agree with the forces of goodness and tolerance, you're dreadful bigot or something.
Jul '11
Re: Legalize Polyandry...
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
How could it be anything else? It is so obviously A Modest Proposal of sorts. · 47 minutes ago
We are not being serious? I am shattered. Just shattered.
Re: Legalize Polyandry...
Eric Voegelin: Mollie: Within the context, the topic of marriage is a serious one not a 'fun' one. Would the editors countenance a fun discussion over whether age of consent laws should be abolished?
· 5 minutes ago
I would, and all the more so if it was done to make a point. But, then again, I think reflecting on our principles and definitions is always worth our time.
I'm really sorry I offended by promoting this. If anything, I thought it would bother advocates of redefining same-sex marriage as it doesn't put their arguments in the best light.
Aug '11
Re: Legalize Polyandry...
Barkha Herman
My mistake - apologies.
However, the relationship is simple. The more I read about the arguments for SSM, the more I think it applies to more than just SSM. So also the arguments for "traditional" marriages.
...
It is clear that people who enter a marriage enjoy legal privileges that others can't.... · 37 minutes ago
No need to apologize! It's cool. The bolded part is something that people who've argued against redefining marriage have said for a while. But they were always told (rightly or wrongly) slippery slope fallacy and such. To your greater point, my own feeling is that if marriage is about self-fulfilmnet and "equality" above all other things, there really isn't a reason for the gov't to not sanction other types of relationships. If that's what marriage is about. Which is why the argument is the way it is. There is very little ground that supporters of traditional marriage can give. And of course, we are talking mainly about the legal status...
The "legal privilege" thing is vague. Are we arguing for marriage fairness or tax fairness?
Not whining! But its a tough discussion for me in 200 words.