1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by YankeeFan, Jun 28, 2015.

  1. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    Judge Posner explained the difference:

    Supreme Court gay marriage: John Roberts’ dissent in Obergefell is heartless.

    But later in his opinion the chief justice remembers polygamy and suggests that if gay marriage is allowed, so must be polygamy. He ignores the fact that polygamy imposes real costs, by reducing the number of marriageable women. Suppose a society contains 100 men and 100 women, but the five wealthiest men have a total of 50 wives. That leaves 95 men to compete for only 50 marriageable women.
     
  2. Guy_Incognito

    Guy_Incognito Well-Known Member

    That's not a very strong argument. You can say something similar about gay marriage. And so what? If the right to marry as you wish is fundamental and constitutionally guaranteed, why would these relatively minor costs in extreme cases carry the day?
     
  3. Alma

    Alma Well-Known Member

    You can ask why all you want. It's moot. Whatever the concerns are or aren't, they'll carry the day. Polygamy isn't coming. It's a pain in the ass.

    And I'm saying that as a person who said, a few years ago, gay marriage would be legal everywhere within five years. Which it is.
     
  4. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    I don't think you can say that gay marriage reduces the number of marriageable people.
     
  5. Alma

    Alma Well-Known Member

    Responsible adults can legally own guns, but not bazookas. Why not?

    The world is inconsistent. That's a hard thing for message board maestros to get sometimes, which is why we have philosophical rights debates until we're mushy in the brain. But, in the real world, people just didn't give a shit about gay marriage anymore. So it's legal. We're human beings. We're influenced.

    Polygamy is a "yeah, let's not" kind of thing. Like eating two steaks at a sitting. Who eats two steaks? Nobody I know. People just kind of look at you like: "A second steak?"

    And dumb-headed as it is, that's just kind of where polygamy is. People see it as unseemly.
     
  6. Stoney

    Stoney Well-Known Member

    This. Do you really wanna live in a world where the billionaires, movie stars and Lebron James horde all the attractive wives leaving only their unwanted scraps for the rest of us?

    As facetious as that may sound, it does hit on the root distinction, which is that one would have a far more profound impact on our societal structure. Gay people being allowed to marry has no real material impact on the life of any heterosexual person I know. And those who are bothered by it could be instantly cured of their annoyance if they'd simply learn to mind their own business and stop worrying about what's going on in their neighbor's bedroom.

    But a system that would effectively deny millions of people of the chance to raise a family because a small privileged segment is hogging the potential marriage partners ....yeah, that's gonna cause real problems....
     
    Last edited: Jun 30, 2015
  7. BTExpress

    BTExpress Well-Known Member

    War reduces the available male marriage candidates manyfold more than polygamy (or anything else) could reduce the female number. Soviet Union basically went more than a generation with an 8.5/10 male/female ratio after WWII. Men are also more reckless in general and tend to die earlier because of accidents. If anything, polygamy would help even the numbers. Really stupid reason, anyway. Can't believe it came from a judge.
     
    Last edited: Jun 30, 2015
  8. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    I have no idea what you are even remotely trying to get at. Just because the population of one gender can get theoretically reduced in some way, doesn't mean that all other ways that reduce it similarly are out of the purview of public concern. There is a rational basis to outlaw polygamy, one that doesn't apply to gay marriage. It's a pretty airtight distinction from Posner. I'd like, by the way, to see you tell him that his reasoning is "stupid" on any topic. He would grind you into intellectual dust.
     
  9. BTExpress

    BTExpress Well-Known Member

    Yes, his reasoning is stupid. It's fine if the 1% own 95% of the wealth. But if they tilt the marriage candidate population by a percentage point or two it's an outrage. Do better.
     
    Neutral Corner likes this.
  10. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    He didn't say it's an "outrage." He said it is a distinction between polygamy and same sex marriage, and the reason that there is a rational basis underlying polygamy bans that does not exist in the case of same sex marriage.
     
  11. Vombatus

    Vombatus Well-Known Member

    This reminds me of:

    Turgidson: Doctor, you mentioned the ration of ten women to each man. Now, wouldn't that necessitate the abandonment of the so called monogamous sexual relationship, I mean, as far as men were concerned?

    Strangelove: Regrettably, yes. But it is, you know, a sacrifice required for the future of the human race. I hasten to add that since each man will be required to do prodigious... service along these lines, the women will have to be selected for their sexual characteristics which will have to be of a highly stimulating nature.

    DeSadeski: I must confess, you have an astonishingly good idea there, Doctor.

    Strangelove: Thank you, sir.

    Turgidson: to Muffley I think we should look at this from the military point of view. I mean, supposing the Russkies stashes away some big bomb, see. When they come out in a hundred years they could take over!

    DeSadeski begins walking away from the crowd around Strangelove and the President, toward the banquet table.

    General: I agree, Mr. President. In fact, they might even try an immediate sneak attack so they could take over our mineshaft space.

    Turgidson: Yeah. I think it would be extremely naive of us, Mr. President, to imagine that these new developments are going to cause any change in Soviet expansionist policy. DeSadeski kneels, unseen, and begins photographing the big board with a secret camera within a pocket watch. I mean, we must be... increasingly on the alert to prevent them from taking over other mineshaft space, in order to breed more prodigiously than we do, thus, knocking us out in superior numbers when we emerge! Mr. President, we must not allow... a mine shaft gap!
     
  12. Guy_Incognito

    Guy_Incognito Well-Known Member

    For heterosexuals of a particular gender? You probably can. Are there equal numbers of gay men and women?

    Either way, it's just a silly distinction. I'll admit I don't follow that closely anymore, but Posner has either lost his fastball since I was paying attention or I've become a lot more discerning.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page