It’s Time to Legalize Polygamy. Why group marriage is the next horizon of social liberalism.

So the "they can't help it" argument is now the "they can help it, but some should and some shouldn't" argument. That's helpful to know. Biology is sure a tricky thing.

 

Regarding this weird biology tangent: the distinction here is between "can" and "should."

Can gay people resist acting on their homosexuality? Yes, I suppose so. Should they? No, I don't think so.

Can married heterosexual men resist acting on their desire to bed women other than their wife? Yes, they can. And they also should.

 

I don't give a shit about the "they can't help it" argument. It is not one that I made, nor one that concerns me.

But, otherwise ...yes, of course, some urges are regarded as ok to act on and some are not. This is somehow news to you?

 

Nah, this is an ideal situation for rock, paper, scissors.

 

In 1963 it was George Wallace taking a stand in the schoolhouse door.

In 2015 it's Roy Moore making a stand in the church door. Add in Ted Cruz saying that people only have to obey the edicts of the Supreme Court if the Court can find a way to make them.

I'm pretty happy I'm not on their side of the argument.

 

Polygamy won't happen anytime soon, if ever, because slippery slopes are usually false.

We have the death penalty, but we don't cut off the hands of thieves.

Guns are legal, but bazookas aren't.

As circular and dunderheaded as it sounds, it won't happen because it won't happen.

Which is why the people arguing that it might are folks who oppose gay marriage in the first place.

 

But, what if the gays start wanting to marry multiple partners?

 

Ultimate penalties have been getting lighter throughout American history (from public hangings to "painless" executions to banning them altogether). The trend has always been moving in a constant direction.

If you had asked someone in 1958 about gay marriage, the answer likely would have been similar. If not even more ridiculous (because we didn't even talk about such things back then --- now nothing is off-limits at least for discussion purposes).

Not so much "arguing that it might" as much as curious to see the arguments against it (and how they stack up against the arguments against gay marriage). Seems like once you agree that "consenting adults can marry" it should be able to take on as many forms as that will allow. Anything else is inconsistent.

 

Your side of this is tremendous.

You're all in a tizzy about polygamy. Polygamy!

Destroying the planet?

Eh.

 

Who needs marrying a corporation? They're fucking us all the time anyway.

 

Not in a tizzy. Don't even really care.

I'm just curious, given the events of the past week and the arguments forthwith, at the reasoning behind any marriage ban at all between consenting adults. Purely from a logical curiosity standpoint. A mental exercise. Nothing else. So far all I have seen is the "Oh, don't be ridiculous" and the "It'll never happen because it'll never happen." Come on, legal minds. Is that all you got?

 

If the ultimate purpose of marriage is to produce and nurture children, polygamy makes good sense. One mom and two dads means two wage earners while mom can stay home and raise children, or one of the dads for that matter. If they get divorced, there is still a mom and dad. Flip it and you have two mother figures while still having a male role model, and again twice as many potential wage earners - or even three if the kid goes to day care as is common in most families now.

That ought to make some fundy heads explode.