The Case For Legalized Polygamy


so now that the united states has caught up
to the rest of Europe on some social issues, namely gay marriage I think now is a better time than ever to ask–Should polygamy be illegal? On June 26th we watched
interns running down the steps in excitement. The U.S. Supreme Court had just ruled it was
unconstitutional to deny marriage to same sex couples. And this was a historic moment,
it made me proud to be an american. But the logical argument for gay marriage follows
that the state shouldn’t deny marriage consenting adults the right to marry. The state may not
discriminate based on cultural, or religious, or historic values on what constitutes a marriage.
I.e. a man and a woman. The states can’t make that judgement call anymore. So to my christian
friends, yeah it is Adam and Steve. But if the state can’t discriminate based on the
sex of partners, should it be able to discriminate on the number in the party? Two gay guys can
and should be able to get married because they’re consenting adults and can do what
they like. So why not two guys and girl? Why not three? If each person is a consenting
adult, what’s the problem? To me getting married is all about being able to choose your family.
When you’re a kid you’re just born. Stuck with a family, good or bad. But as an adult
you get to make that choice, of what kind of family you, what kind of family you want
to have. Who cares whether it’s with a man and a woman, and woman and a woman, or a man,
woman, and woman. Some people don’t like the idea gay people getting married, but they
don’t get say in other people’s lives. That’s what civil liberties are all about. And what
makes this country great. So if that’s the case why do people get a say in polygamist
marriage?

Michael Martin

27 Responses

  1. Great job pointing that out. As a christian I can honestly say that at times I can be annoyed with people in my own church who act like the decision was bad. But it was not a wrong decision, as much as I have a right to practice my religion everyone else should have the right to be gay and get married… "If it neither breaks my leg or picks my pocket what does it matter to me" While at the time that quote was about religion we can apply it to equal rights for homosexual… Honestly someone should perform the evil libertarian plan… Take over the world and leave everybody alone…

  2. I always thought the issue is with tax benefits. I was hoping you (or any other youtuber) were going to cover this, as it seems like the only logical argument against polygamy. I haven't really ever heard how giving benefits to multiple people in a marriage would be bad, other than maybe abuse, but that argument could be used for gay or straight monogamist marriages where people could get married not because they are committed to each other but just for tax purposes. Any one have any insight on this?

  3. +Jam Packer (It won't let me reply to you directly) Okay you got me on that. I didn't address an economic issue at all. This is more to do with my own shortcomings and abilities to produce dense videos than anything else. ie. I'm just not good enough at the moment to figure out how to unpack every angle in a video haha.

    This doesn't mean there IS an economic issue against polygamy however. My guess– Any tax argument one could make, would eventually fall down. For example: "Polygamy would incentive friends to get married collectively and thus cheat the tax system."  Perhaps… but I don't think reality would bare that out. Does Gay Marriage suddenly incentivize two heterosexual best friends to become married? No not really.

  4. There are dog bakeries for custom treats and such; my metro area has no less than two. Someone go in, order a dog treat inscribed with a man and dog wedding, and rally the ACLU types. Nobody but those who like to interpret laws to invent make-believe will accept this. Most all will rally to defend the dog bakery, helping the population to realize how stupid messing with marriage was.

  5. The interns weren't "running in excitement." They have to run to get the vote to the press as fast as they can. They want to be the first ones. I guess you could say some were excited. Speaking on polygamy, how many people want to be in polygamous marriage? Do they have stats on this? I mean are there a significant amount of people who are protesting for this right? Do they feel discriminated against? I know in some religious countries, they have polygamy and it causes problems in the marriage like husband is usually controlling and abuses his family. Also, being gay is a biological thing while polygamy is not. And, if you look at studies, they show two people in monogamous relationships work better in a family setting (whether gay or straight). This is why so many people are for gay marriage because it promotes monogamy and family (adoption or biological). Not saying I don't agree with you, I just feel like we need to address these concerns. I mean this is America we should allow freedom of sexual preferences and polygamy or whatever as long as they aren't hurting anyone else.

  6. Marriage is fundamentally a legal contract. That's why the state keeps a record of marriages, and we have to go through the courts to dissolve it. People can choose to live in polygamous relationships but making it legal is a problem, in that it entirely changes the principles of the legal basis of marriage

    When a couple marry, the contract is 50:50. Both choose their partners freely and have mutual obligations and benefits, including the promise of exclusive attention from their spouse. Polygamy involves a man entering into what is a sequence of contracts with one woman after another. The wife or wives have to accept the husband's choice, though adding 2 or more other women to what started as a 50:50 deal reduces the women's share of the husband's attention proportionally.

    This is why legal polygamy only occurs in societies where women are far from equal. To make polygamy legal would mean a completely new sort of contract.

    The woman would promise to be faithful only unto him, and to share all she owned with him. The husband would promise to be faithful to whoever he chose to marry and to share his possessions among however many wives he ended up with. The wife therefore would have very little to gain – no exclusivity, no equal obligations and benefits. As I understand it, under principles of English law (where I'm from), such an intrinsically inequitable contract would be unenforceable. As soon as it was challenged in the courts it would collapse.

    As for incest, marriage between first cousins more than doubles the chances of life-threatening birth defects in any children. The idea of allowing even more closely related individuals to marry is, in my view, very ill-advised.

    We are seeing the problems in the UK among immigrants. In Bradford, for example, a city with a large Pakistani community, 37% of marriages in that community are between cousins and these have double the average number of genetic disabilities. It's a social problem, but the tradition is well-established and offers other advantages that make it hard to convince families to change their ways.

  7. In a free society, everyone should have the right to decide what to do in their lifes, including in love and sex, looking for what makes each person happier. It`s a matter of respect for diferences. So, I do think that polygamy and poliamory shoud be legalized, because monogamy is just an option, not an obligation.

  8. I think polygamy should be legal. Because, any marriage that is consenting and doesn't violate the rights of another person should be legal. Like gay marriage.

  9. We should just disregard marriage. it's archaic and patriarchical. love who you want to love, no matter the gender or quantity. you don't need a legally binding contract to validate your love.

  10. All consensual relations should be legal. This includes any valuable consideration, which marriage is mostly about, that is given in exchange. Get the Government and Church out of the bedroom and stop subsidies for babies and forced child support as women have the choice on that one. Better yet, abandon marriage to a Church function only.

  11. Remember that when your wives get pregnant (No matter Who the father is) YOU will have to support all the kids and pay child support when they leave you. And they will leace you.

  12. I can answer this very simply and its a factor no one in any camp seems to point out. It was never banned truthfully for moral or theological reasons. It was political and based on Roman ideology that was imposed where ever the branches of the Roman Empire managed to get a foot hold on. Why? Simple. To limit the potential for the population to grow back after a conquest and prevent its overthrow. Look at the history of Europe. Set religion aside and focus on the facts. Most European also practiced polygamy and it was an egalitarian culture where men and women could be anything equally from farmers to warriors to rulers and the women had a say of a man had more than one wife but generally most women were fine with it because it was not excessive and they were not property. Roman came in, attacked and killed the men, took children and "reeducated them " like Roman social service workers and cops rolled in one and killed anyone that protested. If the men were rulers they had two options, submit to Rome or die. Local rulers wanting to try and protect their families caved, a lot of times causing their own people to kill or abandon them which worked for Rome. Women rulers though were simply disregarded and were humiliated by being raped, sold into captivity or simply killed during or after being raped and the Romans recorded that themselves as a heroic thing. About the only record we have of women fighting back is few from those times but the most famous was Boudica. Rome got their foothold eventually in several places but eventually it was replaced by the Roman Catholic theocracy as the second wave of Rome. When it got enough power to impose the anti polygamy, it was demanded a man had to give up one of his wives if he had two or three, the most common being two, the abandoned women was forced to join a convent, and her children of she had any were deemed illegitimate and sold into slavery as "pagans" from the word pagus (becoming renamed pages in the medieval as a servant to a knight or someone of perceived title and rank). If they were infants, they were left out to die. In time native language was banned, native lore was banned, if they were literate (could read and write in what we call runes) the native writing was deemed heretical and they were to either become monks are put to death as heretics. Culture still outside of this reach for a time continued to practice polygamy. We role forward to America and it was not illegal originally but allowed. Natives who practiced it were largely overlooked at first and then all the same kind of crap as with Rome was imposed on them; men forced to abandon extra wives, women sold into slavery, children put into orphanages and so forth. The first ban on it all together in violation of the constitution no less was ideological under the veil of moral dignity. This is when Mormonism comes into play and was primarily ONLY enforced in Mormons, and Mormons didn't give it up till the leadership[ cut a deal with the US government to incorporate UTAH if they rewrote their own religion and gave up the polygamy with the idea eventually they would have less children , become more complaint, and eventually Mormonism would die off. Obvious it didn't but that's why some still practice it but to extremes and unfortunately because its kept hush hush for the most part its perfect for predators to come into the scene and become the latest story on the 6 O'clock news of a baby raping pervert. (but there are plenty of them far more numerous in monogamous marriages or no marriages at all). Otherwise others were still allowed right up into the 1950's as long as thy weren't Mormon. Jew, Africans, Asians, Middle Easterners, whatever all were largely allowed till then as a cultural freedom. Then you get into other muddy waters but that's other crap. Japan allowed it till America went in and imposed western ideas. Same with various island nations. Ultimately its not religious, or morality or any of that, though it is often used as a frankly irrelevant argument. It's political and power based for the control of the populations and prevent too many common citizens to have enough numbers to rise up and toss the dictator types out of the system. Now most are confused sheep and don't know anything about real history and it works for the power structure, and allowing homosexual marriages simply insures no babies being made there, and they can adopt, so its not as much of a threat to the power structure. TY and good luck.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post comment