Why conservatives should be for polygamy

[Voyager]

Discussions of SSM often tend to include discussions of polygamy, with the anti-SSM factions, often conservative (but not libertarian) viewing polygamy with alarm.
Now, I think there are good secular reasons to ban polygamy, but I think it would make sense for conservatives to be for it. Here's why:

1. Rewarding the job creators. Let's face it, in polygamous societies the rich get more than their fair share of women. Why shouldn't they be rewarded in our society? They get lots of houses, lots of cars, so why not lots of wives. Plus, since each of those now rich wives would go out and spend more, it is good for the economy.

2. Incentive for the poor. Starvation and homelessness isn't enough to make those lazy unemployed go out and get the plentiful jobs out there. Reduce the supply of available women so they are stuck going to bed alone, and that might be enough.

Now, I hear you're objections, and I'll address them now to save you the bother of posting them.

1. Religion. God is against it. Poppycock. Some of God's most beloved men, Isaac, Jacob, David, and Solomon had multiple wives. Did Jesus ever specifically forbid it? Doesn't matter, he was not in the game. Paul of course didn't think that one wife was good, so naturally he was against more than one.

It solves the wives in heaven problem quite neatly. Since Protestants allow divorce, which means multiple wives in heaven, why not multiple wives in parallel instead of serially. As far as eternity goes, no difference.

2. How about middle class men who lose out? Don't think about the present, think about the future! You may not have any now, but surely in the future if you work hard you will. Just like it makes sense for you to oppose tax increases for the rich because someday you will be rich, it makes sense for you to support polygamy so that you can take advantage of it when you make your fortune.

I expect this to be in the 2016 RNC platform. But they can thank me now.

So, let's keep government out of our (multiple) bedrooms and deregulate marriage. Libertarians are with me already, for sure.
I'm sure the socialist regulation happy liberals are against it, but who cares about them.

[magellan01]

Molten lead balloon.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Voyager

1. Religion. God is against it. Poppycock. Some of God's most beloved men, Isaac, Jacob, David, and Solomon had multiple wives. Did Jesus ever specifically forbid it? Doesn't matter, he was not in the game. Paul of course didn't think that one wife was good, so naturally he was against more than one.

OT vs NT. Conservatives are about resisting change. Polygamy has been outside the mainstream in Western Civilization for over 1,000 years.

It solves the wives in heaven problem quite neatly. Since Protestants allow divorce, which means multiple wives in heaven, why not multiple wives in parallel instead of serially. As far as eternity goes, no difference.

Polygamists can still get divorced, and most men will not have more than one wife-- it's mathematically impossible.

2. How about middle class men who lose out? Don't think about the present, think about the future! You may not have any now, but surely in the future if you work hard you will. Just like it makes sense for you to oppose tax increases for the rich because someday you will be rich, it makes sense for you to support polygamy so that you can take advantage of it when you make your fortune.

See the above. It's immoral to have multiple wives in the first place, so that's a terrible analogy. It isn't immoral to have lots wealth.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

How is it immoral to have more than one wife if the women in question are agreeing to the situation? Me personally I would play the "one woman is enough of a struggle to deal with" card and would never entertain the idea of multiple wives, but that's a personal decision and not a moral one.

Further, I would ask that how would this potentially affect taxation? Would having more than one wife allow for more deductions/tax credits on one's return?

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by FoieGrasIsEvil

How is it immoral to have more than one wife if the women in question are agreeing to the situation?

We're talking about how conservatives think, not how you or I might think.

[Voyager]

Originally Posted by John Mace

We're talking about how conservatives think, not how you or I might think.

No, I'm talking about how conservatives should think if they thought logically. I understand they are against it now - thus the "should" in my title.

BTW, since you are a libertarian, and have no religious qualms, I assume you are in favor of my proposal?

[aruvqan]

Can I have another husband?

Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander. Besides, maybe then the garbage would get taken out on time

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Voyager

No, I'm talking about how conservatives should think if they thought logically.

There are many Polygamous societies in the world. Why would a conservative want to emulate any of them? You're right in that conservatives don't try and preserve everything as it is, but you have to make a case that the change is going to be better for society in order to convince conservatives to support it. We have hundreds of years in which monogamy has been the rule. You need to lay out a better case than you did in the OP.

BTW, since you are a libertarian, and have no religious qualms, I assume you are in favor of my proposal?

No, I'm not.

SPOILER:

I'm OK with polygamy, but your proposal is that conservatives should be OK with it. I can't see why.

[Voyager]

Originally Posted by FoieGrasIsEvil

How is it immoral to have more than one wife if the women in question are agreeing to the situation? Me personally I would play the "one woman is enough of a struggle to deal with" card and would never entertain the idea of multiple wives, but that's a personal decision and not a moral one.

Further, I would ask that how would this potentially affect taxation? Would having more than one wife allow for more deductions/tax credits on one's return?

Well, that's only fair, isn't it? It would be a tax cut for the job creators, and yet another way this proposal would stimulate the economy

[clairobscur]

nm

[Voyager]

Originally Posted by John Mace

OT vs NT. Conservatives are about resisting change. Polygamy has been outside the mainstream in Western Civilization for over 1,000 years.

When I was a conservative I hated that definition. It's like saying conservatives should have been for the New Deal because it was status quo. Conservatives, real ones, aren't just against change, but have certain principles they strive for. Like small government.

Polygamists can still get divorced, and most men will not have more than one wife-- it's mathematically impossible.

Who cares about what most do? Hey, if most pay no income taxes, then most can have no wives. Since know that they are spongers, why not?

See the above. It's immoral to have multiple wives in the first place, so that's a terrible analogy. It isn't immoral to have lots wealth.

Are you calling Joseph Smith and Brigham Young - and lots of Muslims - immoral? Not to mention Mitt's granddad. Tsk, tsk.

Our guide in Egypt's husband got another wife. He was a rat, but he wasn't immoral. Even she didn't think so.

[Sage Rat]

Originally Posted by Voyager

1. Religion. God is against it. Poppycock. Some of God's most beloved men, Isaac, Jacob, David, and Solomon had multiple wives. Did Jesus ever specifically forbid it? Doesn't matter, he was not in the game. Paul of course didn't think that one wife was good, so naturally he was against more than one.

Religious arguments are immaterial even if (almost certainly) the foundation of the current set of laws is based on religion. People don't follow their faith based on what rules are laid out in the Bible. They base it on what they've been taught to accept and based on what makes sense to them going by what they know of the world.

[Voyager]

Originally Posted by Sage Rat

Religious arguments are immaterial even if (almost certainly) the foundation of the current set of laws is based on religion. People don't follow their faith based on what rules are laid out in the Bible. They base it on what they've been taught to accept and based on what makes sense to them going by what they know of the world.

I was addressing their likely first objection, which is that God would be against it. I agree that religion is not a good argument for it, and in any case we'd need secular justification for it.

As for what they know of the world - the rich ones got something on the side already. This just legitimizes it. Rockefeller didn't have his heart attack while screwing Happy, after all.

[C K Dexter Haven]

Originally Posted by Voyager

1. Religion. God is against it. Poppycock. Some of God's most beloved men, Isaac, Jacob, David, and Solomon had multiple wives. ...

Yes, but. In the Old Testament stories told about such situations, there are almost always extremely difficult family squabbles and rivalries. There is an implication that it's not a good idea, although it was permitted in those days.

[Voyager]

Originally Posted by C K Dexter Haven

Yes, but. In the Old Testament stories told about such situations, there are almost always extremely difficult family squabbles and rivalries. There is an implication that it's not a good idea, although it was permitted in those days.

We've had thousands of years of literature about squabbles in monogamous marriages - are they bad also? Maybe that was the most accurate part of the Bible.

[stevenova]

I think polygamy will become legal for completely unrelated reasons. Women are more and more educated, make more money, but still only marry up. There simply won't be enough men for women to marry up to. Why any man would subject himself to multiple divorces at the same time, but whatever floats your boat.

[Voyager]

Originally Posted by stevenova

I think polygamy will become legal for completely unrelated reasons. Women are more and more educated, make more money, but still only marry up. There simply won't be enough men for women to marry up to. Why any man would subject himself to multiple divorces at the same time, but whatever floats your boat.

Now that is a reasonable hypothesis. More or less free of political position, but reasonable.